On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:05:22 -0500, you wrote: >The bottom line is that the pictures cost me about $8 total and no >additional time, while obtaining superior results.
I agree that an experienced shooter with a film camera can run rings around inexperienced grandma with a digital. And I agree that Double Prints at the local cheap minilab are a bargain. And I agree that one strength of film cameras the perceptual and real convenience of film-based double prints the same day or the next day. But a modestly experienced digital shooter can get a couple of rolls of good shots at a two-hour event, then while the party is breaking up, make a small handful of CD's to pass out at the door, and during the event email photos or MPGs in near-real time to overseas participants, and within a few minutes of the guests leaving have a nice little website set up with a built-in slideshow that everyone can ooh-and-ahh over at work the next day - and do all this whilst participating in the event itself in no less limited manner than an ordinary bustling host or hostess. That digital convenience is why I really want a Pentax K-mount digital, even if it is only 3.3, 4 or 5 megapixels. As long as it has a K-mount, a hotshoe, and methodology to get decent fill-flash, I'd be content. Large quantities of small prints - cheap and fast - are the bread-and-butter of film and P&S cameras. But I believe I could drop off a CD at a local lab and get pretty quick service for nice prints from digital. The question for digital prints from the local Wal-Mart type store is that a set equivalent to a roll of film cost more than the $4.99 we Americans like to pay for traditional P&S film-based Double Prints. -- 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 .
