don m
Veteran Member
Check this out....
http://www.wrightphoto.com/DigitalCameras.html
Regards,
Don--Clickin & a-grinin,
Don
http://www.wrightphoto.com/DigitalCameras.html
Regards,
Don--Clickin & a-grinin,
Don
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The death of digital photography....
- Thread starter don m
- Start date
I cant believe im replying to you but...you are a moron. why did you even come to this forum? Gee golly ma...I guess Id better give up my technology, and go back to toxic chemicals to get my photos...why? cause this fella on the internet made a web page that told me so. Have you even used a digital camera? freak.
Cubfan
Leading Member
they've also got a page of facts to back up their claim... are these points valid?
http://www.wrightphoto.com/Digital-vs-Film.html
http://www.wrightphoto.com/Digital-vs-Film.html
Could say all this nasty things to his face if you met him in person? face-to-face? I bet you couldn't: because you know, it has been a reliable way to loose most of your teeth (historically). That is what makes people polite in supermarkets. Does not work here, though...
The guy maybe posted this as a joke, or maybe he's a beginner and he's wondering if that's true. You didn't explained to him why digital photos will last forever, neither you laughed at his joke.
I bet you drive an SUV.
don m
Veteran Member
Thanks for the kind words Mike...
I guess some things have to be spelled out more clearly for some folks to understand how ridiculous that web site really is..... I thought it was pretty obvious!!
I hope everyone has fun with it....
Well Duh!
Regards,
Don
I guess some things have to be spelled out more clearly for some folks to understand how ridiculous that web site really is..... I thought it was pretty obvious!!
I hope everyone has fun with it....
Well Duh!
Regards,
Don
Sorry, JP, but you jumped the gun. Don is a valued member of this forum and even if, by some stretch if the imagination, he posted this ludicrous link in seriousness—which all who know him would doubt—he did not deserve your response.
I believe that you owe him an apology.
-Ed
I believe that you owe him an apology.
-Ed
Larry G43983
Leading Member
This page is from the pro talk forum but has since recieved a wider audience because of its odd-ball stance. However, what suprises me here is the crude reception from JP who seems to imply it is all Don M's fault.
Larry
Actually, if you've got great lens, average 35mm films do not deliver 100% of lens resolution. The higher ISO is used, the more grainy pictures you'll get. I saw somewhere, that average 200 ISO 35mm film picture contains the same amount of imformation, as 6-8 megapixel digital image (assuming the same lens).
Also, I prefer 'digital colors'. First, I can adjust them. Second, every 35mm film tends towards some kind of color cast. Fuji (my favorite film brand) seems to produce good greens but skintones aren't good. Kodak is kind of yellow... And you don't have a control over it (you don't have your own mini-lab at home). Again, I prefer Canon or Fuji digicams color to any film I've ever used. F707, again, looks impressive.
My Sony DSC S70 and Canon G1 8x10" prints look much better than my old 35mm SLR 8x10" prints. Because these two cameras have better lens. I often meet people with cheap $90 zooms on their Canon Rebels or Nikon N60s. Those lens won't deliver that level of detail that you can get with F707, for example. The same principle applies to cheap and average films. In other words, you gotta spend some money, building 35mm system which delivers the same resolution, as G1/S85. Even more so in case of F707.
Not everybody is using high-end films and expensive optics.
ehh...sorry guys...too much cofee I guess
probepro
Veteran Member
Cubfan, wrightphoto has a keen grasp of the obvious. I've never heard anyone say that DC's produce "better" images than film. So, who are they trying to convince? Everyone already agrees with them. The truth here is that DC’s are obviously cutting into their film related profits, and they refuse to accept this reality. They’re right about one thing, though. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Oly, et al., are “taking us to the cleaners” with DC purchases. The idea that someone would willingly spend $1,000 on a camera which they know will be obsolete in one year is absurd.
Chuck
Larry G43983
Leading Member
This sums it up in another forum:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&page=1&message=1495039
Larry
I particularly enjoyed the line:
"close examination shows the image to consist of dots"
I disagree with this statement two ways. 1) Just because there will be better cameras in a year doesn't mean my current ones will be obsolete. 2) The price differential is well worth it to me, since I no longer have the hassles of film development, don't have the various hassles of dealing with film on vacations, can do sophisticated editing without a chemical darkroom, and can look at photos immediately & decide whether to reshoot.
Gary
Howdy
Leading Member
I'll politely disagree. Will this year's camera be surpassed in quality by next year's $1,000 cameras? Yep, but that doesn't make this year's camera obsolete. I expect that many buyers of the current (soon-to-be-released) crop of $1,000 cameras (G2, F707) will still be getting great pics from their cameras three or four or more years from now.
Besides, (though I've never done the math) I expect that if I ever measured 'value' by the number of 'good snapshots' I'll take during the next year with the $1,000 digicam that I will be buying shortly, I would probably end up spending way more than $1,000 a year in film and developing just to get the same number of 'good snapshots.' (Good snapshot: a 5x7 that I save and put into the album because the shot is good, not merely because I spent nearly a buck to get it developed and printed so I could even see whether it was a good shot.)
Heck, I borrowed an 'ancient' (obsolete?) .8mp oly for scout camp this summer, and the result was a great success. The day after camp, each scout and adult leader ended up with a CD containing a slide show of the hundreds of shots taken (and saved, rather than deleted cause the scout wanted to look really cool, and that shot 'makes me look like a nerd'). And this cost less than $10. The troop budget wouldn't have been able to pay for just the cost of the film and developing for the hundreds of shots, much less getting a print (or even a negative) of every shot for every participant.
I'm not blind, prints from any digicam (prosumer or consumer, or even professional) won't produce 8x10s of equal quality to a nice film set-up. But I'm going to enjoy the ride till we get there.
Now, I've just got to choose between the 'dark angel' and the G2.
probepro
Veteran Member
Gary, I really agree with you. But for the foreseeable future, DC's will be obsolete (outmoded in design) within 12-18 months. In some ways, this is a good thing, because it means the technology is advancing rapidly. And from what I read here, most folks are replacing their DC's within this same timeframe. The 2 MP rangefinder camera I bought about a year ago doesn't begin to compare to the F707, so I'm ready to upgrade. By comparison, I surely wouldn't buy a $1,000 wide-screen TV that would be outmoded in design within a year.
DC's are tremendously popular with all kinds of folks. There's no way I would go back to a darkroom, although I did enjoy it at the time.
probepro
Veteran Member
Howdy, I think we agree, except maybe on the definition of obsolete. I looked it up just to clarify it in my mind. Obsolete mean to be outmoded in design. The 2 MP camera I bought a year ago is obsolete compared to the F707. I knew this would happen when I bought the 2 MP camera, and I'm quite willing to lay down $1,000 a year later for the F707, but I still think it’s absurd.
Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing!
Herewith is my contribution. A reference to two pages of one of the most illuminating digital photography sites of which I am aware. I recommend that everyone engaged in digital photography visit this font regularly.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding_resolution.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sharpness.htm
Not only will you learn the truth, you might be pleasantly surprised.
-Ed
BTW: Thanks, Don, for starting this. It is a subject that needs more exposure (;¬ þ)
Herewith is my contribution. A reference to two pages of one of the most illuminating digital photography sites of which I am aware. I recommend that everyone engaged in digital photography visit this font regularly.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding_resolution.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sharpness.htm
Not only will you learn the truth, you might be pleasantly surprised.
-Ed
BTW: Thanks, Don, for starting this. It is a subject that needs more exposure (;¬ þ)
don m
Veteran Member
Ed,
That web site from Luminous Landscape is fantastic isn't it... There's a gallery on that web site that has a picture that looks like 3D... Wowser... Here's the URL:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/burning_tree.htm
Regards,
Don
That web site from Luminous Landscape is fantastic isn't it... There's a gallery on that web site that has a picture that looks like 3D... Wowser... Here's the URL:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/burning_tree.htm
Regards,
Don
Glenn
Veteran Member
Wow from a Camera shop near where I live .. wonderfull. i'm not sure i'd want him developing my film though isn;t that the ugliest website you've ever seen ? talk about "Over saturated"
Jerome47940
Forum Enthusiast
dear Don,
Any site which needs to reinforce its argument with rainbow coloured text must seem loud to the point of being nearly hysterical - much like the oaf who called you a "freak". ..anyway back to the site..
I doubt they are experts in digital but otherwise it does have a point.
