Re: The lastest E6 films / 220 vs Digital

Ola, Senor C de N -

You're right about Kodachrome II, and THAT is probably what I was shooting in 1968 (above), not Kodachrome "(25?)" - which explains why my 40-year-old slides have held up better than my 65-year-old body.

In 1996, IIRC, I spent over $400 on film, processing and proofs for several rolls of 220 color print film shot on vacation in Colorado - mostly on Jim Trowbridge's photo freights. In 2007 I have spent $0.00 on three or four times as many medium-res photos shot onto a 2GB chip still in use from the year before. Of course, I'm not a pro shooting for National Geographic or Sierra Club coffee-table books, so I don't need the ultra-high resolution - or expense - of 6x7cm film. The 12:1 optical zoom, Zeis optics and anti-shake technology of my mid-price Panasonic Lumix FZ50 gives me all I need to preserve - and share - a lot of good memories - without lugging around several pounds of permanently-coupled RB67-and-tripod.

- El Curmudgeono Viejo y Loco