At 15:45 2/28/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
>Here's one place where I'll agree with you wholeheartedly, Declan; digital
>cameras suck because they are in their infancy.
You might want to read my article on this:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33244,00.html
>there is imposed time delay while the image is written to the storage medium -
There are solid complaints against digital cameras; this is not one of
them. The Nikon D-1, which came out last October, can do 4.5 photos/second.
This is comparable to all but the speediest analog cameras. My analog Canon
can only do 8 photos/sec.
>I've yet to hear of a digital camera that can match a Canon F-1 with the
>Film Canister FN and Motor Drive FN, or the Nikon equivalents (if there are
>any) [for rapid succession of photos].
You're very confused. You're thinking of the Nikon F-1. The comparable
Canon is now the EOS-1V, which replaced the EOS-1N that came out in 1995.
Although there's a lot of religious sentiment on both sides, the truth is
that Nikon and Canon are comparable -- pros generally choose bodies based
on lens selection and which interface they're most comfortable with.
>Just out of curiosity, what camera do you favor?
For digital, a Nikon 950; for analog I have a Canon EOS 5. When I need
higher quality I rent a 6x6 Hasselblad, which I shot my Christmas cards
with last year. I haven't bought one yet.
For comparison's sake, when I was in Anguilla I shot maybe a dozen digital
images and about 10 rolls of Velvia, Reala, and Neopan.
>Cypherpunk angle - when will the digital cameras the gov't uses filter down
>to the public, or are they merely using elaborate lense systems that are
>impractical for a handheld portable digital camera?
This is nonsense.
-Declan
