I get the impression that digital vs. film arguments are rather like
playground fights e.g. my toy is better that yours etc. It's personal
preference who likes what. I will only use digital when film ceases to
exist as I much prefer the results I get from film and I also think that
digital is very overpriced. For the price of a really good quality
digital camera I could buy an Ebony RSW45 and/or further expand my OM
gear. However I've used digital cameras before to create time lapse
films of some geomorphological experiments and here digital excelled.
Why doesn't the argument for digital vs. film concentrate on how the two
formats can complement each other instead of grinding each other into
the ground? I dare say there are many complementary ways, we've just
never heard of them! Sorry if this seems a bit OT but I just had to vent
some steam!!!
Best Wishes,
Gareth.
--
Gareth.J.Martin
Research Postgraduate
School of Geographical Sciences
University of Bristol
University Road
Bristol
BS8 1SS
g.j.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
attackwarningred@xxxxxxxxxxx
eclipsing.binary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
NE NLCOG - The amateur NLC observing group:
http://freespace.virgin.net/eclipsing.binary
< 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 >
|