Is it Time to hangup the QL17 and Pentax Super A . Film camera

maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..

"bob" wrote in message
...
maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..

You'll be sorrrrrrry. 20 yrs ago, I sold my Pentax ES. I
just assumed that any decent 35 should come out about the same. Now I have a
Spot F and a KM, and they're the only ones that do. Bob Hickey

"bob" wrote in message ...
maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..



Naw... I suggest buy a 'Minolta Dimage scan dual III' on eBay and use those old jems,
ay? Using that scanner you can scan the film to digital and then make beautiful 10x15
prints, or have them made, if you care to make art for your's and other's walls just fine
and cheaper than a real good digicam... a lot of people do it that way, it's a shot less
convenient than digital and a shot more costly with film use. But film is more beautiful
anyway, at an artistic level.

--
Giant_Alex
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

"hickster11" wrote in message ...

"bob" wrote in message
...
maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..

You'll be sorrrrrrry. 20 yrs ago, I sold my Pentax ES. I
just assumed that any decent 35 should come out about the same. Now I have a
Spot F and a KM, and they're the only ones that do. Bob Hickey



And you need a K2 for AP and MLU, too!

--
Giant_Alex
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

"bob" wrote:

maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..


No, it isn't!

QL17s are in great demand, as the prices obtained on eBay should tell
you. Your Super A will remain a fine camera as long as film is still
available, and that will be for many years to come.

Both FujiFilm and Kodak have recently introduced new films. Market
research for Kodak in 2007 has shown that over three quarters of
professional photographers still use film, and over half prefer
results on film to digital. So film is a long way from being dead.

"bob" wrote in message
...
maybe its time to hangup these old time jems..


This page, from Bob Monaghan's now-defunct web site, is a bit dated, but
thethrust of his arguments against digital imaging still have merit.

http://web.archive.org/web/200512150.../filmwins.html

If one requires IMMEDIATE access to the recorded image, such as news/sports
photographers, digital may offer a compelling advantage over film. But if
one is a low-volume shooter, and/or one already has a lot of analog gear,
digital cameras and lenses may represent a costly alternative to buying a
film scanner.

For another unorthodox critique of the economics of digital imaging, have a
look at a recent Ken Rockwell treatise:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm

My own solution to this issue was to buy a digital P&S, to satisfy my
occasional need for instant gratification (like the old Polaroid Land Camera
did for so many people--until they realized that they got only a single
print, no negative, and the colors were poor). I continue to use my analog
cameras and lenses, and I remain very happy with them.

If money is no object, and if you want to experiment, then you should
clearly do whatever you want. You might consider not chucking your trusty
film gear right away--like me, you might decide within a few months that
digital imaging is not superior for your particular requirements.

Best of luck!