in my case, i shoot enough frames a year and my primary needs are digital editorial stock for local magazines that it costs less over a year with a good enough digital camera than shooting the same amount of film. i could have made do with my 5 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 5000 but the focal length choices are not enough. i still will shoot film, but only when i am on a focused trip with enough time to set up shots both on film and digital. shooting the scene first with digital also allows me to judge whether i have to do anything special on the film shots. the film shots i make are intended for large prints and fine art sales, although i haven't made any significant numbers of those, only to friends so far.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update > Conclusion: Initial dollar outlay is far higher to get great results with > digital. Time factors for good prints are similar and prices about the same. So > film cost is the only real disadvantage to the older technology, but film is the > reason a $200 camera can make the same quality image as a $2000 one.
