Re: APS Sucks.

On 30 Oct 2003 10:25:37 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Benveniste)
wrote:

>     Elph Jr. -- 3.5" x 2.4" x 0.9" -- 4.4 oz.
>     Olympus  -- 4.3" x 2.3" x 1.5" -- 4.7 oz.

Well, it's academic, as the Elph Jr. is discontinued, but from my
perspective, I'd say the Jr. is "roughly *half* the size," not
"roughly the same size."  I also appreciate the drop-in loading and
reduced pocket space of the APS cartridges.  The original post about
bad print quality and such is just bogus ranting in my experience.  If
I was planning a wall full of 11 x 14 enlargements, I'd use something
else, but that's an extremely uncommon occurrance here.

As to the broad generalities of APS marketing history, I 'd say the
failure to provide a full spectrum of films is probably the biggest
shortcoming.  Also, back to my favorite subject, compactness, the high
end SLR APS cameras were only marginally more convenient to drag
around than a 35mm, so why switch.  Folks who want prosumer SLR
features can probably thread a 35mm film OK, so drop-in loading isn't
significant.   In theory, the exposure data recorded could allow for
better printing, but as has been pointed out, use of the technology
was slow in arriving.   In the low end point and shoot spectrum, I
still see plenty of cameras and film in discount chains around here, I
don't think the death of APS is imminent, but high volume, low margin
sales don't argue for any ongoing expansion or investment.

I'm eyeballing digitals lately myself.  For regular frequent use, they
would be fine but for an occasional shooter, they represent a large
up-front and quickly obsoleted investment.

All this said, if I'm ever looking for a replacement pocket camera and
still want film, I'm well aware that the Stylus series is worth a
look.

DaveT