Uh oh, I can see a disagreement with Rob coming up :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 3:30 AM Subject: RE: So?: System
> On 28 Sep 2002 at 8:19, Malcolm Smith wrote: > > > Nothing to argue with here! The 67 system is very good value at the moment, and > > it appears to have quite a following, even though some are being traded for > > digital (more for us all!). > > > > Whilst I am sure that digital will eventually give great results at current film > > prices one day soon, my only question is whether they will be able to take the > > knocks and bashes that happens in life, that the 67 has happily taken? Are > > digital cameras more robust than I suggest? > > Hi Malcolm, > > Even though my E-10 is a relatively inexpensive digital camera it is built on a > nice sturdy metal chassis and has a painted finish very similar to the MZ-S. I > bought it used and the guy who owned it used it pretty extensively, some of the > base was worn to metal, I certainly don't baby the camera. I have worn it over > my shoulder whilst trekking through bush and cliff trails and it gets hit > fairly often. It's all held together thus far so I'm fairly confident that the > better built digicams are as robust as their film counterparts. > > I don't believe that digicams will replace MF in the near future, I'm not > planning on selling my 67 gear too soon, my Pentax 35mm gear maybe another > story though :-( > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
