29 May
2007
29 May
'07
5:09 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 00:28 +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
Actually 5*4 large format, but anyway.
My commant is that I will consider buying a digital camera when the
results are better than those from my film cameras. And yes, I own3
large-format cameras.
I've also yet to see a digital camera that comes close to the qualtiy of
results from my film cameras. I am not talking about apparent sharpness,
that can be tweaked. I am talking about detail in the image.
You're very fond of saying this, but I've yet to see you make an honest
comparison. Invariably a couple of posts after claiming that no digital
camera can match the quality of your film camera, you reveal that you're
talking about 8x10" large-format. When we're discussing sub-200 quid cameras to get a quick photo of an unidentifed board,
which is likely to
be more useful (or indeed useful in any way)?
I don;t dispute digital cameras have their uses -- if I was a press
photogrpaher, it would be very silly not to use a digital camera onw. But
I don't see the use for one myself.
Even for taking a quick snap of a PCB, I'd just use a 35mm SLR. As I said
in an earlier post, I can take the exposed film to a high street shop
and, 30 minutes later get a set of prints, a set of original negatives,
and a CD-ROM of JPEGs. No the rssolution of the prints (or CD-ROM scans)
is not all that my camera can manage, but like a 'cheap' digital camera,
it's good enough. And I have the negatives if I need anything better.
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.
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.
-tony