[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Also, don't forget that whatever you purchase will be "old news" and probably
> obsolete within a couple of years or less. This is a hidden cost. My photo
> quality inkjet was replaced by a new and improved model within a month of its
> purchase. It has basically no resale value, and I can't afford to throw $500
> into the trash dumpster.
This is an interesting observation. Every "digital age" product is supposed to
be obsolete within a short period of time, just like computers themselves.
But, why does this have to be so? As long as it works fine, why replace it?
Especially with a digital camera, there's no pressure by new games or other
software, demanding for more powerful hardware. So, as long as the camera works,
why not use it for 10+ years? What makes it "obsolete"? Is it the higher
resolution of newer models? If yes, why do "digital" photographers always claim
the quality of their digital pictures is so good, when higher resolution devices
make it "obsolete" OTOH? Does medium format make 35mm obsolete? If the image
quality is good enough, nothing will render it obsolete. My, very personal,
opinion is, they know quite well that 2 or 3 MPixels just don't fit the bill,
especially if these aren't "true" RGB Pixels, but it's only human to defend
our purchases. I know that quite well myself ;-)
A decades old Canon F1 (or whatever) is still capable of delivering images,
that are no worse than those taken by a EOS 1V or Nikon F5. Must be magic ;-)
Personally, I will abandon film without any regrets when I feel that
a) The image quality is equal or better than 35mm
b) The camera will take my EOS lenses
c) The sensor will not make my super wide angles to normal lenses
d) The frame rate is at least 3 per second, better 6
e) The handling is reasonable (like a camera, not like MS-Windows)
f) The storage devices are reasonably priced and have enough capacity
(Carrying storage devices for 500-1000 full size images shouldn't
be too difficult)
Until that happens to occur in a single digital device, I won't even think
about buying into digital. If I really badly need a digital file, my scanner
does a better job than most digital cameras on the market at a much lower
price. Costs me maybe a minute per frame. Professionals working under time
pressure will see this different, but for ME I can't see a reason to change
right now.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
