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

Why digital cameras are no good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 7th 05, 02:00 AM
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why digital cameras are no good

I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no
good.

The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting
better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what
was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to
a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As
an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of
money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many
photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that
time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras,
but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards,
this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to
think that the number of shots you can take is not so important.
Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in
time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras
can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film
camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course
the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras
like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has
shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could
keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there
was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now
at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can
from my film camera.

One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital
camera shines.

There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital
cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems
brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and
so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a
digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the
grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and
make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good
digital camera have gotten.

Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras
to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos
with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the
most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen
using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but
to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the
resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly.

The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit
cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will
manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in
5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.

Scott

  #2  
Old April 7th 05, 05:34 AM
Julian Tan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. With a mass manufactured
product, no one model will usually suit everyone's tastes. There will
be people who nitpick about this feature vs that feature and wish that
it had x, y and z.

As technology improves, people's expectations grow higher as well. A
couple of years back, when 2-3 megapixels was the standard for CCDs,
people were wishing for 4, 5, 6 or even 8. Now consumer models are
hitting the 8 megapixel zone, people want 12 and beyond.

I think film cameras were also limited very much by physical factors -
mainly the film and the process of exposing frames. Because
manufacturers did not have control over the film, there weren't many
factors to play with - apart from shutter and aperture. Maybe they
could improve the AF and exposure control electronics, but that was
largely "intangible" to users.

With digital and the use of CCD / CMOS sensors, and digital processors
we're in a whole new ball game. There are so many more variables now
and much of the factors can be tweaked - i.e. how large CCDs are, how
many photosites/pixels go into the CCD, and everything else that goes
in to the processory and firmware such as speed of operation, buffer
memory, image processing algorithms etc.

Digital is progressing, but I think there is plenty of scope for
improvement.


Cheers,
Julian
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net!

  #3  
Old April 7th 05, 05:34 AM
Julian Tan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. With a mass manufactured
product, no one model will usually suit everyone's tastes. There will
be people who nitpick about this feature vs that feature and wish that
it had x, y and z.

As technology improves, people's expectations grow higher as well. A
couple of years back, when 2-3 megapixels was the standard for CCDs,
people were wishing for 4, 5, 6 or even 8. Now consumer models are
hitting the 8 megapixel zone, people want 12 and beyond.

I think film cameras were also limited very much by physical factors -
mainly the film and the process of exposing frames. Because
manufacturers did not have control over the film, there weren't many
factors to play with - apart from shutter and aperture. Maybe they
could improve the AF and exposure control electronics, but that was
largely "intangible" to users.

With digital and the use of CCD / CMOS sensors, and digital processors
we're in a whole new ball game. There are so many more variables now
and much of the factors can be tweaked - i.e. how large CCDs are, how
many photosites/pixels go into the CCD, and everything else that goes
in to the processory and firmware such as speed of operation, buffer
memory, image processing algorithms etc.

Digital is progressing, but I think there is plenty of scope for
improvement.


Cheers,
Julian
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net!

  #4  
Old April 8th 05, 12:25 AM
hotchkisstrio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!



"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no
good.

The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting
better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what
was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to
a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As
an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of
money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many
photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that
time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras,
but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards,
this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to
think that the number of shots you can take is not so important.
Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in
time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras
can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film
camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course
the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras
like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has
shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could
keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there
was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now
at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can
from my film camera.

One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital
camera shines.

There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital
cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems
brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and
so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a
digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the
grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and
make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good
digital camera have gotten.

Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras
to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos
with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the
most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen
using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but
to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the
resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly.

The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit
cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will
manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in
5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.

Scott



  #5  
Old April 8th 05, 12:25 AM
hotchkisstrio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!



"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no
good.

The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting
better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what
was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to
a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As
an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of
money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many
photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that
time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras,
but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards,
this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to
think that the number of shots you can take is not so important.
Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in
time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras
can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film
camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course
the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras
like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has
shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could
keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there
was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now
at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can
from my film camera.

One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital
camera shines.

There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital
cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems
brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and
so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a
digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the
grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and
make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good
digital camera have gotten.

Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras
to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos
with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the
most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen
using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but
to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the
resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly.

The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit
cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will
manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in
5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.

Scott



  #6  
Old April 8th 05, 08:54 AM
stormwatcher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

hotchkisstrio wrote:
Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!


Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

  #7  
Old April 8th 05, 09:35 AM
Randy Berbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote:
: Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".

I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
and true Digital.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

  #8  
Old April 8th 05, 09:35 AM
Randy Berbaum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote:
: Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".

I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
and true Digital.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

  #9  
Old April 8th 05, 05:59 PM
DHB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:35:33 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
wrote:

stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote:
: Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".

I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
and true Digital.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL


Many people have a hard time adjusting to change, especially
at the rate technology is changing almost everything we do both
directly & indirectly. As a general rule the older we get the harder
it seems to be for us to learn something new. This is not intended to
be an age discrimination statement but we tend to be creatures of
habit & often take comfort in the familiar.

Rather than face that we now need to learn something new
because it's better, we might find it easier to berate something new
in order to justify the old, thus we can remain in our comfort zone.
As I remember back, I learned about computers on a Digital PDP-8 & my
1st home computer was an Apple IIe back when every part in it could be
purchased @ Radio Shack! Yes I now have a nice P4 PC so I have kept
up.

However this tendency to stick with what we know or reluctance
to accept something new is far more common than most people think.
Look at medical Doctors as an example. Many if not most still don't
believe in acupuncture even though the newest MRI machines have been
able to confirm the accuracy of the 2000+ year old practice. Did you
know that Surgeons are not "required" to use any new procedure even if
it has been "proven" to save XX% more lives than an older method?
It's up to the Doctors & Hospital to make those choices & many Doctors
stay with what they know best, even if it's not now the best thing for
the patient.

Strayed a bit too far off topic but change does not come easy
to many & that has both a good & a bad side to it. Digital
photography & I are good friends, it allows me to do so much more than
I was able to afford to do with film alone. Each still has it's place
depending on the situation but here is something to consider.

A strong ElectoMagnetic Pulse (EMP) will disable almost every
automobile on the road today because they have several microprocessors
in them that they need to run but many older automobiles (pre-1980)
would likely be unaffected & still functional. So as already stated
by the previous post, older technology still has it's place where it
actually may be better but like it or not, technology is & will
continue to impact us with little regard as to our individual
acceptance of it or not.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #10  
Old April 8th 05, 09:34 PM
stormwatcher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Randy Berbaum wrote:
stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote:
: Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly

mastered =
: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital

cameras??

The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There

will
always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital

medium,
no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be

those
that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with

whatever
works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that

works,
to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter

if the
medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio

recording. I
even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of

their
old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".


As to the original comment that some "audiophiles" insist that CDs
sound bad, that was often true originally. Thanks to "audiophiles"
current CDs are far superior. Digital alone doesn't produce good sound
(or pictures!).

As for analog vs digital, I agree Randy. We are often creatures of
habit and with film having been around for so long, it is difficult for
many to give up. And whether film or digital, they are both only tools
for producing an appealing photograph.

Personally, though owning a digital camera, I still prefer film at this
point. But I also can recognize that the improvements in digital have
been tremendous. The day when I buy a dSLR are probably not too far
off.

I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is

perfect
for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we

will
have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just

wait
one or two generations and there will be some new form of

photographic
medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old

tried
and true Digital.


Yup, technology marches on. My only wish is for the lense mount to
remain the same.

 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sad news for film-based photography Ronald Shu Medium Format Photography Equipment 199 October 6th 04 01:34 AM
Best Price on Digital Cameras. Joe Walsh 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 August 18th 04 09:52 AM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.