> > Third, the quality won't be up to a decent pocket point and shoot
camera.
>
> Is that an opinion or do you have some empirical evidence to share with
the
> list? I'm not suggesting another exhaustive "which one's better" argument
> because the 35mm format is undoubtetly better, but merely suggesting that
> APS is more than adequate for the pictures you would expect to take with a
> "decent point and shoot". I have a number of cameras from an EOS 3 down to
a
> modest Fuji P&S, and think the quality of the output from my IX body is
> virtually identical to that from my other EOS bodies. I'm certain the
> limiting factors are more my lack of ability than that of the equipment.
>
> Now, if your "decent point and shoot" is a Leica M6, I take it all back!
>
> ;^)
>
> tomp
I have a Fuji DL1000 35mm camera that fits in my pocket, has a 35-105 zoom,
and gives me photos I can hardly tell from an EOS photo. I've blown some up
to 16 by 20 so I know how good it is. It takes standard 35mm film, and is
very convenient. It has some nice flash setting like closeup, etc.
The point is, it fits in a pocket, so as far as a camera to take to
parties, and use as a point and shoot, I think it's a far better deal than
any APS EOS XI or whatever they're called. With the APS EOS, you still have
to lug around a camera bag, keep your eyes on it, etc. You might as well
have your regular EOS along. Just my opinion of course.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
