RE: Horrible person.
This realization was what made me get excited about digital. There's no reason (that I know of) not to think that, not only is digital going to approach film quality, it will eventually surpass it. Until then, yes, digital (at least at any price I can dream of spending) is a nifty thing for niche markets and to replace P&S for snapshots. Anything else and you're trading quality for convenience. That's not particularly exciting to me. At some point, when the quality surpasses the capability of film, that will be exciting. Then it will be interesting as a "new" art form. Grady Peter wrote: >> Try doing a >> good close-up with a digital, or a P&S for that >> matter. >Not so - A friend recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 990 (I think that is the >number) - it has amazing macro ability. I don't like the camera, it handles >like a pig and battery life is dismal, but give me the digital technology in >a Pentax SLR and I for one will be grateful. Don't get caught in the trap >of equating digital to poor quality. At present X quality digital photo >gear is more expensive than X quality film gear but it is changing fast in >favour of digital. [snip] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Horrible person.
Jody wrote: > I like to take good photos, not crappy touristy shots. Fair enough > Also I like maximum control over my settings. That is > why I use an SLR. I am glad some people still agree > with me that you can't beat SLR. I agree that at present SLRs from the big 4 (5?) manufacturers give better value for money in bang for buck terms. At a similar price to any MZ/ZX series SLR the digital camera would lose out in creative picture taking facilities. (unless of course your prime requirement is a digital image) > As for going digital, > I would probably buy a scanner instead, so I can share > my wonderful SLR photos, not some crap. Now we start to disagree. Digital is not BAD per se. Digital image recording is only "another" way of recording light transmitted through a lens. An alternative to chemical based film. > Try doing a > good close-up with a digital, or a P&S for that > matter. Not so - A friend recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 990 (I think that is the number) - it has amazing macro ability. I don't like the camera, it handles like a pig and battery life is dismal, but give me the digital technology in a Pentax SLR and I for one will be grateful. Don't get caught in the trap of equating digital to poor quality. At present X quality digital photo gear is more expensive than X quality film gear but it is changing fast in favour of digital. Look at some of the top end digital cameras being released - they are very capable beasts - just very expensive and outside the sensible budget of the average amateur enthusiastic image capturer. We're all aware of the benefits of digital images - my next purchase will probably be a film scanner. I used to have a black and white darkroom in my previous house (17 yrs ago) but I'm looking forward to being able to create similar results in my "light room" in the near future. Peter - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Horrible person.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, petit miam wrote: > Quoted from > http://www.photographystore.com/Pages/camrabg.html > > "Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. I would lump all of > these manufactures together. They are not really built > to the same quality as Canon and Nikon. If you choose > prime, fixed focal length lenses though they are > capable of superb results. Remember I am looking for > equipment capable of the absolute best imaging, so There is some truth in his ranting, except the list should expand to include Canon and Nikon as well. Some of consumer zooms are pathetic indeed. Even some cameras (look at Canon Rebelxx for instance.) They don't offer better pictures than many PS cameras but cost much more and are complex, heavy and unwieldy. To the mass consumer, the SLR's they encounter at WalMart or Wolf Camera are decidedly unattractive. No wonder SLR as a whole is loosing it. If you can't afford a good digital which you will update annually like computers, then buy a cheap PS (Yashica T4, Olympus stylus, etc.) Or if you really like photography, go to medium format. That's my ranting. Now I feel better. Tonghang. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Horrible person.
>> "Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. I would lump all ofthese manufactures together. They are not really builtto the same quality as Canon and Nikon. If you chooseprime, fixed focal length lenses though they arecapable of superb results. Remember I am looking forequipment capable of the absolute best imaging, sovery few other people would be quite as demanding as Iam. It must be said a friend of mine, who is aprofessional fashion photographer, uses a Pentax LXwith pentax prime lenses and his pictures are quitesuperb." << What this guy is saying is that if you want sloppy one-button photography with 15mm to 1200mm do-all zooms...then don't use pentax...go for the "good guys" of C and N. But he then says if you like good quality pictures, then pentax isn't so bad after all. Pentax kind of reminds me of a slogan i saw on a pair of blue jeans i got yesterday (as all of the foreign language speakers here wonder why in english one pant is referred to as a pairwierd our language is). Anyway...the slogan was "Quality never goes out of style"...and that is trademarked and all that stuff by the way. brent