Startling News!

Robert Leigh · Mar 23, 2000

The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon, Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.

4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in Taiwan.

6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in North America.

7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in resolution.” Hiroshi Ono

8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.

9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Peter iNova · Mar 23, 2000

Rodger Carter said:
The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Flash. This just in:

http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=156862

Sometimes the right time is not the previous time for news.

-iNova

Guenther · Mar 23, 2000

Is Ricoh RDC-7 also made from Sanyo?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=170535

Kyriakos · Mar 23, 2000

I strongly doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if Ricoh is making cameras for other companies as Sanyo does.

Steve said:
Is Ricoh RDC-7 also made from Sanyo?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=170535

Robert Leigh · Mar 23, 2000

Thanks Pete--I just paid $5 for the mag an hour ago!

Rodger

Robert Leigh · Mar 23, 2000

P.S. What are you doing on this site when you should be working on your book? WE'RE WAITING! (and not to patiently either)

Rodger

Richard Kemmer · Mar 23, 2000

Peter iNova said:
Rodger Carter said:

The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Click to expand...

Flash. This just in:

http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=156862

Sometimes the right time is not the previous time for news.

-iNova

Richard Kemmer · Mar 23, 2000

Peter iNova said:
Rodger Carter said:

The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Click to expand...

Flash. This just in:

http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=156862

Sometimes the right time is not the previous time for news.

-iNova

Which has more sizzle - Startling News! or Sanyo Camera?

These forums feed off of novelty. I read the Forbes article a few weeks ago.

Now, the really interesting question: If only we could get the quality of Kodak DCS 660 with the economy of Sanyo, what would happen?

(Sorry about the last empty post. I hit the wrong key.)

Jim Muehlheim14466 · Mar 23, 2000

...And I love it.

The numbers quoted seem to be growing at a rate faster than Moore's Law. I'm an art guy and therefore fairly witless when it comes to numbers but the market seems to be growing at an insane rate. Good for us. As for the magneto-optical storage drive, amazing. But who needs it if we can store our images on rolls of tape? ; ) ( http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2000/03/20000323131848.shtml )

jim

Rodger Carter said:
The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Jim Muehlheim14466 · Mar 23, 2000

http://www.villa-bosch.de/eml/english/research/optimem/optimem.html

I tested the other one and for some reason it didn't wanna go there.

jim

Mark Grebner · Mar 23, 2000

Don't see how it's related to digital photography, but whatever.

The article omits the biggest advantage of using adhesive tape as a data storage medium - when the data's obsolete, you still have a roll of tape.

-mg

Tyler Monson · Mar 23, 2000

Robert Leigh said:
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.”

I believe that that is true already. Doesn't the highest end Better Light scanning back match or exceed film now? In the meantime, Sanyo and the others still can't produce a CCD even the size of a postage stamp (35-mm film).

Robert Leigh said:
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.”

Gone like paper in the office.

Sorry, Hiro-san, but I'm not buying your Nostrodamus routine.

Cheers,

Tyler Monson
Seattle, Washington

PS: Back around 1970, I predicted that Polariod would replace regular photofinishing in a few years.

DerekW · Mar 24, 2000

Robert Leigh said:
1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.

... and Isuzu has been making SUV's for Hinda, Ford has been making pickups for Mazda (and Mazda makes the Probe for Ford), and and Mitsubishi makes the flash units for Canon, and Del-Monte makes the camcorders for Panasonic ...

Robert Leigh said:
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono

Well, that depends on what kind of film you're talking about. If you mean the cheap low-res 110-type film, then I agree. But to compete with FujiChrome Velvia will be another decade - AT LEAST.

Robert Leigh said:
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.

And then another 1-2 years for the camera makers to incorporate it into their products - but by then something better will be on the horizon (the 1GB memory stick?) so they'll be hesitant to jump in. Remember the "Superdisk"?

Robert Leigh said:
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

And office paperwork will be a thing of the past, since everything will be digital. And nobody will need photo prints anymore because they can view them on a computer monitor ....

Famous last words.

"640 KB is more than enough memory for anybody using a Personal Computer ..." (Bill Gates in the early 1980's).

"128 KB is adequate for our applications because the Operating System handles the user interface and graphics", (Apple Computer regarding their "new" Macintosh computer in the early 1980's).

Hmmmm .... Don't be so quick to throw out that SLR.

