graywolf wrote:
Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take to make those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show it on the Internet?
Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me.
I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to justify their expensive cameras. If you like it use it. If you don't stick to film. If you are smart, you use both for their particular strengths. Anyone who thinks a 35mm SLR is good for any kind of photography, will think the same about digital, and unless I am reading this list wrong that is 90% of you.
No one in their right mind thinks Joe Sixpack cares anything about quality, and he never bought a film camera that cost over $29.95 in his life. He loves digital. Nuff said?
Nah.
My concern is that he loves digital more than he loves the camera, if you know what I mean. He bought a digital camera just because he was enchanted by this magical word "digital" or because someone told him that everything must be digital these days. Maybe he struggles getting the pictures right, and would have found it easier to use film, but he know he can't, as, well I said it already - it must be digital.
This is what I think is a bit sad, but it's not an observation specific to cameras, of course...
And of course, I think we should voice our opinion when we see dubious claims e.g. by marketing, like the one about simplicity discussed here. That's not with the digital camera lover in mind, but rather thinking about those who want to know what camera they should buy.
--
Gonz wrote:
Yea, but if you want the ultimate, see this:
http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj
4x5 doesnt even come close. And it doesnt have to stop there, you can keep going and going....
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some time to come unless very large sensors suddenly become cheap and all the indications are they wont.
Im am not trying to say that the average person should be shooting 4x5 film, I'm just saying for those who know and want really good quality, there is no affordable digital at this time or in the near future. That is still the domain of FILM.
JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Cotty
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies probably in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from grinning.
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL, thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find that they rarely use the film cameras anymore.
One thing to remember, is that almost all those who like digital used to
shoot film. It's not as if they have no clue what shooting film is
like. They have tried both and found digital to be more preferable (not
without issues, but film has issues too). Remember I am talking about
comparably handling cameras - film SLR vs. DSLR. When I had a Coolpix
990 P&S digital and my film cameras, I still shot film for anything
beyond quick snaps. With a DSLR, well I sold all my film equipment.
