«

"Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
news:BC37556E.21232%...
> They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
> Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus
OM2.
> The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
> 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
> Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
> cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years
when
> compared with what is coming down the road.
> --
Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body will
produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out there
is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the
region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry
level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big
megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could
alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL.

Brian..........................

Never underestimate the power of large groups on stupid people, lol


> Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
> Nashua, NH | people in large groups."
>
> > From: Newsman <>
> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs
> > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT
> > Subject: Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras
that use
> > film?
> >
> >
> >
> >> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that
uses
> >> both
> >> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
> >>
> >
> > That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and
> > most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional
> > photog would use the digital feature for test shooting.
> >
> > Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can
> > take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting.
> > __________________________________________________ ____________________
> >
> >
> > IMHO
> >
> > Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to
> > the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are
> > a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a
> > considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools
> > that offer you another method of producing Images.
> >
> > As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works
> > at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing
> > Images.
> >
> >
> > Pro
> > Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's
> > Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital
> > Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who
> > change position for example.
> > Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for
> > future reference.
> > Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does
> > Digital
> >
> > Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects.
> > Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color
> > Saturation.
> >
> >
> > Cons
> >
> > Film Damages easily
> > Film - Added cost for processing.
> > Film - Can be damaged during processing.
> > Film - Scratches easily.
> >
> > Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost
> > prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's
> > will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it.
> > e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal
> > costs $10,000.00 or more !!!!
> >
> > Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not
> > produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality.
> > Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher.
> >
> >
> >
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

"Michael A. Covington" <> wrote
in message news:yLmdnWKzAcfkgo_dRVn-...
>
> "John Horner" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > > They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon
lenses)
> at
> > > Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable
Olympus
> > OM2.
> > > The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to
> equal
> > > 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
> > > Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the
digital
> > > cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years
> > when
> > > compared with what is coming down the road.
> >
> > Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ???????
>
> An OM-2 is an awfully good camera. An OM-2S, even better...
>
> But it depends on what you want. If you need digital images, a digital
> camera is better.
>
>
EXACTLY!!!, WELL SAID THAT MAN.

Brian.....................



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

The other main point you left out there
> is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the
> region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
> bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be
entry
> level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big
> megapixel camera,

Why will you have to shell out another 4000 for the next big megapixel
camera? When I bought my D100 they didn't tell me I'd have to get rid of it
when Nikon comes out with another bigger mp camera. Was that language buried
in the fine print somewhere and I just missed it? I sure hope not, I was
planning to keep my D100 as long as it suited my needs just as I kept my
Nikon N90S even after Nikon came out with the F100 and F5. But if I'm
missing something here, and there is a law somewhere that says that buying
one digital camera obligates me to replace it every time a bigger mp camera
comes on the market, please let me know because I wasn't told anything like
that by the retailer or by Nikon.

"brian" <> wrote in message
news:UesQb.1952$...
>
> "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
> news:BC37556E.21232%...
> > They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses)
at
> > Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus
> OM2.
> > The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to
equal
> > 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
> > Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
> > cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years
> when
> > compared with what is coming down the road.
> > --
> Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body
will
> produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out
there
> is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the
> region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
> bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be
entry
> level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big
> megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could
> alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL.
>
> Brian..........................
>
> Never underestimate the power of large groups on stupid people, lol
>
>
> > Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
> > Nashua, NH | people in large groups."
> >
> > > From: Newsman <>
> > > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs
> > > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT
> > > Subject: Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras
> that use
> > > film?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera
that
> uses
> > >> both
> > >> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
> > >>
> > >
> > > That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome
and
> > > most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional
> > > photog would use the digital feature for test shooting.
> > >
> > > Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can
> > > take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting.
> > > __________________________________________________ ____________________
> > >
> > >
> > > IMHO
> > >
> > > Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to
> > > the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are
> > > a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a
> > > considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools
> > > that offer you another method of producing Images.
> > >
> > > As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works
> > > at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing
> > > Images.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pro
> > > Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's
> > > Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital
> > > Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who
> > > change position for example.
> > > Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for
> > > future reference.
> > > Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than
does
> > > Digital
> > >
> > > Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects.
> > > Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color
> > > Saturation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cons
> > >
> > > Film Damages easily
> > > Film - Added cost for processing.
> > > Film - Can be damaged during processing.
> > > Film - Scratches easily.
> > >
> > > Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost
> > > prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera
manufacturer's
> > > will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it.
> > > e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal
> > > costs $10,000.00 or more !!!!
> > >
> > > Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do
not
> > > produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality.
> > > Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004
>
>

Define 'better'?

On 23/1/04 3:05 am, in article 40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost,
"" <> wrote:

> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses
> both
> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
>

"brian" <> wrote in message
news:UesQb.1952$...

> Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body
will
> produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out
there
> is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the
> region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
> bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be
entry
> level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big
> megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could
> alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL.

Exactly -- there's the cost factor.

2MP and 3MP digital cameras have replaced casual snapshots -- the pictures
that people would take inexpertly with an Instamatic or whatever. Digital
is just fine for that purpose.

Digital cameras are also taking over the market for pictures for publication
(Web or print), where the image needs to be digitized for production
purposes anyhow, and need not be terribly big. In that situation, people
are willing to spend a great deal more on a digital camera because of the
speed and the lack of film and processing costs.

But film is still the cheapest path to the highest-quality images.

"BCampbell" <> wrote in message
news:f4267702bc0249d780649f23f2ad7f65@news.1usenet .com...
>
> Why will you have to shell out another 4000 for the next big megapixel
> camera? When I bought my D100 they didn't tell me I'd have to get rid of
it
> when Nikon comes out with another bigger mp camera. Was that language
buried
> in the fine print somewhere and I just missed it? I sure hope not, I was
> planning to keep my D100 as long as it suited my needs...

Good point. I think all of the cameras I use, film and digital, are
obsolete! I don't think even one of them is in current production. And I
have a lot of cameras... the most-used are Coolpix 990, Nikon F3, Nikon N70,
Olympus OM-1...

They still work!

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:49:22 GMT, "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote:

>They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
>Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2.
>The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
>35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
>Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
>cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when
>compared with what is coming down the road.

I don't consider my F-4s or my Hasselblads old, crappy cameras!


-- DaveinFLL
===========================
"It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
===========================
(Think the humidity's bad? You should watch us vote!)

"BCampbell" <> wrote in message
news:f4267702bc0249d780649f23f2ad7f65@news.1usenet .com...
> The other main point you left out there
> > is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in
the
> > region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
> > bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be
> entry
> > level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big
> > megapixel camera,
>
> Why will you have to shell out another 4000 for the next big megapixel
> camera? When I bought my D100 they didn't tell me I'd have to get rid of
it
> when Nikon comes out with another bigger mp camera. Was that language
buried
> in the fine print somewhere and I just missed it? I sure hope not, I was
> planning to keep my D100 as long as it suited my needs just as I kept my
> Nikon N90S even after Nikon came out with the F100 and F5. But if I'm
> missing something here, and there is a law somewhere that says that buying
> one digital camera obligates me to replace it every time a bigger mp
camera
> comes on the market, please let me know because I wasn't told anything
like
> that by the retailer or by Nikon.

You don't have to get rid of your D100 but you will need to spend something
like 4000 if you want a top of the range camera. In the world of digital
photography, this means a "big megapixel camera"!

--
Dooey.

"Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
news:BC37556E.21232%...
> They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
> Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus
OM2.
> The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
> 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
> Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
> cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years
when
> compared with what is coming down the road.
>

When you say, "I asked them", does the "them" refer to the saucer people who
occasionally abduct you and put microscopic tracking devices in your head?
Just curious.

In article <BC37556E.21232%>,
says...
>
>They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
>Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2.
>The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
>35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
>Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
>cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when
>compared with what is coming down the road.
>--
>Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
>Nashua, NH | people in large groups."


It probably will beat it up, at full size 36x24mm the pure 35mm shot has more
potential, but big enlargements off the Kodak 14n will appear sharper. 8x10s
about the same, 11x14 will start to favor the Kodak. A way to get closer would
be to scan the 35mm with a dedicated slide scannerthen quality will equal out.
But if you even have standard optical prints made from 35mm High end digital
will be a superior quality print. Should you go out and spend 5 or 6 grand on a
14n and lenses, that is up to you. BTW there is a $1000 instant rebate running
on 14n's at the momment.
The 14n has some downsides, high noise levels at long exposure and at high
exposure indecies. There are many pros using them in controlled conditions. It
is kind of a camera that folks love to hate.

Tom