[at-l] do I spend my wad on digital or film?

[l_parker at cacaphony.net (L. Clayton Parker)]

Speaking as someone who distributed and sold the very first digital cameras
(when they were $20,000 a pop), I would have to say it was because it was a
cheap camera. However, that is no guarantee that the same thing won't happen
to an expensive one. Short of going to one of the VERY expensive ones built
on SLR bodies, there is no way to add any protection (i.e. filters) to the
camera to protect it from overexposures.

That said, I have taken lots of sunset photos with my Digital Elph and have
no dead pixels. With the price of digital cameras and high cpacity memory
cards coupled with the fact that you can walk into most WalMarts and quite a
few drugstores and get instant prints of just the shots you want, I would
find it VERY hard to recommend a conventional camera, even if you are a
professional photog.

Even the VERY expensive SLR based digitals are only a few thousand these
days, and the bells and whistles that they come with literally give you a
portable darkroom in the camera.


Lee I Joe

=========
Once I knew where I was going, but now I have  forgotten.  Sometimes my mind
wanders.  Sometimes it goes alone, and other times it takes me along...this
isn't one of those times...