Yes I've seen that commercial. It's a prime example of how dumb KODAK thinks consumers may be.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, a Rome vacation, they could suggest getting out of the moving vehicle and standing still... but that wouldn't sell film. Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE > Digital will pay for itself depending on the initial price of the > hardware, the individual's film usage, the amount of prints made, and > the longevity of the digital hardware. And maybe other factors such as > picture-to-publication time and reduction in processing staff. > > Mike made a good comparison showing a return on investment of two > years; Tom responded with an equally valid lack of return on > investment comparison. > > It's really up to the individual to make a comparison based on their > own usage and needs. For me, a digital SLR does not give the desired > return on investment at this time. > > First, I'd have to switch to Nikon or Canon to even get a digital SLR. > That's not in itself a bad thing. However, I am very fond of Pentax > glass in general. I like the unusual old K-mount lenses. I like to > carry a PZ1p and an LX, and enjoy the differences between the two > cameras while sharing lenses. And, very important to me, I have some > favorite Pentax lenses which have no direct Nikon or Canon equivalent. > > Second, I don't shoot enough film. Maybe a hundred rolls per year, > maybe a little less. And I shoot pretty cheap film, with cheap > processing. Enlargements come from an inkjet, so film and digital > enlargements even out. So my film/processing savings are potentially > too low to justify a digicam that cost much over $1500. > > But owning some sort of digicam is a very good thing. My work 3.3 mp > digicam P&S with a fine, fast zoom lens is a fun thing to have, and > very useful. It won't pay for itself through film/processing savings > anytime soon, but it has nevertheless earned a place in my photo > toolkit. > > Of course, if I ran a bureau with six photogs slogging around taking > ten rolls each per day just to get a handful of shots for the daily > paper, we wouldn't have a scrap of film in sight. > > BTW, Kodak just bought Encad, who makes large-format inkjets. Kodak is > trying to transition to the real world of production imaging. And > Kodak's latest TV commercial shows a motion-blurred photo taken with a > P&S using ISO 200 film compared to a sharp photo taken with Kodak > Versatility film (ISO 400 Kodak Gold, I think). Kodak hints that their > Versatility film is better because pictures taken with it don't come > out blurry. > > No mention that ISO 400 film from any other manufacturer would have > allowed a faster shutter speed, resulting in the same reduced motion > blur compared to the longer shutter speed required by ISO 200 film. > > -- > John Mustarde > - > 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 . - 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 .
