Digital SLRS/photography is also a "pain in the ass" in some KEY ways. For good quality, you still have to "process" your RAW images. This is digital's "dirty little secret". I say its actually much easier to go shoot some color film, drop it off at a lab, and get nicely exposed, sharp prints. No, its not free like digital is, but if you actually value your time like your job, its probably as cheap or cheaper than shooting digital IF that's all you want or need. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Simpson Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:09 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: Fullframe lensesand the K10D, CA anyone?) Very true. For the foreseeable future, a bigger piece of film is always going to beat out a smaller sensor in terms of absolute IQ, DR, etc. However, the bigger the piece of film ,the greater the attendant PITA factor for working with it, and the greater cost. Part of me wants to get into medium format, but the costs of setting up to process my own B&W film (not to mention color), the space to set up the darkroom...it is just not worth it to me. And meanwhile, digital technology marches on. -Tom J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Tom's comments only apply to **35MM** film vs current DSLRS, if you go > bigger, film still rules because you can eliminate the problems > of **35mm film** while still maintaining its advantages > like greater dynamic range and resolution. > jco > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
