On 23 Jan 2005 at 15:11, Peter Smekal wrote: > But then again I wonder if the *ist D > is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most of my > photographing).
More practical from my couple of years experience, and probably a lot less costly for me given that I always had films processed before subjecting them to x-rays between flights. > My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy > travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films I've > shot > during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it > wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all those > pics to begin with. I'm all for scanning existing material but it's a laborious process and doesn't always provide the results you may expect even when the best equipment is employed. I have found that I can achieve far better consistency and accuracy using a work-flow originating with direct digital capture. > Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into > retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be toying > around with it most of the time). Any advice? It is sad to retire perfectly good equipment, I'm feeling similarly about some old audio visual equipment that will eventually be laid waste as digital broadcast services become the norm. However I see these services as of dubious benefit whereas the switch from film to digital image capture for me has been quite advantageous. I suspect once you acquire a DSLR with at least the capabilities of the *ist D it will surprisingly rapidly become your primary photographic tool. 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
