Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (8305)	12/5/1999 5:31:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

With two grandchildren and a 91-year old mother who likes to get e-mail photos of her great grandchildren, I have no difficulty whatsoever making well over 300 shots a year.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (8305)	12/5/1999 5:44:00 PM
From: Tumbleweed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Liberating effect of digital FRom Paul Senior; I thought I needed a new camera. After weighing some of the positives and negatives, I was helped to decide by a straightforward clarifying post by Art B: I just don't take more than 300 shots per year, ergo, conventional for me. I finally chose an Olympus iZoom75. It's still too much camera for me, too expensive for the value I think I'm getting. Paul, possibly one of the reasons you take 300 pictures a year is that you are NOT using digital! I still have 12 pictures in my 35mm SLR from a trip I took to Paris in August, because its a 36 exp film. The used films I develped when I got back, but the part used one will probably end up being finished off with some Xmas photos! On the other hand, I have put many pictures of my trip to Paris which I took with my digital camera on the web, and taken many pictures with it since then, because I just wanted to take one or two pictures and do something with them straight away. Make a screen saver picture, email a friend a picture of our house, and so on. You simply cant do that single or limited shot stuff with 35mm. SO even though my digital camera has worse resolution than my 35mm, I still find its more useful. The resolution of those 12 pictures in my 35mm canister is immaterial if I dont see them! And quite possibly they will all be rubbish. On the other hand, the shots on my digital were all my best ones because I was able to delete bad ones as I went along. (of course, some may say that the 'best ones are still rubbish..<g>.......) I find digital is more liberating than 35mm, because unless you use a LOT of film, those 24 or 36 canisters restrict you in a way that hadn't occurred to me until I went digital. Finally, if you still take 300 shots a year on digital, most of those will be the good ones. How many good shots do you get out of 300 conventional? I reckon to get maybe 5 or 10 ones I am pleased with out of 36 (but then I'm picky) BTW, not meant to be personally critical of your decision, JMHO on how the side effects of digital are even bigger than some of the mainstream benefits, triggered by your comment. Joe