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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
"Stacey" wrote: MikeWhy wrote: I think you're just being daft. The $5000 didn't pay for solid mechanicals or optics. It paid for the pioneering R&D. My father bought one of the first TI SR-50 calculators when I was in high school. Today, simple four function calculators are trade show throw aways; nobody even wants them, let alone are willing to pay for them. By way of further analogy, how much would you pay today for an original brick car phone? I'm being daft? Of course the $5000 wasn't buying solid mechaincals or optics. You think the $1000+ digicam you buy today is any different? People are raving about those digital rebels but in 6 months to a year will be a "dinasour" that people will laugh about anyone trying to -seriously- use one. Paying US$5000 for a digital camera for anyone without compelling need for the turnaround time is quite silly, but the Rebel at US$900 is quite different. The Rebel is a lot better in every way than ISO 400 and faster films, so it's providing significant advantages for a lot of what people use 35mm for (and twice over for folks who like telephoto lenses). Also, if one shoots regularly, the 300D will pay for itself in film and processing costs quite quickly. Two rolls a week and it's free in a year. So the Rebel is an extremely sensible camera for a lot of people, even if they replace it with a new model almost immediately. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
"Stacey" wrote in message
... I'm being daft? Of course the $5000 wasn't buying solid mechaincals or optics. You think the $1000+ digicam you buy today is any different? People are raving about those digital rebels but in 6 months to a year will be a "dinasour" that people will laugh about anyone trying to -seriously- use one. Or just stubborn. :-) I get 8x10s cleaner than 35mm. That's a meaningful and lasting hallmark; it won't be obsolete any time soon. Mine already pumped more than 8000 shots and ate zero in consumables. If I throw it out right this moment, it cost less than equivalent footage in processed 35mm film plus a film SLR's residual salvage. I came out ahead! Mulch on that for a while. Printing the good ones, though, still costs plenty. OTOH, I have on the other screen a scan from a 4x5 trannie. There's something magical in film's tones that digital just can't match, probably will never match. It's not just the tonal scale or range, and there's no grain to speak of, and I can't put a finger or name on it. I'm not ready to give up on film altogether. (He http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2142849. I feel stupid sharing a film test with you, and I doubt you'll be moved by it the same way I am. It's not even my most favorite view of the house.) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
MikeWhy writes:
OTOH, I have on the other screen a scan from a 4x5 trannie. There's something magical in film's tones that digital just can't match, probably will never match. It's not just the tonal scale or range, and there's no grain to speak of, and I can't put a finger or name on it. I'm not ready to give up on film altogether. (He http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2142849. I feel stupid sharing a film test with you, and I doubt you'll be moved by it the same way I am. It's the kind of clean image that you feel you can reach in and touch. I think such images come mostly from film because they require extremely high resolution and good dynamic range, and that is really hard to get digitally right now. Film isn't magic in itself; it's just the best available option when quality is the most important consideration. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:
Also, if one shoots regularly, the 300D will pay for itself in film and processing costs quite quickly. Two rolls a week and it's free in a year. This is only true under incomparable circumstances. You would have to get prints of all your film shots, and print almost none of your digital shots. If you shoot b/w and develop yourself, or only get color negatives developed, then the cost of shooting two rolls of film per week is quite a bit lower than the cost of a 300D. OTOH, if you get 50% of those digital shots printed larger than 4x6, the cost of owning and using your 300D is quite a bit higher than most 35mm film cameras. I'm with Stacey on this one. Digital does not hold its value at this point in time. There may come a time when the cost of purchase and useful life will come together to change the economics of this equation. But, that time isn't now. Neil |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:15:41 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: MikeWhy writes: OTOH, I have on the other screen a scan from a 4x5 trannie. There's something magical in film's tones that digital just can't match, probably will never match. It's not just the tonal scale or range, and there's no grain to speak of, and I can't put a finger or name on it. I'm not ready to give up on film altogether. (He http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2142849. I feel stupid sharing a film test with you, and I doubt you'll be moved by it the same way I am. It's the kind of clean image that you feel you can reach in and touch. I think such images come mostly from film because they require extremely high resolution and good dynamic range, and that is really hard to get digitally right now. Film isn't magic in itself; it's just the best available option when quality is the most important consideration. Comparing 4x5 to current "prosumer" digital isn't quite fair now, is it? If time were money, 4x5 is way, way behind the game. LF involves a huge expense and effort for each useable image. Like, for starters, $3 or $4 worth of film and processing cost for each click of the shutter. Steve Johnson decided back in 1994 that a scanning back clamped to a 4x5 produced better images than film. I personally can't afford to go that route. I do admit that 4x5 is another whole trip entirely, and I'm quite enjoying my initial experiences with LF. But digital capture is not to be lightly dismissed. Personally, I'm beginning to be concerned about the continued availability (and limited choices) in color LF film. As it stands right now there seem to be exactly two brands to choose from, Kodak and Fuji. This does not inspire hope and confidence for the future of this medium. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote: As it stands right now there seem to be exactly two brands to choose from, Kodak and Fuji. This does not inspire hope and confidence for the future of this medium. Then again your exeprience is admittedly shorter in history, Kodak and Fuji have been "the" suppliers of 4x5 color materials for sometime. It was Agfa's choice not to compete. For every doom sayer there may be 10 photographers happily shooting 4x5 and not worrying whether film is going to be discontinued. If it happens it happens life goes on. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Raphael Bustin writes:
Comparing 4x5 to current "prosumer" digital isn't quite fair now, is it? Why not? Film can be bought in 4x5 sheets. It's not the fault of film technology that electronic sensors cannot be made in 4x5 sizes. One of the fundamental advantges of film _is_ that it can be made so large, and this advantage can't be ignored. If time were money, 4x5 is way, way behind the game. LF involves a huge expense and effort for each useable image. Like, for starters, $3 or $4 worth of film and processing cost for each click of the shutter. It's the price one pays for top quality. Getting similar quality from digital wouldn't be any cheaper. Steve Johnson decided back in 1994 that a scanning back clamped to a 4x5 produced better images than film. So does a scanning CCD line on a Voyager spacecraft, I suppose. Unfortunately it takes half an hour to complete a shot. Personally, I'm beginning to be concerned about the continued availability (and limited choices) in color LF film. As it stands right now there seem to be exactly two brands to choose from, Kodak and Fuji. This does not inspire hope and confidence for the future of this medium. Well, Kodak and Fuji have been the leaders for a long time. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:18:11 GMT, Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Raphael Bustin wrote: As it stands right now there seem to be exactly two brands to choose from, Kodak and Fuji. This does not inspire hope and confidence for the future of this medium. Then again your exeprience is admittedly shorter in history, Kodak and Fuji have been "the" suppliers of 4x5 color materials for sometime. It was Agfa's choice not to compete. Would you be happy if your only choice of car was Ford or Chevy? You missed the point, kodak and fuji have been the main players in LF color film for a -long- time. Nothing has changed. -- Stacey |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:19:08 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: Raphael Bustin writes: One of the fundamental advantges of film _is_ that it can be made so large, and this advantage can't be ignored. You can be intensely daft, Mr. Maniac. Why not? For the same reason we don't compare jumbo jets to Cessnas, Ferraris to Ford Escorts, or caviar to snickers bars. Who says no one does? Does this mean we can't recognise that a jet is faster than a Cessna? For every view camera sold there are probably tens of thousands of digicams sold. So what? View cameras make no sense whatsoever for typical users of cameras. They are bulky, unwieldy, heavy, slow, expensive, and difficult to operate. Same as medformat. In short, they serve a tiny niche market that has almost nothing in common with what most people need or want from photography. Same as medformat. The general public is looking for a camera to use at their kids birthday party or a vacation so they can remember it years from now. Anything else -is- a niche market period. Talk to someone who works in the photo finishing bussiness. Most of the stuff is either kids/pets/family or vacations. And with that, amigo, you're back to the killfile. Like anyone cares? Why do people proclaim this, do they think everyone is going to kill file this same person because they do? -- Stacey |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
BCampbell wrote:
So a $5000 camera isn't worth getting fixed? I'm willing to bet a $5000 film camera would be worth fixing no matter how old it was. Ah, the old debating technique of advancing a new position when the original one has been proven wrong. We weren't talking about getting it fixed, your claim was that the seller didn't say the camera wasn't functional. He -didn't- say that, but even giving you that point this still proves it isn't -worth anything-. If it was worth something, it would be worth getting fixed correct? -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | Digital Photography | 17 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |