On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:50:30 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to bigbrian

As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.

only at the low quality end. Full frame SLRs are still
prohibitively expensive

Yes a decent digital SLR costs a bloody fortune. At least as an initial
outlay - which is enough to put a lot of people off.

As an aside, there was a snippet in a recent New Scientist that mentioned
the Mt. Palomar Observatory. It has a video done by Patrick Moore back in
the '80s saying that the telescope used a CCD device for capturing images -
0.5 Mega pixels. Amazing. I wonder what it used nowadays, and other
telescopes for hat matter, as none of them have used film for years.

Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
fx fast-show jazz club voice Nice /fx

That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.