Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera



Steve wrote:

>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).

Isn't that a little *harsh*, Steve? I suppose the difference between "half 
decent" and "competent" isn't enough to argue over, but I'd submit that Acer 
scans are at least 85% "decent," even though I belly-ache about them often 
enough. ;-)

Depending on what 35mm camera you're talking about (even so-so SLR's are 
around 200+ $US around here, body only), you're talking $600-850, which will 
buy a *good* mid-range digital camera from any number of mfgrs, but not a 
Coolpix. Since I'm planning to get a DC for my daughter, I'm 
hyper-interested in the subject. Casio doesn't quite ring bells, but I might 
very well be overlooking something.

OTOH, we might *both* be under our respective kitchen tables when this 
discussion hits the List. ;-)

Best regards--LRA



>From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:19 +0100
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.