[PRCo] Re: Cameras

[Fred Schneider]

That statement was "Wouldn't it be nice to have in 1940, 1950 and  
1960 ..."

I know Jim.    And I'm grinning as I write this. Digital is  
marvelous.   I've seen some fantastic stuff that John Bromley has  
shot in the last couple of years in Europe on digital with his  
Nikons.    But I'm an old fart that resent change because I need to  
warehouse to accommodate the changes.  This house is F-U-L-L.    I  
can't move it to the PTM library as fast as it fills up.   I been  
filing negatives and slides for years.  I've exposed and cataloged  
over 15,000 negatives and probably over 25,000 slides and I hate the  
thought of changing from slides to digital.   It's not spending the  
$1300 to $2000 for the camera that bothers me but rather the whole  
technological shift.   You see, I can make up a slide show and take  
it to an East Penn or a Tractioneers meeting.   But if I shift to  
digital, then I need to buy a digital projector.   And then don't go  
for $100 to $150 like a Kodak Carousel used to.   They run $500 to  
$5,000 on top of $1000 to $2000 for the Nikon.   Or I send the  
digital files out to someone else and have him convert the files to  
color slides at $2.00 per image (you limit the number you do really  
fast).  Also I would need the $300 digital ink jet printer to make  
the 8x10 prints.   And of course we need to invest about $400 in a  
scanner to make prints from slides and negatives.   And I don't have  
room for a printer, a scanner, and another projector, let alone more  
of those nice plastic models of PCCs you keep selling me.

The flip side is that I don't like idiots at airports passing my  
films through x-rays.   I'm thinking seriously of vacationing in  
Dehli and Mumbai (Bombay) in 2008.   And that may just be when I buy  
the Nikon Digital as a backup in case some a-hole ruins my films with  
x-rays.   And if I don't go to India in 2008, Globus has some great  
tours of mainland China for only $3000.    When you invest $5,000 in  
a vacation, what's another couple of grand for a camera?  So, in all  
sincerity, I probably will not get through another year without  
joining the ranks of the digital herd.

End of diatribe.

fws3 9/16ths   (the 9/16ths is B. S.)




On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Jim Holland wrote:

> Fred Schneider wrote:
> .
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice to have in 1940, 1950 and 1960 ...
>>
>> a. a camera with the computer generated optics that we have today so
>> that every lens is perfect,
>>
>> b. a color film with the speed of 100 ASA for normal work that has  
>> the
>> shadow detail like you can get with digital processes and the  
>> grain of
>> Kodachrome, the projection dye longevity of today's Ektachrome and  
>> the
>> dark storage dye longevity of Kodachrome (i.e. something you could
>> project over and over and over and still it will last a 100 years).
>>
>> c. and a color film for working at night that you can push to 1000  
>> ASA
>> like today's digital cameras???????
>
> .
> .
> Digi--Cameras   DO   ALL   the above without having to change
> film!!!       Just change the settings.      A DigiCam would seem  
> to be
> Right Up Your  --  Alley!!!!!!!
> .
> .
> .
> Jim___Holland
>
>
>