Search results

The point is obviously lost by now since you want to argue the semantics. I don't know why it's hard to comprehend that plenty of people find a true cost benefit with the move to digital, even those spending $50k on a digital back. The petty insults though are really fun, you want to make a...

I have made no such statement about John or his business, however I think it's not very fair to say "Digital STINKS" just because one does not use all of the tools that are around (and there is nothing wrong with that, some of those tools cost a ton of money). Or the fact that there is no sense...

I stopped visiting "regular" photography forums because of the above, the number of people who went out and dropped $2-3k on a nice little kit, and they want to start making money with photography (usually with wedding photography), yet they don't understand how the camera works, things like...

IMHO it's true for most markets, witness the death of anything film related, and it's starting to snow-ball bigger and bigger. Kodak right now is dumping all sorts of products from film related areas, walk into the local 'pro' photo store and I can buy lab equipment for pennies on the dollar...

Ok, and I can point out a number of studio's out there that blow through $10k worth of film in a week. It's not hard for a $50k digital back to become cost effective when you're snapping off 100 shots in a couple of hours. You're $30k investment could be very high, or it could be very low...

This may be a better comparison, pro-level vs pro-level instead of consumer level vs pro-level. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml Here a 39MP digital back on a MF body get's just a bit closer to 4x5 that is drum scanned. The Ken Rockwell comparison is just silly in...