16 Dec
2007
16 Dec
'07
7:29 a.m.
(Still catching up on list mail, couldn't help pitching in on this
discussion)
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 01:09 +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
OK, if I had a digital cameera, I'd use it. But to
be honest, I can't
afford one. YEs, I'd save the cost of film and processing, but I'd have
to buy the camera, buy a pC, by the equipment to maintain them, and so
on. That'd buy an awful lot of film.
False; a multitude of DSLRs (and indeed, compact cameras) now exist that
will directly interface to a (certainly considered "irrepairable" by
you) printer. No PC necessary. And, given that you have anything that
can read from a CF card (which is trivially adaptable to an IDE bus),
you can read that, as well.
I;ve yet to see a digital camera service manual, so
%deity knows what I
do whne it fails. For my (totalyl mechanical, I may add) film cameras, I
just take them apart and fix them. And they'll be good for a few more
decades.
Granted. I have a great fondness for photochemical film - there is a
certain tangibility to it that I miss when using a digital SLR, but when
I'm out on holiday or such, a somewhat miserly part of me just refuses
to trip the shutter when I know that this exposure will cost so-and-so
money. I find myself not taking pictures that I in retrospect really
would have liked.
With digital, if I'm on holiday and run out of storage space, I can buy
a CF card fitting 300 8MP images for about the price of film and
development for 60 images.
The effective resolution of 35mm film is IIRC considered by
professionals to be in the 27MP range; DSLRs are rapidly approaching
this.
-Tore :)