ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] RE: Digital camera topics on this list (was: CanonIDs vs Pentax67II)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Paul
> D. DeRocco
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:22 PM
> To: frankparis@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Digital camera topics on this
> list (was: Canon IDs vs Pentax67II)
>
>
> > From: Bob Shomler
> >
> I disagree. There are plenty of other lists for digicams--I'm
> on a Yahoo group for the Minolta DiMage 7, since that's what
> I use. <snip>
>
> Iit's quite natural and acceptable for digicams to be
> discussed here when the topic is comparison to scanned film.
> But this list would become less useful if it were cluttered
> with discussion of digicams with no relation to film scanners.

I would certainly agree with that. Was anybody thinking it would be
appropriate to discuss digicams in a way unrelated to film scanning?
What is perfectly appropriate I would think are discussions about the
economic and technical tradeoffs, and I suspect that over time there
will be a crossover point where digicam wins out on both accounts. I
would love to observe these developments taking place through
discussions on this list.

Frank Paris
frankparis@comcast.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.