Raymond, Having seen some of you digital photos, I must admit they are exceptional. Digital cameras are certainly more than adequate for anything published on the Web, since our screens don't have the definition that the latest digital cameras can produce. Actually, digital cameras can substitute for film cameras for virtually anything except the most demanding situations. These situations are normally out of the realm of most hobbyists - even those who present slide programs. I have made very good slides off my computer monitor - at least good enough to show at talks. Optically, digital camera lenses are simpler in design & easier to manufacture than those of larger format film cameras. This is because a digital lens doesn't have to cover as large a plane as does a film camera's lens. They have no real optical superiority over film camera lenses. Film camera lenses actually need to be optically better if they are going to take advantage of the finer definition that film produces. The best digital cameras can produce in the 2 million pixel range, but fine grained films can be produced that are orders of magnitude better. The trick is that the human eye can't define the difference without optical assistance. Digitals, as you say, allow you to edit in the camera and not waste film. This is a psychological advantage over film photography and probably why people are more successful with digitals. No one wants to waste film & money. Film photographers feel they have to wait for the perfect shot, so they don't take as many photos. A digital camera allows you to be more willing to experiment with pictures. I'd bet that the ratio of good photos to bad (for experienced photographers) is about the same for both systems. With the digital system you automatically destroy the bad images. With film they remain so you get an idea of your true success rate. If I were starting out right now, I'd buy the best digital camera I could afford and use it to photograph my fish. I'd also buy an inexpensive 35 mm Single Lens Reflex Camera to copy on film my digital photos off my monitor. Until video projectors become more common we will still need slides and "hard" photographs to show to groups of other hobbyists. Right now I waiting for a digital camera that has all of the features of my 20 year old SLR before I switch: optical through the lens viewing, manual & automatic settings for focus, f-stops & shutter speeds, multiple external flash syncs, interchangeable lenses, etc. From what I see on the market right now even the top digitals are no more sophisticated than the top-of-the-line fully automatic point-&-shoot film cameras. This is probably why the pros still burn a lot of film. That's my opinion. Mike Wise Raymond Wong wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I am wondering why is it much easier (i find) to take pictures with a > digital camera and have nice (decent) pictures,.. besides having teh LCD > screen letting you delete any pictures you don't like or want is the lens > system differ in a significant way so it's easier to take nicer pictures... > i'm not considering that a picture on film will be the best quality... i > mean scanned and put on the computer for webpage viewing or publishing? > > thanks > Raymond > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com. > For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help, > email apisto-request@listbox.com. > Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com. For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help, email apisto-request@listbox.com. Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!