Thomas Bantel wrote (edited):
>I'm not talking about tweaking color, I'm talking resolution, film speed
etc.
>While you can increase the "film speed" with a digital camera as well, you
can't
>tweak resolution. You have to use what you have, which may or may not be
enough.
Not true. I can vary the resolution of the digital camera from 1.2 to 6
megapixels with a button on the rear.
>As do I, at least I try to do so real hard. But I can't ignore simple
physical
>and economical facts, as much as I'm excited about the potential of digital
>photography. I took digital images more than a decade before the first
>generation of digital consumer cameras hit the market. And I've written
filtering,
>image enhancing, measuring and classification algorithms long before the
>Photoshop era :-) When I say today digital is expensive, it is *dirt cheap*
>compared to back then. The first system I worked with had a storage that
filled
>a whole rack and was able to store two images of size 512x784 of 8 bit
data.
>It cost more than $100K at that time. Today, every cheap consumer digital
does
>a lot better.
Agreed! Economically film may be better for its value, depends on how you
plan to use your camera.
For action sports and other subject where longer focal length is an
advantage digital is very tempting, just a bit too expensive for my wallet.
I still also use wide angle shots often, so film is still better for me.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
