Aaron Reynolds writes:
> Man... $13,000 for the one that plays 33 and 45 rpm, and $20,000 for the
> one that plays 78s as well...
>
> If I was rich, I'd totally have one of these. ;)
I bet they're not much use to rappers... :)
Cheers,
- Dave
David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec)
http://www.digistar.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
Mafud wrote:
> And your "free" set-up depreciates
And the sun will explode in ten million years,
e: Digital cameras are FREE
Just an addition to this thread is the e-film technology.
In short, (e)-film is a roll of film that isn't really film.
It is a digital image capturing device that fits into
your existing 35mm SLR camera body.
It works just like 35mm film, except that there is no f
No, they will stop making film when they can no longer make a profit on it.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are
Quite true. I can appreciate your point.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> I would think the reletive value would d
In a message dated 11/22/01 8:20:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Had you qualified your remark I may have let it stand, but as stated, it
> is flat out wrong.
>
I spend as much as six weeks a ~year~ (April, October) in the environs of the
Department Du Nord (Milo, Lamb
al Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> In a message dated 11/22/01 11:17:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Disposables are probab
In a message dated 11/22/01 3:02:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> You mean for your 35, right? So, you have to factor in depreciation
> into your camera and enlarger. You can't argue that one depreciates and
> the other doesn't.
>
> -Aaron
>
Aaron, that was ~your~ o
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> Tom R. wrote:
>
> > Let's see? From my view point you are trying to sell me an idea. Someone
who
> > is trying to sell m
Aaron wrote:
> Most of the big catalog guys in Toronto have moved to digital. Even the
> smaller studios are considering it.
I'll bet anyone using the Contax 645 system is considering it now with the
Contax digital on the horizon. Being able to add a digital body, even in "35mm"
format, withou
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:37:00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>You get what you pay for. Anyone who expects a printer that costs less
>than $100 to last is nuts.
I want to praise Epsons' service department, while slightly damning
their printer. We bought an Epson Stylus Pro 5000 with Fiery RIP in
late 1998.
In a message dated 11/22/01 10:40:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Most of the big catalog guys in Toronto have moved to digital. Even the
> smaller studios are considering it.
>
> -Aaron
>
Yes. I expect that given the rapid advance in technology, meduim format will
ssage -
From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> Thats why i did not take out an extended
> warranty ,offered by Staples, on the $29.00 optical
> logitech mou
Thats why i did not take out an extended
warranty ,offered by Staples, on the $29.00 optical
logitech mouse i just bought.It breaks, its gone.
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>You get what you pay for. Anyone who expects a printer that costs
>le
iginal Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> Digital will pay for itself depending on the initial price of the
> hardware, the individual's fil
> I can't beleive how many single use camera we take in at the
> lab. There is a demographic to them though. The teenagers, for
> whom money still grows on a tree in their parents back yard use
> them, for the most part. Once they get a little older and get a
> job, they seem to gravitate towards
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
>
> > What we're seeing right now is soaring sales in film
cameras, APS and high
> > dollar sophisticated P&Ss leading the way.
> > I wonder why?
>
> You
Digital will pay for itself depending on the initial price of the
hardware, the individual's film usage, the amount of prints made, and
the longevity of the digital hardware. And maybe other factors such as
picture-to-publication time and reduction in processing staff.
Mike made a good comparison
Mafud wrote:
> What we're seeing right now is soaring sales in film cameras, APS and high
> dollar sophisticated P&Ss leading the way.
> I wonder why?
You're gonna have to cite your sources here, Mafud. What you say simply
isn't true. APS is in the doldrums and single-use cameras are sales volum
- Original Message -
From: "aimcompute"
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> I see a humor in it. It is true also. I'm not making fun of
another's
> plight.
>
> Let me tell ya, if the people in refugee camps are running
around with
> disposable
I see a humor in it. It is true also. I'm not making fun of another's
plight.
Let me tell ya, if the people in refugee camps are running around with
disposable cameras and getting film processed I'd be surprised. If they
are, we better stop sending cash.
Disposables are probably just about th
On Thursday, November 22, 2001, at 01:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But we all know if you buy one of an object, (in this instance, a
> camera-printer-computer), and use it, you ~will~ replace it.
What if it's well-built and lasts a long time? ;)
We bought our big digital printer when I w
On Thursday, November 22, 2001, at 01:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> E. Medium format digital is alive and well in product (still life)
> shooting.
It's alive and well in studio shooting in general. Most (if not all)
current digital backs work properly with strobe, and this change has
co
My boss is a devoted sports photographer who was spending a huge amount
of money on Ilfochrome prints at a very good custom lab. I asked him to
let me see a sheet of his transparencies. I scanned them on our Agfa
Duoscan T2500 at 4000 dpi, then printed the 50 meg images on Ilford Fine
Art paper in
Hi,
Mike Johnston wrote:
> But here's the real rub for your argument. IF you could see a full-color
> proof the size of your computer monitor for each shot you took, would you
> really need to print every single photograph you shot? If you could somehow
> preview your 24-exposure roll before yo
I wrote that, but since you've taken it out of context - as a retort to
a comment about running out of film - you've lost both the immediacy and
the humor of the remark. My point was that we won't run out of film,
just as we won't run out of pixels - or will we?
I heard some very interesting new
Tom R. wrote:
> I would guess your figures are skewed every bit as much as your arguments.
Come on, Tom, let's stay gentlemanly here. That's a pretty insulting thing
to say. Actually, the figures I gave are exactly what I pay, and I even
named exactly what I buy so you can check them for yoursel
Hello All.
Maybe my last words on digitals:
A. Low-Megapixel digitals works for snapshots, eBay and web viewing.
B. On camera digital flash sux.
C. Digital SLRs come very close to being as useful as film cameras (any,
including one-use).
D. Digital will replace (by driving out) Polaroid.
E.
> Yeah, but in 30 years, when there are no more pixels, what'll we do?
> We're using pixels at an alarming rate! At some point we'll run out.
Aha! You see, there's the film mentality for ya. I know whoever wrote this
was joking, but the joke is revealing. We've always had to worry about
running
Graywolf growled:
> Everybody who thinks that Mike's outfit below will match my outfit in
> photographic capability raise your hand.
Funny--but you were specifically talking about Wal-Mart 4x6s. My digital
camera makes prints that compare favorably to those, especially since I'm a
better printe
In a message dated 11/21/01 11:21:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Seriously, the whole point, originally, was that depreciation doesn't
> matter.
Costs and depreciation only matter when you have to replace an object. If
what you're saying is that ~until~ you replace t
On 21 Nov 2001, at 23:46, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Digital is coming to your lives as photographers, just as it came to mine
> (whether we also stick with film or not). The only difference between any of us
> is WHEN we jump in. I jumped a little later than a lot of people, and a little
> earlier t
Mike ...
If you mean using digital cameras, well, I'm not particularly interested
at this point. Digital cameras don't work properly for much of my
photography. However, I do scan some of my work and put it up for all
to see, and it's quite possible that, given a good photograph and a good
nega
Tom R. wrote:
> Let's see? From my view point you are trying to sell me an idea. Someone who
> is trying to sell me something is a salesman.
I think that's nonsense. Are you paying me anything? No. Do I care if you
accept my views as your own? Not in the slightest. In fact, I don't expect
you to
Mafud wrote:
>And your "free" set-up depreciates
Seriously, the whole point, originally, was that depreciation doesn't
matter. To simplify the original argument:
Say you buy a film camera for $700 and pay ongoing film and development
costs of $350 per year. You also have printing costs of $400
Mafud wrote:
> As to long lived production: can we say "Brownie"?
:^) I last used my Brownie just back in '89 -- had
four shots run in the local paper along w/ a few
from a Canonet GIII of our band for an upcoming gala
(this from pre-
ember 21, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> Is this the same vaporware that's been around for several years?
>
> Bill, KG4LOV
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
graywolf
-
The optimist's cup is half full,
The pessimist's is half empty,
The wise man enjoys his drink.
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras ar
al Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> In a message dated 11/21/01 12:49:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Yah, my figures whe
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And the sun will explode in ten million years, too, so I don't see the
point
> in going to school.