All the consumer digital cameras look and feel poor with perhaps the exception of the Olympus E 10 (I am not an owner). The Nikon D1x and kodak 760 feel right to this pro but as I no longer shoot news there is no real need for me to fork out more than £4000 for something that will be hopelessly outdated in two years.
Digital cameras are wonderful for web work and are better than Polaroid if it would be really difficult to assess the correct exposure (e.g. shooting gas flames) but otherwise the site is right.
In London I can get C41 and E6 processed 24 hours a day. One of my cameras is a 14 year old Mamiya Rz, one is a Nikon F2, another is a Nikon 301, another is the original Canon Eos 1....all these film cameras would technically be worth very little if I were to sell but the quality is as good as new.
i've used a fuji 4900 and a Fuji S1 and I actually liked studio photography with the 4900 but the camera is already obsolete.
i think what the site really meant was that digicams are wildly over priced (true) and that the price performance relationship is very poor compared with film. it will of course get better but I won't hold my breath.
What is so disappointing about Sony is the lack of a proper non dedicated hotshoe. As to the 707 I wouldn't buy it because it looks so awkward. Have you noticed that except for Sony's first CD Mavica(?) that no consumer digicam provides a proper grip - it is as though the manufacturers hope we only have four fingers per hand.
To sum up, then, the canadian site states the obvious, and much of it is true, but if you visually scream at people (or call posters "freaks) then the message is lost and devalued.
One last point, and this is not a boast, i still use simple fixed lens film rangefinders from the late 1960s as back up black and white cameras for weddings or for shooting casually on the streets of London. i sometimes see tourists using expensive Nikons and I think to myself, why not wear a diamond encrusted Rolex?. it's the same with all the silver coloured digicams, they are just bait for muggers.
The most expensive rangefinder cost me all of £30 secondhand. It is not too hot with backlit subjects but otherwise i can easily get 60mb drumscans and have images good enough for stock libraries. And there's nothing to beat the smell of a just opened box of Kodachrome slides! Who would smell a memory stick!
best wishes
jerome y
http://www.jy-photo.co.uk
Any site which needs to reinforce its argument with rainbow coloured text must seem loud to the point of being nearly hysterical - much like the oaf who called you a "freak". ..anyway back to the site..
I doubt they are experts in digital but otherwise it does have a point.
All the consumer digital cameras look and feel poor with perhaps the exception of the Olympus E 10 (I am not an owner). The Nikon D1x and kodak 760 feel right to this pro but as I no longer shoot news there is no real need for me to fork out more than £4000 for something that will be hopelessly outdated in two years.
Digital cameras are wonderful for web work and are better than Polaroid if it would be really difficult to assess the correct exposure (e.g. shooting gas flames) but otherwise the site is right.
In London I can get C41 and E6 processed 24 hours a day. One of my cameras is a 14 year old Mamiya Rz, one is a Nikon F2, another is a Nikon 301, another is the original Canon Eos 1....all these film cameras would technically be worth very little if I were to sell but the quality is as good as new.
i've used a fuji 4900 and a Fuji S1 and I actually liked studio photography with the 4900 but the camera is already obsolete.
i think what the site really meant was that digicams are wildly over priced (true) and that the price performance relationship is very poor compared with film. it will of course get better but I won't hold my breath.
What is so disappointing about Sony is the lack of a proper non dedicated hotshoe. As to the 707 I wouldn't buy it because it looks so awkward. Have you noticed that except for Sony's first CD Mavica(?) that no consumer digicam provides a proper grip - it is as though the manufacturers hope we only have four fingers per hand.
To sum up, then, the canadian site states the obvious, and much of it is true, but if you visually scream at people (or call posters "freaks) then the message is lost and devalued.
One last point, and this is not a boast, i still use simple fixed lens film rangefinders from the late 1960s as back up black and white cameras for weddings or for shooting casually on the streets of London. i sometimes see tourists using expensive Nikons and I think to myself, why not wear a diamond encrusted Rolex?. it's the same with all the silver coloured digicams, they are just bait for muggers.
The most expensive rangefinder cost me all of £30 secondhand. It is not too hot with backlit subjects but otherwise i can easily get 60mb drumscans and have images good enough for stock libraries. And there's nothing to beat the smell of a just opened box of Kodachrome slides! Who would smell a memory stick!
best wishes
jerome y
http://www.jy-photo.co.uk
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum