Although there may have been an inaccuracy or two in Declan's article I
agree in general with his premise. I think digital cameras have a great
future but are still at a disadvantage in terms of cost per image captured,
based on cost of good point and shoot cameras and typical annual consumer
photo processing volume, and image quality. They have many assets,
however, especially the convenience of viewing in real-time what the sensor
will capture and the results. (BTW, I recently ordered a Kodak DC280)
> From http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33244,00.html
>
>and I quote:
>
> >Other reasons to consider analog:
>
><snip>
>
> >Speed: Most sub-$1,000 digital cameras are painfully slow to anyone used
> >to taking lots of photos in a row. I can take five photos a second on my
> >Canon, but digitals usually take a second or two to process each image.
> >On most decent 35-mm cameras, zooming from wide-angle to telephoto takes
> >a scant fraction of a second. The Nikon CoolPix 950, one of the better
> >models, takes over three seconds.
>
>end quote.
>
>Declan, you can't even keep your lies straight.
>
>Reese