>
> --Mike
>
Tried that one on my mother one morning back in High School. The point in
going to school was illustrated
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> > > I have no idea of what rechargeable batteries you use, but
~any~
> > rechargeable
> > > battery has a buy-in price equal to at least 12x the cost
of regular
>
> Kodak will stop making the *cheap film that those cameras use* when they
can no
> longer sell those cameras.
>
> The Kodak films preferred by readers of the PDML will go away much sooner.
:(
Scary thought. Only Max 800 and SG800.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Penta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As I noted elsewhere, KODAK will stop making film when they can no longer
>sell one-use and P&S cameras to people without electricity.
Kodak will stop making the *cheap film that those cameras use* when they can no
longer sell those cameras.
The Kodak films preferred
Is this the same vaporware that's been around for several years?
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras ar
Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> Just an addition to this thread is the e-film technology.
> In short, (e)-film is a roll of film that isn't really film.
> It is a digital image capturing device that fits into
> your existing 35mm SLR came
Just an addition to this thread is the e-film technology.
In short, (e)-film is a roll of film that isn't really film.
It is a digital image capturing device that fits into
your existing 35mm SLR camera body.
It works just like 35mm film, except that there is no film. The
device captures and store
In a message dated 11/21/01 1:22:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The investment in equipment is much higher for digital at present, for
> materials it tends to be lower.
But oh, that cost in depreciation!
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is f
In a message dated 11/21/01 1:22:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In another five years I
> would expect 90% of commercial photography to be digital. I suspect that
> film will be the media of choice for fine arts photography for quite a while
> yet.
>
Agreed.
Mafud
[E
In a message dated 11/21/01 12:56:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hardly at all if you judge by the prices folks ask for
> their used equipment here on the PDML.
> ---
>
> Len
But Robb was talking about ordinary cameras, not PENTAX cameras
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
In a message dated 11/21/01 12:49:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yah, my figures where skued to make my point. Yours weren't?
You're low on your figures Tom.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscrib
In a message dated 11/21/01 11:47:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Yeah but if in 30 years there is no more film you can still use a
> digital
> > > camera.
> >
> > --
> > Shel Belinkoff
>
As I noted elsewhere, KODAK will stop making film when they can no longer
s
In a message dated 11/21/01 11:34:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's happened as other technologies have been made obsolete by electronics
> and there is no reason to doubt that the same won't, (eventually), happen
> with film. when this does happen I cant see anythin
y, November 21, 2001 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> But to duplicate your traditional setup detailed below, here's what I'd
do:
> I'd get a good "deluxe p/s" for $400-$700. I'd buy a Canon S600 printer
for
> $150 and Epson Matte Heavyweight pap
ubject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
Yeah, but in 30 years, when there are no more pixels, what'll we do?
We're using pixels at an alarming rate! At some point we'll run out.
Kent Gittings wrote:
>
> Yeah but if in 30 years there is no more film you can still use a digit
>Hmmm, doesn't a conventional camera depreciate as well?
>William Robb
---
Hardly at all if you judge by the prices folks ask for
their used equipment here on the PDML.
---
Len
---
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the dir
One point that you did not make, Shel, is that Digital cameras and printers
are "disposable"
I'll continue to keep the LX and MX in good repair because essentially they
are mechanical marvels with little in the way of electronics. I'm sure you
feel the same about your Leicas, etc. Digital camer
William Robb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > Hmmm, doesn't a conventional camera depreciate as well?
>>
>> Yup. But at some point, the depreciation stops but the camera
>> is still useful. Witness the number of 30 plus year-old PENTAX
>> horses that get hitc
Yeah, but in 30 years, when there are no more pixels, what'll we do?
We're using pixels at an alarming rate! At some point we'll run out.
Kent Gittings wrote:
>
> Yeah but if in 30 years there is no more film you can still use a digital
> camera.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
cameras are FREE
In a message dated 11/21/01 9:25:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hmmm, doesn't a conventional camera depreciate as well?
> William Robb
>
Yup. But at some point, the depreciation stops but the camera is still
useful. Witness the number of 30
Yes, it does - as do all consumables. Perhaps the point to be
considered is not so much monetary depreciation, as obsolescence. Thus
far, even old cameras, while ~maybe~ not being worth as much as when
new, are still able to function well and make good photographs. IOW,
it's a mature technology
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> In a message dated 11/21/01 9:25:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Hmmm,
In a message dated 11/21/01 9:25:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hmmm, doesn't a conventional camera depreciate as well?
> William Robb
>
Yup. But at some point, the depreciation stops but the camera is still
useful. Witness the number of 30 plus year-old PENTAX horse
In a message dated 11/21/2001 9:33:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> But hey, we all know that in the heart of every amateur beats the heart of
a
>
> "pro." :))
>
Nonsense.
Ed M.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to htt
In a message dated 11/21/01 9:06:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Unfortunately, AFAIK, this doesn't apply to amateurs
But hey, we all know that in the heart of every amateur beats the heart of a
"pro." :))
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is f
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> > __
> Mike, as long as you have to replace supplies and deprec
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> In a message dated 11/21/01 4:29:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > B
Unfortunately, AFAIK, this doesn't apply to amateurs
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Every object/item you buy depreciates. Every shot you make further
> depreciates your set-up. The set-up thus has to be replaced, probably at
the
> same or higher value. At that point, and unless you don't inte
In a message dated 11/21/01 4:29:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now tell me I'm not running cheaper than you are. I think everything
> considered it's a _lot_ cheaper.
>
> --Mike
>
> P.S. To Mafud's earlier comment that I'm running through AA alkalines at a
> steady c
Tom R. wrote:
> To paraphrase and old saying; figures don't lie, but salesmen do figure.
First of all, Tom, I'm not a salesman, not in any way, shape, or form. I
have no connection, official or unofficial, to any company and no financial
interest at all in selling anything except my little newsl
Leon A. wrote:
> This doesn't work for me.
>
> If I shoot 100 rolls of film I end up with a drawer of slideboxes that
> I can pull out at any time and view with a slide viewer or projector.
> I can lend them to people, scan them, show them at meetings and so on.
> If I shoot 3600 digital picture
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 11:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But remember, I already know "real" digital is alive and well in medium
> and
> 4x5 formats.
Certainly, that's not an issue. What we're looking for is a variety of
opinion from people demanding of their printing and who
In a message dated 11/20/01 8:45:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Mafud, do you want in on the PDML digital challenge, too? You're a big
> proponent of the wet darkroom, I'd like to try to blast your socks off
> with one of these prints.
>
> -Aaron
>
Mmmm-OK.
But re
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 06:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/01 5:22:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> but an ink cartridge is cheap compared to the priceless memories
>> of your grandkids having fun, right? (I'm too young, but
MAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/20/01 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
In a message dated 11/20/01 5:14:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "I love prints and slides but also think that digital images have
their
> advantages too."
eBay
In a message dated 11/20/01 5:22:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> but an ink cartridge is cheap compared to the priceless memories
> of your grandkids having fun, right? (I'm too young, but I hope one
> day I'll be able to experience first-hand.)
>
Umm-no. I can't
In a message dated 11/20/01 5:14:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "I love prints and slides but also think that digital images have their
> advantages too."
eBay and email.
"In fact I find sharing digital images much easier (pop it into an email, put
it on a
> webpag
In a message dated 11/20/01 4:21:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This doesn't work for me.
>
> If I shoot 100 rolls of film I end up with a drawer of slideboxes that
> I can pull out at any time and view with a slide viewer or projector.
> I can lend them to people, s
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 05:04:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/01 2:18:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > "Which means, in turn, that if you buy a $2,000 digital camera, a flash media
> > card, a card reader, and a copy of Photoshop Elem
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 07:20:14PM +1100, Leon Altoff wrote:
> If my
> computer crashes I loose all of them, unless I back them up onto CD
> rom, which if it's scratched can cause a whole image to be corrupted
> whereas a scratch on a slide can be touched up.
But don't forget that you can make co
In a message dated 11/20/01 2:18:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Which means, in turn, that if you buy a $2,000 digital camera, a flash media
> card, a card reader, and a copy of Photoshop Elements, the camera will
> completely pay for itself in approximately two years.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:14:48 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
>One more thing I've forgotten to mention. If you shoot slides, you'll pay
>approximately 40¢ per frame. Call it $14.00 a roll. (Is that about right,
>Isaac and Aaron?)
>
>So if you shoot a measly 100 rolls a year (that's only 2 rolls a we
81 matches
Mail list logo
