Digital cameras hold value?

"Bob Monaghan" wrote:
rafe noted:
But Stacey's oft-repeated complaint is irrelevant to
those of us who actually use cameras as tools, or to
produce income -- as opposed to being collectors...
endquote:

If I buy a $5k digital camera,

But Bob, you don't buy a $5k digital camera unless you have very good reason
to: for example, you are a sports photographer. If you have a good reason,
you get your money back. If you like having the latest and greatest toy,
then you get your money back immediately. No one expects a digital to last 3
years. Except Stacey, that is.

The rest of us, who spend $900 to $1500 on a digital body, will shoot enough
that we get our money back.

and it is worth $29 salvage value after x
years, and I buy a $5k film camera, and it is worth $2,000+ after the same
X years (maybe more), then the difference in salvage value is pretty
significant economically IMHO ;-)

Again, the $5,000 camera is a straw man.

The big costs in digital currently are the high rate of depreciation of
the camera, associated media and support items, computer and related
software, and the lost time invested in mastering digital techniques.

Other than the camera, those are the same for film for a lot of us. (The
media and support items can be used with the next camera.) And mastering
digital techniques isn't lost time: much of that is stuff that can't be done
in the wet darkroom.

There is also evidently a lot of time spent editing out lots of digital
shots after the shoot. Time is also money in most activities...

I assure you, the time associated with scanning it is a lot worse than
editing digital shots. And waiting for the film to come back from processing
is a serious irritation. Other than Maniac, getting MF slide film processed
is close to a week. With digital, I can look at the shots that night and
determine if I want to go back and shoot some more, or what I need to do
differently for the next day's shoot. With scanned MF, I have to wait for
next year (for things like spring flowers).

Most serious amateurs shoot a roll or so a week; even the pros & serious
amateur mix at shutterbug shoot only 4 rolls/week, with $11.5K photo gear
investment; see http://www.shutterbug.com/images/mediakit/mediakit.pdf The
cost of prints for similar numbers/sizes is essentially the same, esp. at
labs which scan and print film ;-)

If you are shooting 4 rolls a week, you get your $1500 investment back in
well under a year. And unless you are shooting Provia/Velvia (or MFg), you
are getting better quality from the dSLR.

For a handful of high volume shooters, the benefits clearly outweigh the
costs. For the majority of modest volume shooters, today's high
depreciation of digital photography offsets the losses from paying for
film and developing.

For a lot of people, $1500 and the ability to shoot as much as you want is
better than $350 (for the equiv. film camera) plus worrying about film costs
every day. Most people who actually try digital find the freedom from
budgetary constraints incredibly liberating.

Most of us who continue to use film do so partly as a result of such
factors, and because we like using film ;-)

There's really very little to like about film, other than one can get better
results by using MF or larger.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Stacey" wrote:

Here's an example -maybe- you can comprehend. I figiured out I almost
never
use 35mm anymore because medformat is "better". So I sold some of my
35mm
gear for what I paid for it

But you didn't recoup the money you spent on film: your actual cost of
using the camera was a lot more than just the cost of the camera. Film
cameras have a minimum per-frame cost that you can't get away from.

It's really not that much if you don't print every frame. Also keeps the
"shoot everything that moves without thinking" mentality at bay. :-)

That's the converse of your recent "If I only had a lens" refrain. And why
not shoot everything that strikes your fancy? There's no incremental cost
associated with digital.

If you
don't shoot a lot, it's nice that your fixed costs are low. But if you
use
your cameras heavily, the running costs become significant.
....
So your claim here is incorrect economics.

You assume that everyone shoots a ton of film. I'm "lucky" to shoot a roll
or 2 of 120 on a full day of shooting.

He addressed that. Twenty five bucks is twenty five bucks. Pretty soon, you
could almost buy a Hassy.

It's one thing to buy it a roll at a time, and pay the quickee mart to
develop one roll at a time. It amounts to the price of a bad cheeseburger.
But stack up the B&H invoices at month's end and it tells a different tale.
I spent more on film and chemistry last month than I did on the gigabyte
card.

I went through 3 generations of consumer digital before I went MF, had
lots of fun, relearned a lot of photography I had forgotten over the
previous 15 years. Every penny was well spent. And the total costs for
all
that digital were a lot less than the costs for MF.

Depends on what MF you get into. And when you get tired of this MF camera,
you can recoup most of the investment.

Well! **THAT** depends on what MF you get into, and you almost certainly
will not with the Kiev.

I fully understand and appreciate the resourcefulness and determination it
takes to make a hobby work on a shoestring. I only recently decided that
photo deserved a budget of its own, rather than continue to squeak it under
the discretionary spending radar. So I do know a thing or two about the
financial pressures, and the distortions it can have on your public
opinions. Privately, though, how can a thinking person not recognize that
digital has reached a usability, affordability, and maturity threshold?
Every generation or "smaller format" went through the same thing. This 6 cm
crap is tiny compared to the "real" photographs of its era. But it stayed
around on its own merits, as will digital. And beyond that, digital has the
potential to eventually surpass its predecessors in image quality. That was
never possible at any point in the past. Medium format and smaller was
always a compromise.

All that aside, I now have to confess to shooting a lot more film lately
than I did digital. Before you ask why, when digital is all that and more,
I'll explain. Twenty square inches; 200 megapixels if you care to scan;
dorm-room poster size at a very reasonable 8x enlargement. No mere Hassy or
Kiev will ever hold a candle to that. And if you really want to know where
the cheap, first quality German glass is, you'll find it in used large
format department. The huge irony is that it's very definitely a buyer's
market. This "recoup your investment" thing isn't washing there.

You are stubborn.

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

the running costs become significant.

Unless your being paid.

Yes. Some photographers used to be able to overcharge their clients for film
and processing (or get a discount from the labs or both), and can't gouge
the cusomers like that any more.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 3 Mar 2004 21:50:24 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

rafe noted:
But Stacey's oft-repeated complaint is irrelevant to
those of us who actually use cameras as tools, or to
produce income -- as opposed to being collectors...
endquote:

If I buy a $5k digital camera, and it is worth $29 salvage value after x
years, and I buy a $5k film camera, and it is worth $2,000+ after the same
X years (maybe more), then the difference in salvage value is pretty
significant economically IMHO ;-)


Never spent $5K on a camera, either film or digital,
so I wouldn't know about these things. Stacey's making
a point about early adopters. Not my problem.

I don't throw away or "salvage" my camera gear,
I generally keep it until it's no longer useable or worth
fixing. I often buy pre-owned, etc.

The "salvage value" of my gear is of no great
concern, but its working condition is.


The big costs in digital currently are the high rate of depreciation of
the camera, associated media and support items, computer and related
software, and the lost time invested in mastering digital techniques.
There is also evidently a lot of time spent editing out lots of digital
shots after the shoot. Time is also money in most activities...


Time spent in mastering the digital techniques is time
well spent. I also find it generally fun, but that's just me.
(Just as others take pleasure in the analog darkroom.)

Time editing is no worse in the digital domain than the
analog. And if time is money, digital wins hands down --
no time spent acquiring film, loading or unloading it,
schlepping it to or from the lab to have it processed, or
waiting for it to be processed. Goodbye middleman.
And good riddance.


Most serious amateurs shoot a roll or so a week; even the pros & serious
amateur mix at shutterbug shoot only 4 rolls/week, with $11.5K photo gear
investment; see http://www.shutterbug.com/images/mediakit/mediakit.pdf The
cost of prints for similar numbers/sizes is essentially the same, esp. at
labs which scan and print film ;-)


I agree the costs are precisely the same, per print.

But with digital capture there's no longer a one-to-one
assocation between frames captured and prints made.
And images can be enjoyed and shared without
being printed.

Folks can be more selective about what's printed or
not printed, thus lots of $$ saved.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

hmmm? ;-) quoting Mike:
I'll explain. Twenty square inches; 200 megapixels if you care to scan;
dorm-room poster size at a very reasonable 8x enlargement. No mere Hassy
or Kiev will ever hold a candle to that.
endquote:

4x5" = 200 MP; 200 MP/20 sq. inches = 10 MP per sq. inch. That's 50 MP for
6x6cm. Looks to me like digital has a looong way to go from 6-8MP to 50
MP equiv of MF? And of course, both film and scanners can improve again!

Your faith in the future extension of this technology is ill-founded. I
just digital video'd a talk last Monday by Dr. Robert Dennard of IBM,
National Inventor Hall of Fame etc. on our campus, the guy who invented
the single transistor DRAM memory now in virtually every computer and
major digital product. His talk was about how we are running out of
capability using silicon to sustain future improvements (cf Moore's law,
and Dennard's law of scalability). When the guy who invented the laws of
IC scalability says its broken, you can't say Moore's law will hold
forever ;-) Yes, maybe we will get molecular computers working in
alternate dimensions, but right now, we are basically pushing the limits
of silicon now. In fact, Intel/IBM just adopted strained silicon designs
to try and eke another 10-20% faster chips - why? because they can't get
similar benefits from scalability as in the past ;-) We are at the
limits of silicon now, or will be in the next cycle or two. Get used to it
;-)

Then again, the guy who helped developed the CMOS process and Foveon's
chips, Carter Mead, has made it clear that it is unlikely that silicon
based sensors will get much denser than their 16MP chip (on 22x22mm die),
due to purely physical limits in feature sizes and ability to make them.
So don't expect to see silicon sensors which equal molecular silver's
density anytime soon - or ever ;-) What you will see is sensors getting
bigger, and lower noise/better, as mfgers realize that a modest density
sensor (way below film's limits) produces "good enough" photos for most
users ;-) But the cost of larger sensors, relatively defect free, goes up
geometrically too, so don't expect any $1k cameras with 4x5" sensors
anytime soon either ;-)

Finally, my own analysis based on published scientific analyses by Harris
of MF vs. LF and 35mm showed that 35mm could be enlarged up to 14X, MF by
up to 12X, and LF only by 9.2X - and this was for symmar S 210mm at f/22
with Techpan, which achieved 44, 42, 34 lpmm with various contrast
targets, and 37 lpmm in corners (high contrast). The hassy 80mm at f/8
hit 72, 72, and 45 lpmm on axis for same targets, and at f/16 hit 45 lpmm
with techpan (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mfbest.html). Which is all to
say that LF delivered only 45% of the benefits we would expect from going
to the larger format by geometry calculations alone.

But you already know this, yes? That's why you picked an 8X enlargement
factor, i.e., reasonable by harris' analysis (his optimal was 9.2X for
LF). Using his 12X for MF and hassy lens at f/16 with TP, and we get circa
27x27" enlargement, or a 27"x33" for a 6x7cm camera. Using 4x5" at 8X per
your posting, we get 32x40" or 30x40", or a bit more at a limiting 9.2X.
But either way, these modest differences don't seem to justify dismissing
MF against 4x5" even at poster sizes. And of course, lots of MF shots have
been blown up successfully to poster sizes ;-)

regards bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

first, to David, I don't still use my photoshop 2.0 for the mac, or even
3.01 ;-) Nor can I use my old video tape formats in my new Mini-DV digital
video camera. So I am starting to see serious costs for more tapes every
week, stacks of DVDs, and thank goodness the campus is supplying the G5
Mac and 500 gig drive and movie/dvd/cd/editing software ;-) But I use a
much less capable PC and Mac at home, as I don't need much for papers and
projects. In other words, the media and software costs go with each new
generation of gear, and the upgrade needs are sparked by the digital
rather than needs for 500 gigs for running MS office or AOL software ;-)

for rafe, quoting: But with digital capture there's no longer a one-to-one
assocation between frames captured and prints made. And images can be
enjoyed and shared without being printed.
endquote:

I generally shoot slides, which I project at sizes impractical to blow up
prints too on a student budget ;-) Most of my 35mm print film is for
projects, and I send batches of 100 or so rolls at a time for
developing, then pick the ones I want printed locally to 8x10".

