Hi Bob ... nice to see your smiling pixels here ... how's it going. You're probably gonna get a wide range of answers about what's needed in the way of resolution. I'll stay out of that discussion as the technical wizards here know far more than me. I'll just go sit in the corner and read a comic book <LOL>.
As to your second question, I''m using a 4mp consumer-grade-somewhat-better-than-a-plain-P&S camera. It's my second little digicam, I enjoy it for what it is, and the results from an 11mb TIFF file have surprised me - and quite a few people on this list, too, as well as holding up very well in terms of quality to the Canon 300D (sounds like an old Mercedes I once had) and the 10D. My cost was $400.00 plus a few bucks for digi-film and a spare battery. However, costs are expected to escalate soon as I move away from the chemical darkroom to doing more work with Photoshop. Right now I'm in the early stages of considering scanners, and at some point after that a printer. However, I've not decided on the quality level I want, so I may just get some medium quality gear at a good price and continue to work with a couple of labs here for high end scans and printing. At the moment I'm peripherally engaged in testing and comparing two scanners, the 4000 whatever Nikon and the Epson 3200. I say peripherally because, although I've used the Nikon before, it's been a while, and a friend has both scanners. He's sent me some comments and the results of his tests, and now it's time for me to go play with his gear for a day or so, using my own negs, making my own adjustments, and being as super-critical as possible. I'm moving slowly when it comes to digital photography ... I've played with and used a number of DSLR cameras, and none have given me the feeling that I should trade a Leica or an LX for one. All of the ones I tried produce results that a) don't justify their cost, b) provide very little pleasure to use, and c) require an investment in lenses that I'm not too interested in making at this point, or d) have software that produces questionable results ... and I do not want to go down the path of experimenting with software any more than minimally. I just want to point, shoot, and compute, even with a DSLR ... The Pentax istD is nice in terms of its size, and it can make full use of the Pentax A lenses, so there are already a few good primes here, and others may not be too expensive. But I'm in no rush to spend my money <LOL>. The results just don't push my buttons past the level of convenience. I love not having to process film and to be able to work on my photos right away. Oh, how I love the convenience, and I'd love it all the more with a few gigs of memory on a CF card. But, for me, there's more to photography than convenience. Thus far my computing power is adequate, but with larger files, or more files to download, I may need more "torque" <g>, and I'm not in the position or mood to buy a new machine, plus a printer, plus a scanner, plus, plus, plus. And there are always pluses ... I may, however, consider an upgrade to the Sony digi I'm now using ... So, I'm just starting on the road to a digital destination, but not sure if I'll arrive, or at what point on the road I'll stop or detour. Digi's cool, and lotsa people love it for any number of reasons, but not for me, not now. Bob Rapp was talkin' out loud again: > > I also previously posted asking members if they were on the second or > third digital camera. I have noticed some here are already into the 2nd or > 3rd scanners. > 1. So, in terms of "where is digital now in terms of matching 35mm film > performance?" > 2. What generation are you in in your move to digital and what are the > costs involved to get to where you are.
