Roland wrote:
> I understand that professionals might need the digital
> throughput and can afford the investment (and re-investment,
> via depreciation, etc).
Not really. I was spending around $250-300 on film, processing
and proofs for the average wedding. Now, my amortized costs
with digital are around $250-300 for the average wedding. And
I'm doing it on a shoestring as compared to most of my peers.
One friend estimates his costs at close to $500 per wedding.
The great "LIE" of digital.
Digital brings more efficient workflow and a general improvement
in the image quality, but the cost savings just do not exist.
> I am also still wondering how a lens can possibly resolve more
> than 5 MPixels on a frame smaller than full format. Am I
> misreading MTF charts ?
Magic.
AG
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|