I dispute the idea that if you shoot a lot more in a given timeframe, you
get more keepers. My own observations, and cf. Roger Hicks in MF and LF
handbook, is that the ratio of good shots is pretty similar. With film, we
just don't click until we have a better chance of a good shot ;-) With
digital, you can click a lot more up to card/drive limits, but then you
still have to sort them out. My suspicion is that you don't get
significantly more great shots in a given day of shooting, mainly because
I think we are limited more by our vision than by how fast we can shoot.
;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Your faith in the future extension of this technology is ill-founded. I
....
and Dennard's law of scalability). When the guy who invented the laws of
IC scalability says its broken, you can't say Moore's law will hold

Is that a problem in the space we're discussing? The reason to bring up LF
is an interest in image quality. Higher manufacturing yields on larger, same
pixel size sensors would serve that end. Smaller sensors, where scalability
would indeed become an issue, drags it into the circus of cellphones and
gimmickry. That will have to take place in a different conversation.

Also, image sensors are analog conversion devices, limited more by the
physical properties measured, than strictly by circuit density. I would say
that Dr. Dennard's contribution in this context, while interesting and I
thank you for that, is more noise than it is signal.

Finally, my own analysis based on published scientific analyses by Harris
of MF vs. LF and 35mm showed that 35mm could be enlarged up to 14X, MF by
up to 12X, and LF only by 9.2X - and this was for symmar S 210mm at f/22
with Techpan, which achieved 44, 42, 34 lpmm with various contrast
targets, and 37 lpmm in corners (high contrast). The hassy 80mm at f/8
hit 72, 72, and 45 lpmm on axis for same targets, and at f/16 hit 45 lpmm
with techpan (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mfbest.html). Which is all to
say that LF delivered only 45% of the benefits we would expect from going
to the larger format by geometry calculations alone.

But you already know this, yes? That's why you picked an 8X enlargement

Not previously; thanks for the info.

Tonality is also important, something your TechPan tests can't measure, but
is immediately apparent on even a passing glance. Numbers don't necessarily
lie, Bob, but they often fail by not being able to tell the whole story.

But either way, these modest differences don't seem to justify dismissing
MF against 4x5" even at poster sizes. And of course, lots of MF shots have
been blown up successfully to poster sizes ;-)

And the differences, even if modest in measurement, are real and easily
perceptible. Being not as bad off as a direct area comparison might indicate
is not in any measure a validation of equality. It's good for a smile,
though; nice try. :-)

But you're right overall. MF as a technology is being squeezed on both ends,
an uneviable position. I often think that MF is much more at risk than 35mm.
Bad for the seller; great for me, the buyer, which was the point of an
earlier post. Once more, digital works for me personally on all levels.

Chips are small because of manufacturing considerations: you can fit more
chips on a sheet. More chips, lower cost of manufacture, and then the
market level price effects add in. Conventional image sensing chips cannot
be made smaller. They must be larger in order to capture more data. It
works BACKWARDS - against the principles that make chips cheaper.

However, true 24x36mm chips have arrived. Let's see how cheap they get in,
say, two years. At that point the market demand will have kicked in. Then
wait for someone to 'stitch' four together to get a Medium Format, wait
another few years... and by that time I'll be retired, shooting 8X10.

Triva point: Miniaturizing was originally done to "lower shipping
expenses". I am quoting the father of the microcircuit, Bob Noyce, founder
of Intel, now deceased. No kidding. That's what he said in the very early
days. He would probably chuckle knowing he's still qutoed. (Bob was a
local boy where I lived and was later he was on the board of directors
where I worked. A great fellow.)

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
But you aren't including the costs to print the digital images or don't
you
ever print any?

Framing and lab costs for prints come from "her" decorating budget. :-) But
I do see how you might equate the two.

I print the small ones on a 13" printer. I'm still hemming and hawing about
finding a lab for the really big ones. I went so far as to print one in
strips, intending to trim and mount them as one image. I couldn't get myself
to cut them, so I framed them individually as a triplet. They look pretty
good that, as though I intended it all along.

Privately, though, how can a thinking person not recognize that
digital has reached a usability, affordability, and maturity threshold?

Why resort to insults? I never said "How could anyone with a brain... -not

I didn't intend that as such. It was my foregone conclusion that everyone
already conceded that as a given. We can go another round, then, where I try
to make it obvious.

agree with my POV-?" type of thing. I expect that from Rafe. BG

You honestly think digital has reached it's maturity threshold?? They
haven't come to any standard for sensor size, still are using single chip
sensors and haven't come up with a sensor large enough to get a real wide
angle POV with yet.

Maturity as a standardized, inter-exchangable component system? I don't
think that will ever happen. Nikon lenses don't fit my Canon bodies, for
example, and I have no expectation they ever will.

Multiple chip sensors make sense for video because of the fixed resolution,
standard viewing device. Without that constraint, a single sensor can do
just as well. I did hear of one upcoming sensor that uses two pixels for
every dot location. The extra pixel is for dynamic range, not color as in
the Foveon's three. Both multi-pixel dot solutions avoid the problems of
critical alignment.

Not sure what you mean by sensor size and wide angle. Full frame 35mm
sensors have been around for a couple of years, a full generation. I'm
expecting this to come down to a consumer price point in a few years,
essentially killing off 35mm film, but leveraging the lens investment.

In any case, I was referring to a certain level of usefulness that would be
of lasting value, making obsolescense less of a concern. For me, that's
image quality equal to 35mm printed 8x10. 6 MP dSLRs are there already. And
yes to your question earlier, I'm comparing to scanned film on inkjet. My
inkjet prints better than Costco's Fuji, both color and especially B&W. I
have yet to compare to a "real" pro lab.

as will digital. And beyond that, digital
has the potential to eventually surpass its predecessors in image
quality.

Sure it does, it's not there yet. And again you assume film is going to
stand still. My guess in a few years we'll see 800asa film that looks like
todays 100.

Do you think? TMX is a good twenty years old, and I understand that they
shut down emulsion and chemistry research in Rochester some years ago. That
could have been B&W only... Other indicators are that movie distribution is
on the verge of going digital. I do hope you're right, even though I'm
pretty satisfied with the current state of the art.

Is a three stop advantage enough to make the difference for handholdable?
I'm thinking in particular of one handheld that could have been great, but
was shot at f/5.6 for 1/30. It really needed to be f/16 for 1/125; a five
stop difference, or 3200asa. I keep a small version of the blurry scan as a
reminder that there's little point without the tripod.

That was never possible at any point in the past.

Sure it was. By the 1950's a good med format camera with "modern" film at
the time was as good as a large format camera was 10-15 years earlier.

OK. But it never could have compared to, let alone surpassed, its
contemporary in the larger format. Emulsion technology is transferable to
the older format, as you pointed out.

Nope but shooting 4X5 is a totally different thing than
medformat/35mm/digital and always will be. BTW I've been shooting some
Eighty square inch film lately. :-)

:-)

MikeWhy writes:

Multiple chip sensors make sense for video because of the fixed resolution,
standard viewing device.

Multiple-chip sensors make just as much sense for still photography as
they do for video, if not more.

Without that constraint, a single sensor can do
just as well.

That's what people used to say in video, too, until three-CCD consumer
cameras became available. It's a matter of pretending that whatever you
can get is the best possible, sort of like sour grapes.

I'm expecting this to come down to a consumer price point in a few years,
essentially killing off 35mm film, but leveraging the lens investment.

They'll have to provide better images than film at a lower price in
order to kill of 35mm, and I don't think that will happen any time soon.

TMX is a good twenty years old, and I understand that they
shut down emulsion and chemistry research in Rochester some years ago.

Since they've come out with new films recently, one wonders where the
research is being done.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.