引用:

原帖由 icheng609 於 2007-11-19 03:34 發表
Digital photo tking is much more environmental friendly and economical!

I don't think so, jus visit any camera factory in china, each DSLR will need 50L of clean water to produce, these tonix water will thorw into river and goes directly into sea, then the fishs swallow these dirty water, and then the fishmen catch these fishs and then sell to market, guess where will it end up to? yes human.

the more we use these ipod, new mobile pone every few month and digital camera, the more our health in risk. in the year of 2000 there are already 1 out of 4 person get cancer, why? because most people need these toys in crazy mode this force the factory to produce even more e-toys, the factory is happy because more $$$ in their hands, and the consumer is also happy wow canon 1dsm6, wow nikon D5 100mp pixel, wow iphone wow nokia, and guess what many Lites of water it pulloted?(we drink) and guess how dirty these factory produce(we breath) and guess how many tress they need to chop to produce the box, catalog. these all will end up related to human

compare that to film, film is more nice to our earth, I have been using my nikon fm2 for 20 years, pentax 645 15 years, eos 3 10 years, how long can you use a 1dsmark6? just within 4 years, no matter how baby care to use the digital camera, the electric parts of the camera will wear out, the software will be outdated.

引用:

原帖由 3dmax 於 2007-11-16 01:46 發表
我系講曬出黎的效果來比較。

the differnce between film vs digital is the dynamic range, not pixel count, if you talk about pixel count a 3mb DSLR already out beat any 35mm film, but if you talk about dynamic range, only s5 pro come close to a negative film, with film you can overexpose to 3-4 stop, and still recover all the highlight area, with digital you just over expose 1 stop, everything is a white paper.

so if you talk about 4R photos, film will beat down even a 1dsm6 with film you just can see so many detail in the highlight area, if you make billboard size photos, 1dsm6 will win.