> http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
Interesting article, if rather long. It makes many points pro film that Toralf Lund and others have been saying here. A few things that I think are not completely right: "Smaller, faster cheaper lenses? Where are these?" I think is out of date as there are now so many 'digital' lenses, and they are cheaper and smaller than their 35mm counterparts. Adding the cost of a computer to capital equipment assumes you don't have one already. The majority of the digital target market already owns a computer. For these snapshotters I would say that digital is a no-brainer, as with film they get so many throw away shots that the cost of film processing is greater than digital. They will also not have storage issues as they will just keep the good prints in albums, and not worry too much about the originals. Of course this is a shame as many images will be lost, but the poor way I have seen many people treat their negatives, and often not keep them at all it is not much change. "120 is as good as 8x10, 35mm is as good as 120, and digital is as good as 35mm" Not quite sure where they are getting this from. If you follow this logic then digital and 35mm are as good as 8x10, which is obviously not true. Seems like a straw man argument. Overall though many good points, but written from an advanced hobbyists perspective, which is a tiny part of the photography market. My opinion is that as time goes by and less people shoot film the cost of film processing will go up. Probably mainly due to the low cost mail order bulk processing places disappearing. This will in turn lead further people to digital and 35mm film will rapidly shrink to a hobbyists/artists market. Dan
