On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 10:49 AM, Stephen Scharf wrote:
There are more than two or three advantages that DSLRs have over 35
mm. One is not having to buy and pay for processing film. I can easily
shoot 500 frames at a go-kart race (And before you guys jump all over
me for taking 500 frames, understand that in a *business* like D&W
Images, you need to shoot a lot of frames because you're trying to get
at least one, and preferably more than one photo of *every* racer, and
there are at least two hundred or more racers). That would cost me $70
in film and about $125 in processing alone. With the D60, it doesn't
cost me anything. On my tryout day, I shot 550 frames and came home
with a CD of about 330 "keepers", and sold about $250 worth of photos
that very same *day*. Same day sales of race photos are also a BIG,
BIG plus for D-SLRs.
Sorry, but cost of film seems to be a bizarre argument when you
consider the thousands of dollars to purchase a digital slr, new
lenses, a high powered laptop to process high resolution images and
burn a CD for those same day sales. Although you are comparing apples
and oranges. A CD with 330 "keepers" are relatively low resolution
averaging about 1.8 megabytes compared to the 20 megabyte image
commonly obtained from a 35mm frame.
While I sometimes disagree, your thoughts are always interesting.
PS: Why don't you respond with a subject that follows a thread?
< 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 >
|