On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:00:36 -0400, 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.
>
> Jim
Right. I'd like to see a 3x4 foot print from a 6mp camera!!
|