Derek W.

cliff17035 · Mar 26, 2000

Any idea whether this new 720mb memory card would fit into a compact ll
card slot? Reason being is cause I haven't bought my digital camera yet
and this new cheap memory card can weigh heavily on what camera to buy!!
Sure hope someone can answer this question.

Rodger Carter said:
The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

mikec · Mar 27, 2000

cliff said:
Any idea whether this new 720mb memory card would fit into a compact ll
card slot? Reason being is cause I haven't bought my digital camera yet
and this new cheap memory card can weigh heavily on what camera to buy!!
Sure hope someone can answer this question.

Cliff,

I think you may have your hopes up a bit high. What they appear to have announced is a very small form-factor magneto-optical disk. That doesnt change the need to have a laser mechanism that will translate the image into modulation of the laser beam to encode the data on the disk.

Think of it as a CD-WRITER. The disk is amall (well, medium sized, perhaps) but it must be placed into a device that can talk to the computer and write to the disk.

Secondly, consider the power characteristics of MO. I currently have a combo CD/DVD drive for my laptop. I hardley ever play DVD's in it. Why, because spinning the disk and operating the laser drain my laptop battery in under 1 hour.
We already have battery life issues writing to solid state flash memory devices.

While increasing the memory size and reducing the media form-factor is an important step, it doesn't appear to me to be immediately viable for onboard storage in devices where size, weight, and battery life are key issues.

Now where the entire industry has a wonderful opportunity to "change the world" is by putting enough intelligence on the camera side to make it a USB master device. With this addition, outboard devices (including high capacity hard disks) become viable secondary storage devices. Thus you might choose to by a memory chip big enough for X hours of typical use, and download to a low cost per megabyte external storage devices periodically. I currently do this with a 64Mb CF chip and a laptop computer. But I'd love to be able to take just a disk drive in my camera bag.

cliff17035 said:
Rodger Carter said:

The 20 March issue of Forbes magazine has an interview with Hiroshi Ono
of Sanyo. Much big news in a small article:

1. Unbeknownst to most of us, Sanyo has been making digicams for Nikon,
Olympus and others who put their brand name on the camera. Sanyo is now
the world leader in digicam production with 40% of the market.
2. Current market is about $3 billion.
3. Digicam market is growing at a rate of 60% per year.
4. 5.4 million digicams sold in 1999, 7.5 to be sold in 2000, 10 million
to be sold in 2001.
5. All digicams are made in Japan except for Polaroid which is made in
Taiwan.
6. Digicams to outsell film cameras by 2001 in Japan and by 2002 in
North America.
7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono
8. This fall Sanyo will introduce a magneto-optical storage drive that
will cost only 1/6th as much as current flash memories and have ten times
the capacity. Each 730MB disk to cost $20.
9. “Film cameras are likely to disappear by 2005 or 2010 at the
latest.” Hiroshi Ono

Looks like film cameras will become a market oddity even sooner than most
digicam owners have been predicting, and A LOT SOONER than the film
diehards have been stating.

Rodger

Click to expand...

Peter iNova · Mar 27, 2000

Derek W. said:
Member said:

7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what kind of film you're talking about. If you
mean the cheap low-res 110-type film, then I agree. But to compete with
FujiChrome Velvia will be another decade - AT LEAST.

Velvia may have the advantage over the films shown in this D# article but it gives an intuitive glimpse into the differences from digi to chemi.

http://www.d-sharp.net/miscall/DC/compair/d1/

-iNova

Member said:
Hmmmm .... Don't be so quick to throw out that SLR.

Derek W.

Brian Burnett · Mar 27, 2000

Here are some more technology articles that may affect the digicam market in the next 3 years.

http://www.eet.com/story/OEG19990823S0062
EEtimes article on multi gigabit storage tech.

and this was at C/NET
http://news.cnet.com/news//0-1004-200-1564871.html?tag=st.cn.sr.ne.2

note the bottom article about mediafusion
and here is another about media fusion

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-1494768.html?tag=st.ne.1004-203-343080 .

of course these are definite wait and sees, but things could get exciting as market shares increase, therefor technology rushes to meet the masses.

FJM · Mar 27, 2000

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what kind of film you're talking about. If you
mean the cheap low-res 110-type film, then I agree. But to compete with
FujiChrome Velvia will be another decade - AT LEAST.

Click to expand...

Velvia may have the advantage over the films shown in this D# article but
it gives an intuitive glimpse into the differences from digi to chemi.

http://www.d-sharp.net/miscall/DC/compair/d1/

-iNova

These pix make film look like crap, I will admit. I do not know what the problem is - is it their camera support (did they use the tripod?), focusing and depth of field (was it adequately consistent?), or scanning. I would say these pix do not seem to do an ASA200 film a whole lot of justice and I am convinced a caring and competent operator should get sharper results from the said film.

