Re: Pop Photo's Herb Keppler on The Digital Take Over?
I see your meaning. Nonetheless, I think this number is as low as it is because of the PS's, digital or otherwise. The choice is no longer between a fine camera and an Instamatic. A $200 PS can take great shots and if you are happy with 4x6 the pictures are great. I've seen some nice stuff from my colleagues Pentax 150 Sl now that she has gotten past camera shake problems. (She's just more careful now). For most folks, a PS is the best way to go. There once was a group of folks who had an SLR simply because they wanted a nicer camera. Now the SLR is more for those who are actually more serious about photography, i.e., where it as least has some hobby aspects. And, of course, many of the technophiles instead buy digital. Since I in true confessions mode, I'll admit that I would like to get a Pentax 928 (it's a little faster) for snapshot stuff or, if I ever had money to burn, that Contax PS with the f2.8 35 mm lens. However, my ZX- with the 40mm is so small it's hard to justify, i.e., not put the money toward more lenses 8^) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pop Photo's Herb Keppler on The Digital Take Over?
I'm no that surpised by 16M SLR owners in the US. I think 5% is reasonable for an expensive item with a decent cheaper alternative, i.e., 35 mm PS camera. The latter have gotten very nice during the last 15 years. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pop Photo's Herb Keppler on The Digital Take Over?
Hi, Steve, Just to clarify (since you didn't quote my original post), the number 16 million used by Keppler referred to operating slr's (and didn't even specify 35mm, so would presumably include medium format and the few 110's still around). As I said, so many serious hobbyists and pros own multiple bodies, that the actual number of owners out there in the US is likely much lower than 16 million. And (again at the risk of repeating), I wonder how many less serious hobbyists have put away their slr's and never use them, even though they're operational. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of slr users in the US is around 5 to 8 million - just a guess, but I bet not far off. And, that's a very small number, imho... regards, frank Steve Desjardins wrote: I'm no that surpised by 16M SLR owners in the US. I think 5% is reasonable for an expensive item with a decent cheaper alternative, i.e., 35 mm PS camera. The latter have gotten very nice during the last 15 years. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Pop Photo's Herb Keppler on The Digital Take Over?
dick graham wrote (quoting from Keppler's article): ...16 million SLRs are also operational [in the US]. Now ~that's~ an amazing stat, if it's true! (not that I'm doubting it - I just don't know it's source) Consider that many slr owners have multiple bodies (geez, I own 5...), and that means that far fewer than 16 million Americans are slr owners. And I wonder how many old (and maybe not so old) slr's are operational, but never or almost never get used? Out of a country of 300 million, that's not too many slr owners, imho... regards, frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
