Heya Kreggan!
Feb. 20th, 2006 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceagle(and any other photographic enthusiasts) ...
*wooot and warble!*
I picked up a Mamiya 645/1000s for a song! *skreeeeeee!* :D
*tucks it in the kit along with the Rollei and the Hasselblad..*
and speaking of song... I also joined the iPod generation ^v^ *wags feathers* (used yeah, but still snazzy...) :>
take care all!
*wooot and warble!*
I picked up a Mamiya 645/1000s for a song! *skreeeeeee!* :D
*tucks it in the kit along with the Rollei and the Hasselblad..*
and speaking of song... I also joined the iPod generation ^v^ *wags feathers* (used yeah, but still snazzy...) :>
take care all!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:18 pm (UTC)As for your dentist--- Some dentists still use film, although I believe mine has now switched to digital. Like the first digital still cameras, the technology can only improve and become more affordable. I paid $1,600 for my first semi-pro digital camera almost 7 years ago (a 1.6megapixel Canon that was clunky and slow), yet several months ago I paid only $350 for a 5 megapixel Panasonic Lumix "super zoom" that has features and capabilities that amaze me every time I use it.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:34 pm (UTC)We have a Kodak DCS410 around here somewhere that cost $20,000 or so when it came out. We also have a DCS520 and DCS560 that I want to say were $10-$15,000 new. Our Canon EOS-1Ds cost around $9k or so. Now, we have a Canon EOS-1Ds MkII that I think was around $8k.
The prices are falling and the capabilities are going up. I have a Nikon D70 that cost around $1300 as a full kit. Someone I know has a D100 that does less overall (though it has some advantages) that was $1600 for just the body. Now, you can get the D200 for around $1600, just the body, but it's more capable than both the D70 and the D100. But you can also get for $600 or so the D50 body, so ... I expect that by the time I buy a new camera I'll pay around $1000 body only (now that I have lenses I don't need to buy kits) and get a much better camera than the one I have now.
As for your story: indeed, I have noticed that some images do show details better if they're inverted, especially some anaglyph 3D images (that paper you got has some samples of the sort we make). So it never hurts to try that.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 10:51 pm (UTC)Still, for the price differential and the uses I have for a digicam nowadays, I won't be buying one like his unless I win LOTTO. ;)
When you update your camera body, check out the reviews on www.dpreview.com *first*. They convinced me to buy the Lumix instead of several other similar-featured cameras, and they did the same for my friend for the one he bought.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-20 11:07 pm (UTC)I know about dpreview; I read that and steves-digicams if I need to look up information about a camera.
The D200 gets good reviews pretty much everywhere although it's relatively pricey because it's more of a pro-level camera. It has several features that I'd like to have but I don't yet have the money set aside for it. (Well, technically, I do; but at this point I'm not going to jump in yet; I'd rather hold that cash for now, and the D70 hasn't died on me yet. If it does, though, I'm in the middle of a photography class and would pick up a D200 so I wouldn't be camera-less; don't yet have a backup. The D70 would go to Dad).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 01:58 am (UTC)The D70 is a FINE camera (still better than the little Lumix I have) and will do you well until you decide to spring for the "delux" version. ;)