Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Alex Hurst <corkflor@iol.ie> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 00:30 Subject: [Leica] Pro/Am(was Nikon 300 2.8 vs Leica SLR lens) > Now come clean, LUGnuts. Apart from pros like Ted et > al., are you really shifting enough film through those > very expensive gizmos? And is your real 'Keeper' strike > rate any better than mine? The limiting factor for me is expense. Since film and processing are very expensive, and since I generate no revenue with my photography (except once in a very great while), it is a considerable drain on the budget. I tend to photography digitally a lot more, since it costs nothing. I can shoot the equivalent of dozens of rolls a week digitally. Unfortunately, my digital cameras obviously cannot compare with my film cameras--not because they are digital, but because they are consumer point-and-shoot cameras, whereas the film cameras are professional equipment. The P&S cameras are not as enjoyable to use, and they don't provide the same flexibilty or the same quality of the final result. > I'd hate to learn that most of you are happy with those > miserable, maladjusted prints you get back from the lab. Prints? I haven't actually had anything made into prints in a long time. I just scan film, and digital images are already in digital form. -- Anthony