In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital." > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time factor...becomes a factor. But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found one was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature but thoroughly descriptive. " Also, cost of ownership really isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional battery) > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital SLR because > technology waits for no one." I'll bet, but I probably won't be alive to collect, that you digital dies out before (any) PENTAX SLR conks out. Worse, in the near future (3-5 years), your camera's technology will be superceded, not so your chemical cameras. As long as they make film, you'll be able to shoot, especailly with K-1000s and the like. But everyone should ~enjoy~ their choices and their personnal pursuits. My howling rejection of digital also rests on three important (to me anyway) facts, other than them being small format: 1) Digitals cameras take (make) utterly lousy exposures-most of the time. That's why they all have "do over" buttons. The problem for a PJ (working or not), is most times there ain't no time to "do over" nothing. We ~have~ to capture the moment at that moment. I understand that most of the newer PJs using "pro" digitals, don't even bother to look or preview their images, uploading them sight unseen to their publications. So much for "do overs," by people who have an interest in the final outcome of their work: can we say: "Pulitzer"? 2) Without stand-alone flash, digital SUX 3) Without interchangeable lenses, digital SUX. Remember, those are opinions held by a very opinionated person who uses dinky digital all the time...just not for important things. > On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 10:54 PM, pentax-discuss-digest wrote: > > > How much have you spent on "AA" batteries for those dratted, battery > > chewing > > digitals? > - > Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
