On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: > Chris, > > I wasn't arguing so much about price. It's more about time.
That's why I said that the rant wasn't directed against you. :) And yeah, it can take a while to print images yourself... but a good lab can give as fast a turn-around time as film, and often even faster. > About a year ago it seemed pretty clear (from what I read) that digital was > FAR from the quality of film, by about a factor of 10. I'm talking again > about RAW information. > > It doesn't seem that we've come far past that. Maybe a time and 1/2 in the > last year? For something that the ordinary person can afford? Well, I've been working at Don's for just over three years now, and digital's come a long way in that time, IMO. I remember when 1.3MP cameras were the rage, while nowadays the standard is 3MP and up. But yeah, they are expensive, aren't they? This is just a matter of time, though, and after some more years pass I fully expect to see kick-ass quality digital come down to affordable levels. > I even think a 640X480 Mavica does a nice job for what I use it for. > > I think digital is fine for every day use. I'm not convinced it's fine for > more than that... yet. For me, it's a bit like a cell phone. I use my 2MP digital for certain things (eBay, parties, etc.) because it's small, cool, fun, and good enough quality for what I want to do with the images... just like I use my cell phone for pretty much the same reasons. At the same time, the audio qualiy of my cell isn't good enough for me to use it all the time as my only phone, so I still have a land-based one. It's about the right tool for the job, not about which format is intriniscally better. Again, this is just a general observation, not anything directed at Tom. :) > Respectfully, > > Mighty Mouse Ditto, Arthur Dent - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
