Jody wrote:
> I like to take good photos, not crappy touristy shots.
Fair enough
> Also I like maximum control over my settings. That is
> why I use an SLR. I am glad some people still agree
> with me that you can't beat SLR.
I agree that at present SLRs from the big 4 (5?) manufacturers give better
value for money in bang for buck terms. At a similar price to any MZ/ZX
series SLR the digital camera would lose out in creative picture taking
facilities. (unless of course your prime requirement is a digital image)
> As for going digital,
> I would probably buy a scanner instead, so I can share
> my wonderful SLR photos, not some crap.
Now we start to disagree. Digital is not BAD per se. Digital image
recording is only "another" way of recording light transmitted through a
lens. An alternative to chemical based film.
> Try doing a
> good close-up with a digital, or a P&S for that
> matter.
Not so - A friend recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 990 (I think that is the
number) - it has amazing macro ability. I don't like the camera, it handles
like a pig and battery life is dismal, but give me the digital technology in
a Pentax SLR and I for one will be grateful. Don't get caught in the trap
of equating digital to poor quality. At present X quality digital photo
gear is more expensive than X quality film gear but it is changing fast in
favour of digital. Look at some of the top end digital cameras being
released - they are very capable beasts - just very expensive and outside
the sensible budget of the average amateur enthusiastic image capturer.
We're all aware of the benefits of digital images - my next purchase will
probably be a film scanner. I used to have a black and white darkroom in my
previous house (17 yrs ago) but I'm looking forward to being able to create
similar results in my "light room" in the near future.
Peter
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
