Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

By the way, all these arguments are pointless, because they're based on 
conjecture. For example, no one is sitting there with a high quality 
print from a 16 megapixel camera comparing it to a high quality print 
from MF. And even if one of us were doing that others could say that 
one or the other really wasn't top quality. The only thing that will 
prove the point is time and the consensus opinion of history. Until 
then, it's all a matter of personal opinion, based primarily on pure 
conjecture.
On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote:
Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the 
other way
around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their 
right mind
would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made 
perfect
sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.
Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding 
such a
position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy 
trolling
through them :-)

My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at 
nearly
any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but 
fanciful
head.

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998