Re[2]: Digital camersa (non Dak related)

From: fawcett@uism.bu.edu
Date: Sun Jan 03 1999 - 01:44:18 EST


Heeheehee... I can imagine in a couple of years some of the young bucks
will be asking, "what does 35mm film mean?"... ;-)

On some of the high end models the color saturation and sharpness (or is
that pixel color and density :( was quite impressive. Moreover, they
seemed to have a standard bayonet mount for whatever focal length lens you
want --plus manual exposure controls! Thank God they still cost mega $$!

Aye, it'll be a said day indeed when ya' can't go to the dark room and
create yourrr own image (roll the rrr's and to get the Scottish accent :-)

T.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: DML: Digital camersa (non Dak related)
Author: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net> at smtpout
Date: 1/2/99 10:34 PM

In a message dated 02-01-99 7:10:16 PM Central Standard Time,
fawcett@uism.bu.edu writes:

> I go back to my 35mm Nikon's and have the images scanned (I
> guess that makes me an old fart?! ;-)

Yeah, guess I'm an old fart too :-)

The Nikon does deliver some nice detail that the digitals seem to lose.
Clarity is a bit better too.

Gene in Baytown



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:51 EDT