I also disagree with the second paragraph, for the occasional shooter, most of which just want 4x6 color prints, film cameras and film are far most cost efficient in both time and money. shoot the roll, drop it off, get the prints.
Digital requires much more time involvement in editing the files and deciding what to deliver to the printer and even more time if you try to do the printing at home. Since you have to pay for your prints from a processor or doing yourself at home, there isnt much money saved, just film and film developing costs by using a film camera. There are still many people who do not want to fool around with digital cameras, they are far more complicated to use than the film point and shoots to use properly for the non-hobbyist. JCO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of > people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real > world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. > For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a > lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well > as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a > modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned > objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete > with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to.
