[ale] great digital camera?

[Danny Cox]

Irv,

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 09:47, Irv Mullins wrote:
> My question is, short of the $5,000 professional Nikon class, do any digital 
> cameras produce results as good as can be gotten from a same-priced 
> conventional camera?

	Well, that's a pretty subjective area.  For me, yes!  My Olympus 3040Z
is a 3.? megapixel camera, and with that resolution, I can blow up shots
to the 10x7 inch size, and still not see any pixelation (sp?).  Given
that all it costs me is the paper and ink, I consider it well worth it! 
I also have a cable that connects directly to a TV RCA video-in, and can
run through the pics that way.  No paper needed.

	I save on the film development, printing, and turn-around time.

	In a rather different world, let me tell you how my brother-in-law uses
his pro-digital camera.  He has become the default photographer for the
Atlanta Beat, the Atlanta Women Soccer team.  He bought a high-end Kodak
digital camera that accepts his extant Nikon F4 lenses (the body, except
for the digital imaging hardware may *be* a Nikon F4).  This camera
accepts a 1 GB microdrive, which he fills up by halftime.  He exchanges
that drive for another, and the first drive goes with their web-master
to be up-loaded to their web page right then.  Pretty slick.  Of course,
this camera takes truly MONSTER size images.  TIFFs of 5 megabytes or
more each!  He can produce a two-page magazine shot, and have resolution
left over.

	So, in a sweeping transition back to the original question, yes, it's
fine for me.  YMMV.

-- 
kernel, n.: A part of an operating system that preserves the
medieval traditions of sorcery and black art.

Danny


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.