Digital Photography Survives the Test of Time?

The Reids writes:

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids writes:

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

Then stay with film. That's what I do. The final results look better,
and they are less expensive to obtain.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids writes:

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

Then stay with film. That's what I do. The final results look better,
and they are less expensive to obtain.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids writes:

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

Then stay with film. That's what I do. The final results look better,
and they are less expensive to obtain.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:41:21 +0100, The Reids wrote:

Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

I have just got one of the Panasonic FZ cameras, seems there
are Wide Angle converter lenses available. What is the
advantage to having a wider angle than the one the camera
already has?

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:41:21 +0100, The Reids wrote:

Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

I have just got one of the Panasonic FZ cameras, seems there
are Wide Angle converter lenses available. What is the
advantage to having a wider angle than the one the camera
already has?

"The Reids" wrote in message
...
Following up to Mxsmanic

I just had another look at digital, you still cant get a setup
including a decent wide angle lens for sensible money.

You can print any photo captured with any technology using any printing
method (except that you cannot print electronically-captured photos with
enlargers, as a general rule).

Yes, but that's not my problem, i'm already completely digital
post camera. Its just the cost of lens/body to get effective
focal lengths down to my current wide 17mm. It seems I can do it
with Cannon or Pentax for about ukp1500 but i'm unsure if such
extreme wides will be as good as full frame 35mm with moderate
wide angle glass. As for compacts they all seem to start above
28mm, not what I want at all.

The Canon digital SLR's use the EOS range lenses albeit
with a 1.4 modifiying factor (multiply 35mm rating by 1.4)

The EOS 300D comes with a 18-55 equivalent lens as standard
for around £700 from Jessops

Keith