On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:44:30 -0600 (CST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back someone asked about *istD frame counts, and I understood why most people bitch about DSLR prices.
And then he wrote some interesting text which I snipped.
Let me think out loud too. I've shot 40 rolls of film last year and about 30 rolls of film the year before it. Say, if I had DSLR I would be twice the trigger happy than I am now. And I am very trigger unhappy fellow, mind you. So for two years I would've shot equivalent of 140 rolls of film thereby achieving the breakeven point, right?
Now, I cannot hold as simple a gadget as a cell phone for two years. Mine is now is just past its 18th month and I am having bad case of gadget envy as I do want to upgrade.
As an aside observation - current prosumer grade DZLR seems to be like 8 mp. I know that pixel count is not the Holy Grail itself, but it does matter. So if for some reason I were to shoot most of my stuff at nominal sensitivity, then my theoretically just acquired Canon Rebel D would already lose to latest offerings from Sony, Canon themselves, or Nikon.
My point being, that unless one has enough gear to sell or enough money to spend *and* justification to do so, one would have to stay at film camp. At the very least you can substitute "one" by Boris in the last sentence.
There is a potential problem with gadgetry. It is one of "killer application" or "killer feature". It can be that the next generation of sensors or whatever tech there'd be then would cause many Friday FS e-mails on this list... Or in other words, until buying a DSLR is not going to be a good exercise in math... <you complete the sentence to your liking...> <<Cotty, I know you can produce a good joke out of it, most probably you can, but please don't <BG>>>
End of rant?! <BG>
Boris
