Th' Big Weasel!!

[Silverghost]

What do you call an optically challenged dinosaur?

Doyouthinkhesaurus? :laugh:

 

[DCB]

With digital, photos have almost become disposable. It is sad, but in the end I think we will have more pictures left from the 20th century than from the 21st. Odd, I recently have gone back to taking analog photos. They are sharper, brighter, longer lasting, and still less expensive. Besides, the Argus gets a lot of odd looks!

 

[DrEntropy]

If I shoot for publication it's still on film first. Ol' F3HP an' a motor drive. Poor thing looks like it's been used as a pull-toy, has at least one circumnavigation to its history. Backup were an FE & FM/MD3, F2 brick.

Not busy enough to justify a digital SLR body any longer. Let th' kids deal wifit. :wink:

 

[swift6]

Besides, the Argus gets a lot of odd looks!

Especially if it has an external focusing gear. :wink:

 

[DrEntropy]

"Brick" ???

Have one on the tchotchke shelf inna hovel. Still works AFAIK. No case tho.

 

[aerog]

Odd, I recently have gone back to taking analog photos. They are sharper, brighter, longer lasting, and still less expensive. Besides, the Argus gets a lot of odd looks!

That hasn't been my experience, but a lot depends on your equipment. If you're not shooting much then the equipment-vs-film "expense" does make film cheaper. If you're shooting hundreds or thousands of images a month then film loses pretty quickly.

Years ago I laughed at someone in one of my stores that was trying to convince me that digital would one day be better quality than film. I said it was impossible. I was wrong. There's good and bad in both, but even the newer consumer-level SLRs produce clean, sharp, low-grain/noise images that are better than the average 200iso 35mm neg film.

 

[GregW]

Backup were an FE & FM/MD3

I have an FE and an FM2. The 2 has the motordrive. I spent more on the lenses. 58 noct, 105 f1.8, 180 f2.8. Sadly, haven't put the batteries in them for years.