One of the big selling points of digital is that it's supposed to be very cheap, but it doesn't always seem that way. I recently did a studio shoot with a friend of mine. He was using a Fuji S1 Pro, and I was using the MZ-S. Oddly enough, the Fuji "Pro" has no PC outlet, so he had to use its built-in flash to trigger the strobes. When he tried the MZ-S, he commented that its AF was far better than that of the Fuji.
At the end of the shoot, he found that his laptop wasn't recognizing his 1-gig Microdrive, and was worried the whole shoot was lost. After a couple of hours of hassle at home, he was able to transfer the images to his computer, then they still had to be printed. All this for 58 images, which filled up the 1-gig drive. It seemed far less expensive for me to have 50 or 60 rolls of Fuji Superia in the fridge, bought on sale for under $2Cdn a roll. Meanwhile, I dropped my films off at London Drugs, and was able to pick up a double set of 4x6s and CD with 18-meg scans the next morning. Well, they did 4-meg scans by mistake, and I had to take back the CDs, but that's another story. Point is, digital is way cheaper when you print your own 8x10s, but you can't print 48 or 72 4x6s for $9.95Cdn or $11.95Cdn, and I like having the 99-cent second set to give the model. As well, those $600Cdn Microdrives occasionally burn out with heavy use, and if you drop one, it's toast. My feeling is that film and digital both have their advantages and disadvantages, which some people love and others hate. Accordingly, at this point, neither one can replace the other, so I think we'll see both film and digital around for a long time yet. Pat White - 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 .
