scott_gant2

I would go ahead and pick one up. But don't go with the zoom. I would start with a good prime lens. Like the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM. Use a basic lens and with being able to see what you've shot afterwards will help a lot.

But if you wait till next year, there may be a 7 or 8 megapixel camera out at the price you see now or cheaper. But if you wait to get that, the next year after that there may be a 10 megapixel camera etc etc etc.

You could go on and on and on with the waiting. Best to start now or else you can wait forever.

25 a year isn't that much money, I agree. I couldn't break my budget at the moment because we're on financial lockdown at the Gant household and ever cent is accounted for...at least for the time being.

But, what I COULD do is a month by month reaccuring fee...of say $5 a month.

Sites like Gamespot have a membership there that asks people to pay $6 a month and they have a TON of content (for videogamers) including high speed downloads etc etc. I don't see why Photo.net couldn't adopt the same model. They still have lots of goodies for free there for non-members, yet non-members have a much longer wait for downloads etc etc.

If this site is getting the huge amounts of traffic as people claim, then it's a goldmine waiting to happen for ads. I'm not talking about a TON of obnoxious ads, but ones that are photo releated and are small. They generate more money, will let them upgrade hardware/software, offset the cost of storing photos online and will be another perk for subscribers (they can turn the ads off).

These are just some thoughts. I'm WAY in the deep end of the pool talking about all this, but I'd like to see photo.net get better and better as I'm sure it will.

Most of the patrons it seems are telling people "well, if you want faster service and better hardware, you should become a patron and fork over some cash." I can see their point, but it kinda falls flat.

Suppose I become a patron, and STILL photo.net is slow and they're still on slow hardware etc etc. I've paid for something that I can barely access. I am glad that there are people out there that have no problems at all with photo.nets speed, but I've tried coming to this site at different hours of the day and still get laggy, to "sorry, heavy server load, try back later". I'm suppose to pay for that?

It's a catch 22 really. They can't get faster unless they have better hardware and more money, but people don't want to pay money unless they have faster access.

I was going to become a patron as I've been a long time member of photo.net back in the day when Philip got it rolling. But for the past week I've not been able to really get online with it. I would love to send some money, but I'm on a budget, and yes $25 is a lot of money to me at the moment. If I spend that much, I would hope that I would see some return on it.

Or should I just treat this as a charity and send in my money and forget about it. Maybe try back in a year to see if I can get online for a longer period of time? If I think about it this way I could see myself sending some cash in. Photo.net is a great place and a great resource and even though I myself can't enjoy it, there may be some out there that can. If someone can get imspired and learn something and go out and create something of their own, well, that would make my day!

Peace.

I've always wondered about how do you store digital media that will last 20, 30, 40 years.

I have negatives too that I shot 28 years ago that I can still scan.

What are you going to store your digital photos on? CD-ROM? Well, not taking into account that CD-ROMS may not have anything to read them 20 years from now (they might, but no one knows), CD-ROM media isn't ment to last that long. I just read an article detailing that music CD's only have about a 20 year life span before the media starts to break down...we're already inside that window where the CD replaced LPs back in the early 80s. Add to the fact that CD-ROMs burned in typical PCs now adays have an even shorter life span.

So do you keep upgrading what your entire photo collection is stored on decade after decade?

Really, the same thing is about all digital media. For instance, I could pick up an original 1611 King James Bible and read it cover to cover...read something written and printed 400 years ago. But if I had a version of it on 5 and 1/4" disk, I'd be hard pressed to read it again. I'd REALLY be out of luck if it was stored on 9track tape.

I don't know, I'm still not sold on all digital photography yet. But again, that's only me, as I've seen wonderfull things by other people that blow me away in digital. I just hope they find a storage medium that will keep these wonderful works of art available for the future generations.

<html>

<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type"

content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

<title></title>

</head>

<body style="background-image: url(about:blank);">

I know that this thread is pretty old, but it's time to put the "Leicas

are delicate and not suited to heavy, on location type shooting" myth to rest.<br>

<br>

For instance, Frank Van Riper of the Washington Post put it this way:<br>

<br>

<span style="font-style: italic;">"...tales of alleged Leica

shortcomings are matters of degree, especially when compared to today's

plastic-bodied, electronics-filled, temperamental and skittish SLRs.

For example, I once dropped my metal M6 onto the pavement and I swear I

thought I could hear it laugh. For the record, not only was the camera

unharmed; I couldn't even find a scratch on it."</span><br>

<br>

For the full story, check out <a

href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030522.htm">this

article.</a><br>

</body>

</html>