Re: Digital Cameras

["J. Arthur Davis" <jarthurdavis@earthlink.net>]

> 
> Nice summary, Dave.
> 
> Your point about storage is one that's often overlooked.
> How will a digital camera fare on a three-week trek through
> Nepal?  For now, it's hard to beat the storage density of
> plain-old film.
> 
> As to longevity of the gear... it's great to still be
> shooting with a 20-year old SLR, without the slightest
> worry that next month's model will make mine obsolete.
> 
> (Though I do occasionally wonder what it would be like
> using a Nikon F5 or F100 instead of an FE.)
> 
> What's interesting about digital photography is that
> it seems to be making its major inroads at the extremes
> of the market, leaving us "serious amateurs" in the lurch.
> 
> Commercial studio photographers are already into it, in
> a big way.  Pro-sumer digicams are storming ahead at
> breakneck speed.  2 million pixels today, maybe twice
> that number a year from now...
> 
> But in the meantime, those of us in the middle are left
> with -- what?  Film scanners, I guess.
> 
> rafe b.

Rafe:
I sure hate to do this to you: You wondered how a digital camera would
fare on a trip to Nepal. Well this isn't Nepal, but from what I see it
can be just as rough. Go to www.sjphoto.com and see what is capable.
This guy is really good. 

Jim Davis
www.visual-artists.com/paper
-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.