[rollei_list] Re: the pleasures of Rolleiflex
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 06:29:54 -0400
We've been through this before... this is simply untrue. Repeating
something that's inaccurate does not make it so.
Eric Goldstein
--
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:02 AM, Frank
Dernie<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (snipped)
> I think this is quite an outmoded theory. Early digital was very expensive
> and had poorer resolution and dynamic range than film. Digital now has
> better resolution and dynamic range than film.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