It's like one could own a very sharp lens but if it isn't focused right, it won't deliver its full sharpness, in which case the technique, and not the lens, would be to blame for the less than thrilling results.

To me the lower shot looks clearly slightly out of focus. IN addition, the film shots are larger than digital ones somewhat (which is understandable considering different digitizing methods' different intrinsic resolutions), but nonetheless should be taken into account.

For another look at film resolution with a rather better scanner, look at
http://www.users.uswest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

FJM

Peter iNova · Mar 27, 2000

FJM said:
Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

7. “By 2002 or 2003, digital cameras will overtake film in
resolution.” Hiroshi Ono

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what kind of film you're talking about. If you
mean the cheap low-res 110-type film, then I agree. But to compete with
FujiChrome Velvia will be another decade - AT LEAST.

Click to expand...

Velvia may have the advantage over the films shown in this D# article but
it gives an intuitive glimpse into the differences from digi to chemi.

http://www.d-sharp.net/miscall/DC/compair/d1/

-iNova

Click to expand...

These pix make film look like crap, I will admit. I do not know what the
problem is - is it their camera support (did they use the tripod?),
focusing and depth of field (was it adequately consistent?), or scanning.
I would say these pix do not seem to do an ASA200 film a whole lot of
justice and I am convinced a caring and competent operator should get
sharper results from the said film.

It's like one could own a very sharp lens but if it isn't focused right,
it won't deliver its full sharpness, in which case the technique, and not
the lens, would be to blame for the less than thrilling results.

To me the lower shot looks clearly slightly out of focus. IN addition,
the film shots are larger than digital ones somewhat (which is
understandable considering different digitizing methods' different
intrinsic resolutions), but nonetheless should be taken into account.

For another look at film resolution with a rather better scanner, look at
http://www.users.uswest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

FJM

The D# pictures don't show out of focus effects or camera movement. They were scanned by a Nikon LS-2000 if I'm reading the caption right. I've never encountered the beast but it does seem to resolve the grain. Look at the blue sky, for instance.

The grain of the 200 is larger and clumpier than the 100 and both show well. I think there wasn't a lot more in those 35mm camera images to be brought out.

Clark's stuff is very interesting. It sure proves that you can get more detail from a good scan, but my own experience with PhotoCD's is more like the D# results than like Clark's. We all can't own a drum scanner so the practical equivalent is more like the $1000 film scanner.

If that affordable gizmo won't make our film efforts much better than a 3 megapixel digital camera, why bother? No processing flaws, emulsion dings, scratches, fingerprints, dust or spit on a digital picture (don't ya hate it when you were just trying to blow off that eyelash and...).

I believe there are errors in this:

"The human eye resolves about 6 to 8 lines per mm from a reading distance of about 10 inches. A line means light "up, down, up, down", not just two adjacent

pixels. That is 12 to 16 pixels/mm or 300 to 400 pixels/inch at about 10 inches. These are image pixels, not printer pixels. An ink jet printer needs several

times more printer pixels (perhaps only a couple more with ink blending technology)."

A "line pair" is one black, one white. One black "line", one white "line". (Digital cameras are often expressed in ppi as if they were equivalent but they're not, by half.)

An old rule of thumb I've had for years is this: the human eye resolves 50 line pairs per degree at 20/20 maximum and that's about 250 pixels per inch at ten inches in front of your eye. I'm sure 400 pixels crammed into that inch will look fine, just don't expect to actually READ the fine print. My own vision, corrected, bears this out. Still, some people may be able to resolve detail this small but how often do you see the dots of a 300 dot screen in a fine litho at 10 inches away?

He's right about the 80 line pairs per mm of film. Another rule of thumb I've been carrying says Ektachrome 100 has about 50 line pairs per mm, tops. Film is measured right out to the limits of visible change at the point an MTF curve hits zero. A better measure might be at some specified contrast minimum like 25% or so, wherever your eye starts to give up on fine detail. Digital imaging systems hit a hard wall at the pixel size but do better than film systems up to that wall. It's why digital IMAX computer graphics can get away with being rendered at 'merely' 3072 pixels wide, and they are.

Clark makes reference to what I call the 300 ppi myth. Simply stated it implies that you need 300 pixels per inch on the paper for a picture to look photographic. It sure will, but so will one at 2/3 that pixel count and some at even less, depending on the subject, lighting, photographic intent, etc. You need the 300 dots on the screen to take the dot detail out of the visible range. You don't need to go beyond the visible to have a good photo. Or an excellent one, either.

The DOT SCREEN on a super fine lithograph is only 300 dots per inch. Since we can't see those dots on that screen at all with our eyes, do we still need to put dot sized resolvable detail into that screen to make an image look high quality? Sure, it WILL look high quality, don't get me wrong, it's just overkill. That last 2% of perceived "quality" just cost your budget 66% more storage space and handling difficulty at every step.

Film is far from dead but the 35mm variety is being encroached upon with great rapidity.

-iNova

FJM · Mar 28, 2000

Member said:
The D# pictures don't show out of focus effects or camera movement. They
were scanned by a Nikon LS-2000 if I'm reading the caption right. I've
never encountered the beast but it does seem to resolve the grain. Look
at the blue sky, for instance.

The grain of the 200 is larger and clumpier than the 100 and both show
well.

That I know to be a common misconception. You're not seing the grain. You're seing the interference pattern between the grain and the "sampling matrix" of the scanner (LS200). On a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (4000 dpi) you would see a different pattern. The ASA100 grain is really resolved at 6000 ... 8000 dpi.

Member said:
I think there wasn't a lot more in those 35mm camera images to be
brought out.

Well you have looked at the URL I mentioned which shows what scans look like at really high dpi. To put two and two together, those images are not really representative of what film can do.

Member said:
Clark's stuff is very interesting. It sure proves that you can get more
detail from a good scan, but my own experience with PhotoCD's is more
like the D# results than like Clark's. We all can't own a drum scanner
so the practical equivalent is more like the $1000 film scanner.

While of course we all don't own a drum scanner (we wish!

, it is not legitimate to drag the today's scanner limitations to the judgement of film. In a few years, those same frames could be scanned on Polaroid or Nikon or Minolta scanners with much, much higher resolution and dynamic film, which will bring more of the detail that the film frames captured would keep. That's the film quality headroom advantage - while one may not need or be able to afford to capture the full information on film, as scanners get better, better and better images could be retrieved. By contrast when one takes a digital image, not much can be done. FRactals and other interpolative algorithms can do some, but, looking at the URL I mentioned, I doubt they'll do as much as what a higher resolution scan can retrieve (up to say 10000 dpi).

Member said:
If that affordable gizmo won't make our film efforts much better than a 3
megapixel digital camera, why bother? No processing flaws, emulsion
dings, scratches, fingerprints, dust or spit on a digital picture (don't
ya hate it when you were just trying to blow off that eyelash and...).

I do, yes

I have to buy those compressed air cans which is an expense.

Well one can screw up any image. Many photographers don't hold their digital or film cameras steady enough to obtain the sharpest picture possible. Many other types of mistakes are made. However, incompetence does not affect what the medium is capable of when used properly. Depending what one wants to do with the images, digital cameras may eliminate some steps and make others more streamlined and more convenient. However there are nonetheless tradeoffs and limitations.

Member said:
Clark makes reference to what I call the 300 ppi myth. Simply stated it
implies that you need 300 pixels per inch on the paper for a picture to
look photographic.

We may talk about 300 ppi on 8x10, etc, but I feel "quality headroom" is of important significance in an image capturing technology. SOmeone had mentioned a batch of WWII frames having been discovered; blown up to great enlargement and examined up close at teh exhibition. So maybe just making a "satisfyingly sharp looking if examined at proper distance" 8x10" or 11x14" is not ultimately enough. Some images are timeless and priceless. I have a few I consider very dear to me. I sure am happy I took them with a 35mm camera with a high quality lens and ASA25 film, rather than a circa few years back digital camera. I wish I could have been able to afford a medium or perhaps even large format camera to take them with. Unfortunately that was out of my range. As the masses switch to digital cameras will (no longer mass-targeting) 35mm become gradually out of range of a typical user (pricing aand availability wise as well as advertisement / education), BEFORE prosumer digital cameras truly match the quality of 35mm film process? Think about it.

FJM

Startling News!

Forum Enthusiast

Peter iNova

Guest

Guenther

Guest

Kyriakos

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Richard Kemmer

Guest

Richard Kemmer

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mark Grebner

Guest

Tyler Monson

Guest

DerekW

Guest

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Peter iNova

Guest

New member

FJM

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

FJM

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts