On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:33:51 +0000, you wrote: >>Even the most expensive digital cameras have to think for a second or so >>before taking a shot. Something that in my mind, makes them dubious for >>portraits, action shot etc. >>Just my 3 pence worth. >
Maybe the consumer cameras without pentaprisms have to think or pre-focus, but not the DSLR bunch. They are very suited to portraits because the clean, grainless background allows the subject to pop off the page, and the lighting can be evaluated immediately. For action sports, you don't have to stop and change film every 36 shots. Seems to me most everyone who has tried the current three semi-pro DSLR offerings (Fuji S2, Nikon D100, and Canon D60) is for the most part very happy with their camera, and finds it to be useful in every situation, and a suitable replacement for film without exception. I'm wondering if most of the naysayers for DSLR cameras have not actually worked with one. The DSLR cameras shoot just as good as their 35mm SLR film counter parts. True, the top-end film cameras tend to have faster AF and faster frame rates than a DSLR, but they get fewer shots before having to shut down and add film. A Pentax DSLR will sell very well, no doubt, as long as Pentax offers a nice feature set at a price less than the current $2000 - 2300 price of the D100, S2, and D60. The really can't lose as long as their production costs are less than their selling price. People will buy a Pentax DSLR for the same reason they buy the MZ series - good value in a nice package. As for the film vs digital debate, well, I don't see anyone with a DSLR selling it and going back to film. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
