<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Digital Age</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/</link>
	<description>@ calvertgames.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:26:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wco81</title>
		<link>http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/comment-page-1/#comment-1505</link>
		<dc:creator>wco81</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/#comment-1505</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve gotten back into photography in the past couple of years with a digital.  The main benefit is no film so it&#039;s about volume picture-taking and also the ability to catalog and search through the thousands of pics I&#039;ve accumulated.

That and real convenience, although mine isn&#039;t as slim and light as other point and shoot models.  But still easier to carry around than the SLR and additional lenses I used to have.

While the resolution is up there to let me do big prints, the dynamic range is missing compared to film.  Disappointing sometimes when you take pics of interiors with just natural light and the light source is uneven (small windows within cathedrals for instance).

All in all though, probably wouldn&#039;t do as much with film.  It&#039;s nice to be able to review the pics at the end of a day.  There is no darkroom work required of course but you can get really into photo editing with advanced applications.  That I haven&#039;t done either.  Digital is partly about productivity meaning not as much work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve gotten back into photography in the past couple of years with a digital.  The main benefit is no film so it&#8217;s about volume picture-taking and also the ability to catalog and search through the thousands of pics I&#8217;ve accumulated.</p>
<p>That and real convenience, although mine isn&#8217;t as slim and light as other point and shoot models.  But still easier to carry around than the SLR and additional lenses I used to have.</p>
<p>While the resolution is up there to let me do big prints, the dynamic range is missing compared to film.  Disappointing sometimes when you take pics of interiors with just natural light and the light source is uneven (small windows within cathedrals for instance).</p>
<p>All in all though, probably wouldn&#8217;t do as much with film.  It&#8217;s nice to be able to review the pics at the end of a day.  There is no darkroom work required of course but you can get really into photo editing with advanced applications.  That I haven&#8217;t done either.  Digital is partly about productivity meaning not as much work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/comment-page-1/#comment-1470</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/#comment-1470</guid>
		<description>By the way, if you don&#039;t care about built-in shake reduction, the K110D is a steal.  I think the body is $399 and you can still use the rebate.  It&#039;s the exact same as the K100D and having looked at it, I&#039;m now thinking I could have lived without it and used that extra $80 bucks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, if you don&#8217;t care about built-in shake reduction, the K110D is a steal.  I think the body is $399 and you can still use the rebate.  It&#8217;s the exact same as the K100D and having looked at it, I&#8217;m now thinking I could have lived without it and used that extra $80 bucks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/comment-page-1/#comment-1469</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/#comment-1469</guid>
		<description>I bought mine through Beach Camera (an amazon affiliate).  The body was $460 (I used free shipping and it got to me in four days).  I purchased an 18-55 zoom for $88 and a 50-200 zoom for $225.

That being said, if I could have afforded a Canon XTi I probably would have purchased it.  But I&#039;m happy with my Pentax.  I also got $100 worth of rebates to send in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bought mine through Beach Camera (an amazon affiliate).  The body was $460 (I used free shipping and it got to me in four days).  I purchased an 18-55 zoom for $88 and a 50-200 zoom for $225.</p>
<p>That being said, if I could have afforded a Canon XTi I probably would have purchased it.  But I&#8217;m happy with my Pentax.  I also got $100 worth of rebates to send in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcalvert</title>
		<link>http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/comment-page-1/#comment-1468</link>
		<dc:creator>jcalvert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/2007/03/23/the-digital-age/#comment-1468</guid>
		<description>Can I ask how much this purchase cost you?  I have wanted to go digital for a while, but I have to go Canon since I have a couple of nice lenses.  I guess I could buy a xzy to Canon adaptor, but I digress.  Have not been able to stomach $800+ for a nice Canon digital SLR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can I ask how much this purchase cost you?  I have wanted to go digital for a while, but I have to go Canon since I have a couple of nice lenses.  I guess I could buy a xzy to Canon adaptor, but I digress.  Have not been able to stomach $800+ for a nice Canon digital SLR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

