Chris Barker <cmib@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Don't worry Frank, I got your humour.
This message is intended as a *lighthearted* observation:-)
<.....snip.....>
And: are Zuikoids who buy Camedias still candidates for the List? (I can't
afford one of those as well :-)
I get it <g>. Kidding aside, there was a robust discussion recently on a
photo newsgroup about digital photo vs silver photo. It was quite
interesting at first; a shame it degenerated from philosophical discussion
to a holy war after a while. What I have discovered is it is not an
"either - or" choice, but rather a "silver *and* digital" option. It is
obviously expensive to pursue both imaging forms, but that's a fact of life
when one gets serious about any endeavor. The cost of entry for film is
really very low compared to digital. One can have labs to all the
processing and even a cheap P&S records more detail and tonal range than
digitals. As scanners improve and get cheaper, I see an excellent melding
of the two imaging forms.
I use an Oly D-300-L digital camera for a lot of my web work. Its easy,
quick and the image quality is "good enough". It has its limitations, and
to work around those I use my humble OM collection to make "real" photos,
then scan them. Someday, I hope to have a full-size (A4 size) scanner and a
35mm film scanner to compliment my home darkroom. And in my dreams, Olympus
will introduce a digital body that accepts all the OM lenses and
accessories. Maybe someday..........
But in the meantime, Camedia's still use Zuiko lenses, so they still count
<g>.
John P
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|