Tony: Totally agree as for the complexity issue... I used a Pentax Spotmatic for
years... I still keep a 1967 Nikon F in my bag... When the batteries on my N90
die
(I am talking about the spares) and I am someplace like Macchu Picchu or an
isolated construction site, the old F and the film box exposure meter come in
mighty handy... it also helps to shoot color neg, so you got some room with the
exposure...
MikeM.
Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:34:31 -0700 Michael Moore (miguelmas@qwest.net) wrote:
>
> > BTW, I use a
> > Nikon N90s, cost me $750 for the body new... uses the same glass as the
> F-5... It
> > seems to me a camera is actually a more complex animal than a scanner, even
>a
> film
> > scanner...
>
> Dunno. A camera is just a box with a hole on the front. Most of the addons
> apart from a viewfinder and shutter are voluntary complexity which *can* be
> enormously helpful or otherwise (there are times I hate my EOSin's:). You'd be
> pushed to see much if any improvement in ultimate image quality between a 1961
> Pentax SV and your N90's both with standard lenses.
>
> > when enough fotogs start to figure out they are going to have to scan or
> > die, the market will get really competitive for their dollar, just like the
> pro
> > camera market is...
>
> I think we just arrived about there.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
> comparisons
