Re: Digital versus film
- From: Richard Polhill <richard.news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 10:50:22 +0100
dennis@home wrote:
"jeremy" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:cmL5i.33$aW5.31@xxxxxxxxxxxThat is a point, though. What could you buy to improve the pictures taken by a Spotmatic?"Pete D" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4657602f$0$17964$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-Digital has come quite a long way since this article was written, the D100 is rather old now wouldn't you agree?
Not as old as my Spotmatic IIa, from 1971, which continues to take the same great images that it did over 3 decades ago. Some of us do not wish to get onto the planned-obsolescence treadmill. I have other pursuits in life, rather than to replace my camera every 18-24 months.
Why do you feel that you need to change a digital camera every few years?
Unless it breaks it is still going to produce shots that are as good as when you bought it.
The only reason to buy a new one is if the new one gave you better results and you wanted/needed those results.
The same is true for your Spotmatic if you wanted/needed better results you would buy a new one.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: dj_nme
- Re: Digital versus film
- References:
- Digital versus film
- From: david
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: Frank Arthur
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: Ken Hart
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: jeremy
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: Pete D
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: jeremy
- Re: Digital versus film
- From: dennis@home
- Digital versus film
- Prev by Date: New Photos in Photo Travel
- Next by Date: Re: Captions
- Previous by thread: Re: Digital versus film
- Next by thread: Re: Digital versus film
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|