Subject: | Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film |
---|---|
From: | Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:57:30 +1100 |
Average enthusiasts don't buy $3000 cameras. Unless they total idiots of course - no shortage of those. Andrew Fildes afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On 26/10/2009, at 6:36 AM, Ken Norton wrote: > When you consider that the average enthusiest rarely shot more than > 20 rolls > per year I do believe it is a bogus argument. -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film, Ws |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film, Chuck Norcutt |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film, Ken Norton |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] An old comparison of scanned film vs microphotograph of film, Ken Norton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |