I guess I agree with Dario. It's true that most pictures end up being reproduced digitally anyway. The image quality isn't any better with the *ist D, but it's so convenient, that I can correct errors imediately. And use the shots at once.
Since I started shooting RAW, I spend more time converting etc., trying to match the quality of a good negative than I ever did scanning. It would have been cheaper to just use the MZ-S and then buy a better scanner. But then I'd still have to spend time scanning and editing scans, and waiting for the negs to be developed. I guess will use my Super A (and occationally my P50 and K1000, which I haven't sold yet) for slides and black and white - and of course I'll use my 6x6 Pentacon when ever high resolution is required. I will miss my MZ-S (it's going to Italy - just sold it through ebay), it's a wonderful, well designed, pretty jewel of a camera. Perhaps I'll get me one agian someday..:-) Since I got my *ist D the MZ-S has just been sitting on a shelf. And that's a shame too... Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 14. oktober 2004 18:33 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 Shel Belinkoff wrote: > So, while one saves a few bucks on film, much more time can be spent > editing and correcting the work. Then, really, is there that much of a > savings (just talking about $$ v time, nothing to do with quality, etc.). > I can see this as being less of an issue for some bigshot pro who's billing > a high hourly or job rate, but for the average photog who's doing fewer and > smaller jobs per year, is the savings really that great? It depends on the use a pro picture is meant for. Since in many cases the slide/neg should become a digital file (scanned and then balanced, and then despeckled, and then done everything a digital picture needs), the all-digital process is an appreciable shortcut. In this kind of instances the savings are even more than those discussed here so far. They are both for cost of developing and for photoshopping time. If your slide just has to be used straight as a slide... a slide is needed! I mean that there are several possibilities in comparing cost and time to spend between analog and digital, and the balance can be vary a lot in different situations. Dario Bonazza
