Re: APS Sucks.

Michael Benveniste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>>Your price quotes seem a little high to me here in the U.S., but
>>You're free to post different prices and an explanation why you think
>>they are enough. But it will be difficult for you to find a camera like the
>>Ixus L1 for digital at all.
>Well, let's start with the D100.  The local price here for that camera
>works out to under 1300 Euros, not 1800.  Of course, you won't find a

Where is "here"? In germany a dealer for cheapskates offers it for
1599 Euros and I'm not sure wether I really want to buy there. A
512 MB flash card costs about 117 Euros.

And I would really miss the user interface of the Pronea 6i. The
features of the D100 should be roughly o.k.

It doesn't matter anyway wether the price is 1300 oder 1800 Euros.
This is both a lot of money to get what?

>new APS camera like the Ixus L1/Elph Jr. either, it's been
>discontinued.

It's still available. And as I already own one, I don't need to buy
another one. Most I wrote was about 

>_No one_ stated that it was only for the grab camera market.  Instead,
>we were looking at the advantages and disadvantages it has in that
>category.

This statement of yours is pretty much general:

>Does APS suck?  I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
>sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
>alone any decrease in quality.  It's even more vulnerable to
>competition from digitals.

Even if we limit this discussion to the grab camera market, it
won't change anything for me. Still nothing can replace my L1.

>>>expensive digitals fall into that "snapshot" category.  Any SLR larger
>>>than a Pentax 110 is overkill.
>>For anyone? You define that?
>For the times you can do what you need to with an Epic, or your Ixus,
>an SLR is overkill.  For everyone, yes.

If you limit it down this way, this is a pretty much empty statement.

>And why is the scanning time on APS shorter?  On my Canon 4000, at
>least, it's directly proporational to the total number of pixels
>scanned.  In other words, scanning an APS negative takes 59% of the
>time of a 35mm negative at the same resolution, simply because you
>only get 59% as much data.  You can achieve the same speed for the
>same quality as APS by scanning 35mm at a lower resolution.

What about batch scanning? For sure I'm scanning the whole film.
Sure sure, you can limit the comparison down to scanning one
negative only. But if I do this, I want to get the maximum out of
that negative and in that case scanning takes hours for _any_
format.

>>I really don't care about what "people" do. That seems to be the main
>>difference between us.
>I don't care what people do when it doesn't have any influence on me.
>For example, I don't really care how much money you've sunk into APS.

Most of my money went into the lenses as APS cameras are pretty
cheap to get and the scanner scans all small formats. So I could
reuse most of my equipment. It all get's down to buying 2 new
cameras (an SLR body and a snapshoot) and a new lense for the SLR
until sensor sizes change. The time the market offers a camera like
the L1 for a reasonable (that means: reasonable to me) price, I will
quickly replace it. When the films in my fridge are empty in some
years, I will replace the SLR. But there is really no need to hurry.

>But when even "people" do something that influences the market,
>perhaps you should care.

It's always the masses who influence the markets. So I would have to
care for everything.

>Already, new APS camera choices has become limited.

I already have my cameras. And these models are cheap to get.
SLR used, snapshoot still new.

>As fewer people use APS, you'll find older film on the shelves and
>fewer places that will process APS correctly on-site.  It will also get
>more expensive to process APS film, because unlike older formats,
>APS requires expensive special equipment, and those costs have to
>be born across a decreasing number of customers.

This is simply true for _all_ dying formats. No need to panic. The
same problem will occur for 35mm, just a little later. And believe
me, 35mm will be struck hard, too. Between digital and middle size
format, 35mm will become simply useless. If you go for old style
analogue quality, you will go for middle size and up. If you go the
other way, you will choose digital. No need for 35mm nor APS.

>>I think the discussion which format is best is useless.
>Now am I sure we're not reading the same thread.  _No one_ is trying
>to say what format is the "best."  What I stated is that for me, the
>advantages APS offers aren't worth the extra cost even when picture
>quality isn't at issue.  

So your main reason to post was to complain about development
of APS in your area is expensive and sucking?

Have I mentioned that I also own a Pronea S which is an SLR that
is simply without competition on the whole camera market? Small,
lighweight and easy to use?

Btw, Nikon is sooo stupid. Why did they miss to convert their IX
line to digital? A Pronea SD would have rocked the entry level
SLR market. Now Canon is doing that more or less...