Re: Digital Cameras

[frank1492@worldnet.att.net (frank1492)]

I'm not a professional photographer, but I think I know
what a good photo image looks like. I just purchased
a Fujifilm MX-1200 (street price=$200-$300) and I'm
thrilled with it. No telephoto, but fits in your shirt pocket.
    The color and sharpness of images printed 7X9 with
a good printer are excellent, though I admit they may
not quite have that "film look".  We all know what
"film look" means, but who's to say it's the gold
standard for image reproduction. It's simply a con-
sequence of using conventional film for so many
years.
    The only peculiarity I notice is that diagonal lines sometimes
look ever-so-slightly  jagged, but that would be rectified with a
higher pixel camera.(The Fuji is only 1.3MB.)
    My reco here would be somewhat different than the
others. I say try this camera to get a feel for digital, with
the distinct possibility that you'll be astounded. If you're
not, you haven't lost much. I really think there are a lot
of folk who think digital hasn't  "come of age" when
in fact even cheap cameras like this prove that it has. 






On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:43:16 +0100, Andrew Price
<aprice@mail.dotcom.fr> wrote:

>Can anyone advise me on a replacement for my excellent twenty year-old
>German single-lens reflex camera, which has become unusable because
>the battery it uses is no longer manufactured.
>
>I had thought of purchasing a digital camera, but I was told by
>someone who bought one about a year ago that although it sufficed for
>his web-site needs, the image quality was not brilliant.
>
>Have digital cameras improved since, or would it be better investing
>the same money in yet another SLR and a slide scanner?