At 09:54 AM 11/12/00 +0000, you wrote: > >> I'm not sure why folks forget that a roll of 36 exposure film is ALREADY >one >> incredibly convenient, small an CHEAP memory medium and that your present >> and perhaps cheap EOS camera is already a Multi Giga-Pixel camera. Who >> needs a limiting 10 MP's? > >show me a 35mm SLR that allows the user to review the photo that they have >just taken, and delete that photo if they do not like it. what about the >ability to shot ~1000 photos on one roll? the ability to send the photos >back to the office within minutes of them being taken. (assuming one has a >laptop and mobile phone). After the initial outlay (which granted is alot Lets see, at 4M per picture at 28.8k or even 56k for that modem for say 50 pictures? 200Mb should only take about 30 hours at 28.8k. In that time I can have all my pictures developed and be weeding out the bad ones. That is less than 2 rolls of film. Should only take me about 30 to 40 minutes to go through it all. Even if you drop the file size to 2M you are still looking at a long time. Oh, did we forget to mention that a mobile phone only has a 14.4k modem at BEST in it? With all the overhead the phone needs to use it really only works out to be a 13k modem. Whoops! Back up to 30+ hours! In the future when we get HDR mobile phones it will be more viable, but the networks and the phones have to be set-up and sold. Even then you are sending at 153k (it will be faster in the future) which is still slow when you want to send more than 20 pictures at 2-4M a shot. Jump 1-2 years in the future with the 10MP camera producing a 9M file and feel the pain. Hope you have a lot of free hours on your phone plan. >compared to 35mm) shooting is essentially free. shooting digital is a >different theosophy to shooting 35mm. True, shooting is essentially free. But the upkeep costs more, in general, for digitals. I used a Kodak DCS camera at work for a long time. When your drive goes out, it is expensive. When some nit-wit drops the camera and your ccd is out of alingment it is REALLY expensive to fix. I think newer digital won't have the major problems that the DCS cameras did, but they will still be there and the small problems in digital usually run more expensive than the small problems on a film camera. >i do not believe digital is better than 35mm (or vise versa) but that they >have different uses, and the end use should dicate the system used. digital >= speed, 35mm = quality. digital in many years may catch up on the quality, >but it will never overtake 35mm. > >just for the record i am pro digital, and will get a D30 as soon as the 2nd >wave arrives in the UK. I will probably get a D1v next year. Good on ya. I'm still waiting for the first Medium format 6x6 or 6x7 digital to replace my Rolleiflex. R * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
