Exactly. For about $20,000 you can get a digital camera that produces a
picture that's still lower resolution than what you get from a $10
disposable film camera. Not to mention the fact that the disposable camera
is at least 5 times smaller and lighter.
With that said, and to give this some shop-talk content, it seems like a
rugged, dustproof, greaseproof digital camera would be a welcome addition to
any toolbox. How many times have you tried to put something back together
and wished you had some pictures of what it looked like before you
disassembled it? They don't have to be Ansel Adams quality, just snapshots,
like you said. Once you get it put back together, you can delete the
pictures.
I guess that's what Polaroids are for... I see that Polaroid has a camera
now that's DeWalt yellow for the contractor market.
http://www.polaroid.com/products/instant_cameras/kits/jobpro/index.html Of
course, it's about $1/picture, but you can buy Polaroid OneSteps at thrift
shops for $5, and buy quite a bit of film before you've spent as much as the
cheapest digital camera costs.
keithka
EOS user, not yet a digital camera owner, but seriously considering it
-----Original Message-----
From: John Mikes [mailto:jmikes.gt4.38@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 1998 8:53 AM
To: shop-talk@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: RE: digital cameras
I offer this opinion as a former semi-pro photojournalist with a
closet full of old Nikons. Digitals are fine if all you want are lower
quality "snapshots." If you want stuff you can enlarge and still be
sharp, you have to use film.
-------------
**John Mikes in Minnetundra jmikes.gt4.38@worldnet.att.net
**Backstretch Careening & Carousing Society
**#38 CSR/FA Ralt RT5 **#38 GT4/Datsun 510 (parting out)
**Proud Uncle of Randy Hibbs, #2A Savin Outlaw Sprinter
|