> The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures -
> I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film.
If all you ever want is screen resolution I'd agree. But most
people want to print things, and that takes more resolution.
The average person doesn't understand this; just ask my brother
who has been losing hair through people trying to submit 75dpi
scans for printing in a magazine he produces!
> I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once
> advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!).
No need for an asbestos suit with respect to me. I don't
doubt that digital photography will replace film, but I'm
not convinced it will happen as fast or be as good as a
lot of people are saying. Someone else just pointed out
that the data coming from cameras is only 8 bits per channel,
which may be a serious limitation in some cases. I would
say that the jpeg compression used in most cameras to save
memory is a far worse factor in image quality. But even
with 8 bits per channel, give me the same number of pixels
as I currently get out of Provia 100F with the LS30 and
enough memory to store 36 pictures with lossless compression
in removable media that doesn't cost the earth, and a battery
system that works... for about US$500... and then I'll
happily agree that film is dead. :)
Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and
a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of
dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the
best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on
this list. :)
PS I'll try to stay on topic Tony, honest!
Rob Geraghty firstname.lastname@example.org