----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald Arvidsson Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE:HypotheticalQuestion)
> OK, I haven't exactly done a study on the thing but anyone who buys > digital quipment, including cameras, finds out that in a very short > time you get a mucher better product for the same price or even lower, > can easily be observed by checking out the development of the top end > digital cameras, there is now a 12 MB camera available, how long time > ago was that there was a 6 MB camera as the top of the pack in SLR > (not counting medium format digital cameras which is another MUCH more > expensive issue). Hmmm, where I come from, that 12mp digital SLR is about 10 times the price of its film using cousin. 6mp was top of the line for nearly a decade, until suddenly the pixel count grew. Using your example and putting the word computers in place of digital cameras, we would still be using 386's until the new gigaspeed Pentiums start to ship this spring. In the low end of the market, something like the 4 mp Optio is 800 bucks, compared to less than 200 for a similarly equipped film camera. > > As to computers I use top LINUX boxes (doesn't matter what type of > computer really) and I'm sure (always the case) that any computer I've > bought (plenty) are second generation way too fast for what the > gimmick minded consumer would like. My present computer is less than a > year old and speed has increased about 50% during this time, i.e. for > off-shelf products not for researched stuff. Computers are not cameras. You can't compare computer speed improvements to digital camera improvements. Well, you can, but I think if you do a cursory bit of research you will find the comparison to be invalid. William Robb
