[rollei_list] Re: Comparison: scanned Rolleiflex Slide vs. 100 ISO ditigal...

Can't really agree –
It's only recently that we've had digital cameras with good 'shelf life.'  Mike 
Johnston, on his Online Photographer website, listed the Canon 5D as one of the 
first 'keepers' that wasn't superseded by something with better image quality 
within a couple of years.  
Besides a couple of point-&-shoots, I had two Canon DSLRs before Leica made a 
digital camera, and then I found the M9 to be, for my purposes and print sizes, 
a substantial improvement over the M8. 
That's three high-end digital cameras re-sold for about 60% of purchase price 
in 7 years.   
That would buy a small truckload of film.  
Kirk

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:19:45 -0600
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Comparison: scanned Rolleiflex Slide vs. 100 ISO 
ditigal...
From: dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

How can you say that film is cheaper?  Once you buy the camera, digital is 
surely cheaper.  And, when you compare the cost of a new Rolleiflex to a new 
digital SLR, no advantage to film either.
Over the life of the camera, the total outlay for digital is surely less than a 
comparable quality camera purchased new using film.                             
          

Other related posts: