"Rob Studdert " wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2002 at 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Okay, Pentax makes a digital camera for you to stick your lenses on. Great.
>Go
>> out and shoot with them. It'll be great for the first week and then you'll
>> realize the quality isn't really there.
>I prefer the digital work-flow regardless of the media that I'm shooting, I
>consider scanning film to be both tedious and a waste of my time let alone
>sloppy WRT colour control. Image files derived from a film source are not a
>direct substitute for a first generation digital image file.
I sort of agree with Vic and with Rob.. I don't _need_ a digital camera.
However, in my case, where I don't do the darkroom thing, I have to scan all
my images I'm interested in. A 4+MP digital camera would probably produce
better results than my 2400DPI Photosmart and save me the scanning time as
well.
There are cameras in this resolution realm, but they don't have the macro
flexibility that I require -- I don't just want to do macro, I want to do
macro at different focal lengths for different effects and be able to do 7X
macro photography, both of which require switching lenses (even in the 35mm
SLR equipment).
I looked at the cost of the DSLRs, which could allow me to do this, and they
are comperable to my buying a new 4000DPI film scanner, which will simply
blow them away resolution-wise. This, therefore, is my solution to staying
with Pentax equipment, which I love, for the moment. When DSLRs surpass such
24MP scans, I'll reconsider switching (unfortunately, likely to another brand
since Pentax just isn't a photographic innovator anymore).
So, while I can sympathize with Rob, I agree with Vic, that digital isn't
always the right answer.. yet. However, a lot depends on one's needs.
later,
patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
