A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Will digital photography ever stabilize?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 04, 10:52 PM
Alfred Molon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

George wrote:

Me too! I'd like to see it go to 1:1 and THAT is my number one
priority for my next dSLR. I haven't dumped my 35mm lenses yet
as I still prefer them to the newer offerings plus they wouldn't bring
anywhere near what they are still worth to me.


The Canon 1Ds has a full-frame sensor (not to mention a very nice
resolution of 11MP).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
  #2  
Old June 23rd 04, 10:55 PM
Alfred Molon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

Jimmy Smith wrote:
The DSLRs available today are spectacular.


They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine added. My
guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve into something
more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film cameras.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
  #3  
Old June 23rd 04, 11:12 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:
Jimmy Smith wrote:
The DSLRs available today are spectacular.


They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine added. My
guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve into something
more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film cameras.


In a few year somebody 'invents' a DSLR viewfinder that contains its own
camera for preview. Problem solved (for most part).

Other than that, I doubt that many DSLR owners want video chips as sensors.
Most people prefer low noise to weird folding preview LCD thingies.


--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #4  
Old June 23rd 04, 11:29 PM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?



Alfred Molon wrote:

Jimmy Smith wrote:

The DSLRs available today are spectacular.



They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine added. My
guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve into something
more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film cameras.


The 300D, at least, is not all that "huge and heavy".

With SLR TTL viewfinder, I really do not miss live preview.

I'd be surprised if the basic design changes much. The film SLRs
evolved based on ergonomics and unless we evolve hands which have more
fingers, what would motivate a substantial change in design?

Phil

  #5  
Old June 24th 04, 12:18 AM
Jimmy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?


"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Jimmy Smith wrote:
The DSLRs available today are spectacular.


They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine added. My
guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve into something
more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film cameras.


Before I bought my DSLR I thought I'd miss the LCD preview screens on my
video camera or PnS. Once I put the DSLR to my eye and took 10 to 20 shots
I was sold. The speed and directness is incredible. No matter what the
lighting situation, I see it and I snap it, again and again and again and
again and again....... with more accessible creative input and a powerful
selection of glass. Now, I DO need to pay for the privalege. But, it's
like a Porsche. If you understand what it can do, if you appreciate what it
can do, if you get off on what it can do.............. there IS no
substitute.

Jimmy

PS IMHO, a fold out LCD on a DSLR would be a gross insult. Kinda like
chrome bumpers on a Porsche. icky
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html



  #6  
Old June 24th 04, 12:44 AM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:45:12 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

wrote in message
hlink.net...

Question is, is this the wave of the future? Cameras of so-so quality that
cost hundreds of dollars that have to be replaced every few years? Or are

we
in a transitional moment when this new technology is growing very fast and
will stabilize someday?


It will certainly stabilize someday. When it does, manufacturers will have
to find a way to convince people to continue to buy new hardware. If they
do not, they will go out of business.


Film SLR makers haven't had much trouble finding new features to tempt
their clients. I don't see why digital will be any different.

I think it is only a matter of time before manufacturers of electronic
devices such as cameras and computers start putting hardware lifetime
limiters in them. So you buy a camera with the understanding that after
three years or 10,000 pictures, it will self-destruct and you have to buy a
new one.


Planned obsolescence has been argued about for a long time.
Autos, which one would think would have a good argument for such,
simply don't; new cars now last much longer than they did 40-50 years
ago. Instead, they just keep making them with newer features that
people want.
As above, it's worked this long, there's no reason it won't in the
future.


Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #7  
Old June 24th 04, 12:51 AM
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

Jimmy Smith wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Jimmy Smith wrote:
The DSLRs available today are spectacular.


They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine
added. My guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve
into something more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film
cameras.


Before I bought my DSLR I thought I'd miss the LCD preview screens on
my video camera or PnS. Once I put the DSLR to my eye and took 10 to
20 shots I was sold. The speed and directness is incredible. No
matter what the lighting situation, I see it and I snap it, again and
again and again and again and again....... with more accessible
creative input and a powerful selection of glass. Now, I DO need to
pay for the privalege. But, it's like a Porsche. If you understand
what it can do, if you appreciate what it can do, if you get off on
what it can do.............. there IS no substitute.


And, truth be told, 80% of Porsche owners/drivers/admirers/appreciators
have neither the wherewithal nor the opportunity to come even close to
the edge of the envelope, what-it-can-do-wise. So all that
non-substitutable potency is going to waste in Porscheland and DSLRland.
Or being burned up in talk.

But the manufacturers/distrubutors/dealers/restorers are exce$$ively
happy. And we self-congratulators (*I* chose the *best possible*
equipment; *my* unsubstitutable is better than yours) get to give
ourselves plenty of not-so-subtle pats on the back (we really need the
exercise, too).

Make that 90%. Maybe 95%.

Jimmy

PS IMHO, a fold out LCD on a DSLR would be a gross insult. Kinda
like chrome bumpers on a Porsche. icky
--


And here I thought the photograph was the important part. I mean the lap
time.

Wait. Let me put on *my* snob hat: No photograph is worthwhile unless it
is made with an ultra-expensive DSLR/lens combo, the more exclusive, the
better the photograph; no automobile *divertissement* is worthwhile if
performed in a vehicle with value less than (enter your own unreachable
dollar amount)—with the top down. A *real* top, not some sun/moon roof
or (shudder) *Targa* top.


So, are you the real Jimmy Smith, or is that other guy?


Frank ess


  #8  
Old June 24th 04, 01:05 AM
Rodney Myrvaagnes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:50:03 -0400, "Mark Weaver"
wrote:


"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
-

So; compact high-ISO digital cameras are entirely possible in my
view. It's adding in the "and not expensive" that makes it unlikely
to happen.


The 'not that expensive' part is the one I'm least worried about--in order
for any given electronic gadget to become 'not that expensive', all you have
to do is wait...


What makes nearly all electronics get cheaper is the process shrinking
that makes equivalent functions take up smaller silicon areas.
Unfortunately you can't shrink an APS sized (or 35-mm sized) sensor.

Well, actually you can. Then you have a smaller and noisier sensor,
such as you find in a consumer camera.


And, realistically, I doubt there'd be much market for it at a much
higher cost than cameras most snapshooters would see as equivalent.


But high ISO capabilities *would* make a difference to snapshooters.
Compact digitals are currently not very good at taking photos of little
tiffany's ballet recital

Mark



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia
  #9  
Old June 24th 04, 01:25 AM
Rodney Myrvaagnes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:29:07 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote:



Alfred Molon wrote:

Jimmy Smith wrote:

The DSLRs available today are spectacular.



They are huge and heavy, with no live preview and no fold out LCD
screen. They are like horse carriages with a combustion engine added. My
guess is that in a few years the DSLR design will evolve into something
more advanced and DSLRs will look less like film cameras.


The 300D, at least, is not all that "huge and heavy".

Neither is a D70, at least if you are used to an F5 pulling your neck.
Except when using a "huge and heavy" lens it is actually pretty small.



Rodney Myrvaagnes Opinionated old geezer

Brutal dictators are routinely reelected by 90+%
margins. Only in a truly advanced democracy can
one win an election by a negative 600,000 votes.
  #10  
Old June 24th 04, 01:57 AM
Patrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will digital photography ever stabilize?

My first digital was the amazing (at the time) Kodak DC210 (1MP).
I now use a Canon S45 (4MP) and just printed some photos at 12x18" that look
excellent at arms length.
From now on my eyes will only go down and even tho other cameras are much
better than mine why would I change. Because manufacturer tell me to do so.
Not because I NEED to change.
I think Tim is correct. Why have more than 4 to 6MP? I am talking for the
average father of 2 and non professional.
Don't fall for the consumerism society. Buy if you need not because there is
better. There is (nearly) always better.

Patrick.

wrote in message
link.net...
Hi all:

I've been doing digital photography for several years now and generally

like
the convenience of it. But the quality of optics and photos could be

better,
and hardware as well (I have a Canon Powershot S20). I'm thinking of
upgrading to a newer camera but as a longtime film photographer I'm sort

of
annoyed that it now seems to be the case that one has to upgrade one's
camera every few years, as though it were a computer. I had a Nikon F2

that
served me fine for 15 years.

Question is, is this the wave of the future? Cameras of so-so quality that
cost hundreds of dollars that have to be replaced every few years? Or are

we
in a transitional moment when this new technology is growing very fast and
will stabilize someday?

This makes me wonder about what to get for my next digital camera. Another
point-and-shoot that will last a few years? Should I invest in, say, one

of
the Leica Digilux models and expect to keep it longer? Should I get a

Nikon
and use my Nikon lenses (The F2 was stolen 12 years ago and I now have
12-year-old AF Nikons and lenses)? (This latter option is probably less
attractive since I don't do that much serious work anymore, though I do
demand high quality equipment and results).

Thanks for your advice.

Tim



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.