Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera

["Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>]

A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete
the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a
35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).

On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge
depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality
problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no
scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups,
immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand
held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box
unlike the damn scanner.

I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST
respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will
maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99%
will convert to digital.

The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say
he'd be completely mad to use film.

I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK
government in the event of nuclear attack!!).

Steve


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera


> "rafeb" <rafeb@channel1.com> wrote:
> > Oh, indeed.  I think digital cameras are closing fast
> > on 35 mm format.  In another year or two there really
> > won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
>
> Only if the prices also come down.  I can't see the point in buying a
3Mpix
> digicam when I can buy a good 35mm SLR for half the price.  The digicams
at
> 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet...
>
> Rob
>
>
>