Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin)
Date: Tue Nov 23 02:56:29 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com> <341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net> <20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au> <003501c4d059$234f8fe0$87d86c18@ted>

G'day Ted, I'm not getting too hung up, but I suppose I'm deciding 
whether to trade in most of my film cameras and plough into digital 
(even if for the R8) or maybe to wait a few years and keep using film 
with a scanner. In reality, I probably need to have a scanner at least 
for a couple of years in order to get my "slide" collection onto discs 
etc, so perhaps there is no real argument, but I also suspect the film 
cameras will be worth nothing soon if not now. ;-)

Cheers
On 22/11/2004, at 5:04 PM, Ted Grant wrote:

> Alastair Firkin asked:
>>>> This brings me back to my nagging question; will today's good film 
>>>> scanners
>> "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you view 
>> moderately large images side by side? <<<<
>
> Alastair,
> You are going to beat your brains out on this comparison print thing 
> simply because a print from a scanned neg and inkjet printer or 
> digital camera print and print from the same negative is like 
> comparing a modern day jet fighter aircraft with a Spitfire!
>
> They both are beautiful aircraft standing alone. However, put them 
> side by each and one looks more beautiful than the other in the eyes 
> of the viewer. However, different people will vote for one over the 
> other and visa versa, usually. But that doesn't mean one is better 
> than the other simply because this kind of film print and digital 
> print is without question, comparing apples and oranges! Period.
>
> And because I like both apples and oranges I've given up bothering 
> with discussions that get all hung-up on which is better and which 
> isn't, digital or film simply because man the only thing that counts 
> is............. does it look great to you? And if the answer is, "Yep 
> looks pretty damn good to me!" Then that's your answer!
>
> Other wise all the numbers become meaningless compared to what you 
> actually look at! Do you like it or do you not like it, that's all 
> that counts!
>
> Sure more mgp's is better under certain situations and under other 
> they make little difference.
> ted
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
Alastair


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)