ERNR wrote: > I agree "if digital can't deliver ... " but "right now it certainly can't"?
The important part of my quote you left off was "at a competitive price", by which I mean competitive with disposable cameras and low-end point-and-shoot. It ain't there yet, and I don't see it getting there for a long time to come. Maybe they'll surprise us. Kodak (and the rest of them) have realized immense profits from manufacture and sale of film -- a case of giving away the "razor" in order to make profit in the sale of the "blades". Not sure if there are enough "blades" in digital photography to make it attractive. Perhaps paper and ink sales will one day provide the huge profit margins that conventional film today supplies. If, on the other hand, the profits are squeezed primarily out of services (photofinishing) rather than goods (film), I think Kodak may very well cease to exist -- at least as the manufacturing company we know it as today. > The masses *can* walk into an establishment with the digital camera > in hand and get prints quite painlessly now. "Painless" is a relative term, I think. The initial equipment expense is quite steep, and the cost of consumables -- batteries, in this case -- is not a trivial expense. But aside from that, I'd agree that dropping off your memory card at the local Wal-Mart is convenient. As long as nobody damages your expensive card.... ;-) > I shoot film when I want better quality; when the situation is low-light; > when I want the images to have a better shot at longevity; when I want > to use my Pentaxes. But of course I am picky.... Couldn't have put it better myself! But I have to concede that there's a certain "fun factor" and an instant gratification that makes digital -- with all of what I perceive to be its shortcomings -- somewhat enticing. Cheerio, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
