----- Original Message -----
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a
position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now
have in film - and that's likely an low estimate.
Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of
that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000
Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week
of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's
got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving
big-time by sticking with film.
I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me "twice as
much" as going digital.
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep
changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money
back. At least, I think that's how it works.
Frank forgets that a lot of film users are buying expensive equipment
upgrades such as high end scanners and the like, nice monitors and fast
computers.
Me, I'll stick to fast women.
Or come unglued trying.
But I digress.
Anyway, what the DSLR did to me was cause me to buy another set of lenses,
which was more expensive than all the computer upgrades that I can think of,
short of a mainframe.
William Robb
