Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Andrew Nemeth wrote: > >It is also largely good enough for web publication. > > No offense to Mr Ball, but why do people assume that the www > is some crap, lowest-possible-common-denominator-will-do medium? > Do people shoot on super-8 because it is 'only' for TV? Do > people shoot stills onto miniDisc because it is 'only' for > advertising? > Garbage in/ garbage out. If you want a high quality site then > you use high quality images. And digital capture just doesn't > cut it in a cost-effective way. Not yet. ;^) Super-8 (film) is/was not crap. Back to the point: high quality web publishing is achievable today through any of the 'megapixel' mid-range, consumer oriented digital still cameras. Try this: http://www.nikonusa.com/products/imaging/digitalgallery/moosebird.html I insist that this is web publishing, not an alternative to print out high quality enlargements. For the rest, I agree with you. I have no wish and no need to jump into the digital bandwagon today because of all the reasons that have been mentionned in this thread. The only disagreement in this discussion was about the time line needed to get to the point where digital will take over the 35mm SLR (and RF) marketplace. Jim says 50 years, I say less than 10. This has consequences on the way we plan investments today. I sure hope Leica will start giving clearer signals as to the evolution agenda for the M and R lines on the matter... Alan