I have all the time in the world. I take pictures at my leisure with the Pentaxes and then process the film myself. I hang it in the sauna to dry and put everything away. When the film is dry and I scan it with the little Olympus ES10-S I got for Xmas a few years ago. I then mess about with Photoshop and PSP 7 and the rest. I don't print the images any more because I got totally pissed off with the Epson Photo 750. I consider Epson to be on a par with Microsoft as far as business is concerned. I refuse to use a set of cartridges to clean the jets before I can print anything. Okay? The product of my efforts is mediocre, but in general I'm satisfied with the macros I take.
So do I need a digital camera? Not really. I'd like one, but only if it gives me better results than I get with the equipment I have. So far I've seen one camera that will do this. I handled a Fuji FinePix S2 Pro a few days ago, took some pictures and saw the results. One print, made on the huge Epson printer, almost a metre wide and more than that high had detail that would be hard to achieve on medium format. Every pore on the subjects face was clearly visible, each single hair - eyebrow detail you could expect to get from a Linhof. The camera uses a CCD sensor and delivers 4256 x 2848 pixels. This means the files hold more than 12 million pixels. The camera costs, without lens, 3550 ?. A couple of Nikon lenses would add another 1000 ? - plus. Then you need to add some memory and perhaps a few filters. This would be an expensive acquisition. If the new Pentax Digital camera produces the same results I'd be interested. But first I'd have to sell my 6x6 equipment - unless I win money on a lottery of course. Best, Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
