jimkramer wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:jsidnXW_BM6HIHvanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Pumper Hinkle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am an amateur and I've been shooting with an SLR for over 40 years.
>>>In that time I have picked up some sense of good photographic
techniques.
>>>I use photography to illustrate techniques and do***ent processes as
well
>>>as the usual snapshots of family and friends.
>>>
>>>When my trusty old Spotmatic died from severe trauma, and couldn't be
>>>repaired, I didn't know quite where to turn next. I ended up getting
a
>>>Nikon N-80 to see if I wanted to go Nikon. That led to Nikon
>>>accessories such as lenses and flashes and eventually an FM3a (which I
>>>dearly love but now rarely use). Then I picked up a D-100. At first
I
>>>bounced between film and digital but now I only use the digital and am
>>>beginning to covet an upgrade to the D300 and I don't anticipate ever
>>>shooting film again.
>>>
>>>At this point I think it would probably be wise of me to sell off my
film
>>>cameras for whatever I can get and use that towards the D300 and an
>>>SB800.
>>>
>>>So, For those of you who have abandoned film in favor of the chip,
and
>>>have gotten rid of their film cameras, what regrets do you have? If
any?
>>
>>If quality of image is not a consideration go strictly digital. It is
>>more convenient and less costly.
>
>
> Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce equal or
better
> images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films. Where this
is
> not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and the
> better, i.e. more expensive, slide films. At 10-12 MP It's pretty much
a
> dead heat.
The difference is like that between LPs and CDs.
|
