A couple of comments on digital cameras caught my eye. 1) DSLRs are "overpriced"
The original argument, as I recall was that by technical (presumably meaning resolution) standards film cameras offer more quality for less money. By resolution standards this is true, although the high end DSLRs are nearly able to challenge film there. Certainly I can get pics from a $100 spotmatic-and-55mm kit that are higher resolution than anything I could get from a *istD-and-FAlimited kit costing 20 times as much. However, DSLR and photoshop tend to be much better at getting proper color balance and exposure than any film/paper/scanner combination that I have used, which is a form of image quality. Most DSLRs are used by pros. The new wave of $1500 and $1000 DSLRS may be making inroads into that, but I'll bet that most are still used by pros. For pros, total cost of operation is more important that the cost of the equipment. DSLRs save money over film cameras very quickly under pro conditions of use. Pros also know how much quality they NEED. Sure, the theoretical quality of film is better than most if not all DSLRs, but DSLRs are GOOD ENOUGH for National Geographic, Sports Illustrated, etc. Using film for absolute maximum quality is like using Leica for absolute maximum quality--it probably is the best, but the competition is plenty good enough. 2) Are people getting better pictures by using DSLRs Yes, even compensating for the fact that my DSLRs are more capable than my film SLRs. Why? -You can shoot more with less cost and hassle. This almost always matters. -You can see what you are getting, which decreases pictures lost to dumb mistakes in exposure or framing, and increases your ability to shoot things that are tricky to visualize like mixed lighting and motion blur. -DSLRs are arguably better technically in low light than film. DJE
