Subject: | RE: [OM] AF vs. MF.. Proof!! |
---|---|
From: | "Alan" <atk@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | 31 Dec 2001 16:35:53 -0000 |
Well - this really isn't a MF vs AF debate. Why would anyone spend $1000+ on a camera and then use Gold 200 at a wedding ? As most of your post indicated Gold 200 is a poor choice of film (not only for a wedding but for just about anything). NPH (I assume you meant NPH and not NPC since NPC is 160) is a good film. Not quite as fine grain as some other 400 films but very good colour (esp if exposed at 320 or 250). I like NPH esp in 120 (where grain is less of an issue). Perhaps your sister should sell her camera and use the money for some better film and a course or two - sorry for the flame but I really can't resist in this sort of situation. Shame on me :( Alan < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Theta in Cosine^4 is the angle in image space, Joe Gwinn |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [OM] AF vs. MF.. Proof!!, Alan |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] AF vs. MF.. Proof!!, John A. Lind |
Next by Thread: | RE: [OM] AF vs. MF.. Proof!!, Winsor Crosby |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |