Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]But Daniel, I like sow's ears. Seriously, it is not digital, but the fact that I would wander around with 36 frames in the camera. I always had in the back of my mind that I only had 15 frames left. Now, my roll of film is a little over 200 frames and the back up roll doesn't make me glad to see you. With digital, there is almost no pain to just pushing the shutter. I have all the options I always had with image grain and texture as well as most of my lenses but now can develop ten rolls of film in about fifteen minutes in daylight while talking to SWMBO. Plus, the inferior camera works just like my eyes and hands have become accustomed to these past thirty years or so. Nice portrait of your daughter this week. Bend your knees next time, she is going off to school far away all too soon. :) Don don.dory@gmail.com On 2/17/07, Daniel Ridings <dlridings@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/17/07, Don Dory <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Second is an example of a picture I probably would have walked by in > film > > days: > > > > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/DoryG/On-the-road/PAW+2007/Week+7/week7b.jpg.html > > > > This is my pick of the bunch, but I really can't see why it works > better with digital than film. If it was digital that was holding you > up, surely you didn't have to wait for a second class, overpriced > camera? > > Best, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >