Shyrell Melara <shyrellmelara@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I changed it. But I'm wondering why you didn't. > > BTW- I agree that both film and digital have problems. Case in > point: My recent fiasco where the film I shot for a wedding was > ruined by the processor. As for shooting macro shots of florals > outside in the wind with a digital, forget it. By the time the > camera gets focused and the shot is taken, the flower has moved out > of frame. Shooting the same in full sun with high shutter speed and > manual focus, I've gotten some great shots on film. One even got me > a second place prize in a photo contest. First place went to a > landscape shot. Some consumer P&S digital cameras focus slowly still, I'm sure, but the serious ones are exactly as responsive as the film bodies -- because they *are* the film bodies, with the film transport replaced by digital electronics. However, for macro work, you'll find they get noticeably more depth of field (for the 1.5x crop-factor family), and you'll find you can run ISO 400 with better results than ISO 400 film produces, so you can use a smaller aperture or higher shutter speed than with film. And, because the shots cost nothing, and because you can check in the field exactly what you got, you can also get difficult shots that require "luck" *and know you got them*. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
