D60: A Smashing Success

[Alex Goldberg]

Most experts agree 35mm film will still hold the majority business for
at least another decade. Time will tell.

Most experts were recommending to buy Enron stocks, too.

 

[Dave Knadler]

One thing nice about digital, though, is that you can simulate the widest angle you need by stitching a panorama. Tough to do with film. And really, third-party lense makers make it fairly cheap to get to the 35mm equivalent of, say, 24mm -- which should handle the wide end for most shooters. I just have a feeling the technical difficulties of developing a "full-frame" sensor for the masses make this an unrealistic short-term goal.

I think film will be around a good long while, but only as a niche market. I always pay attention to what cameras people are using, and on my last trip to Fla., Daytona and St. Augustine, nearly everyone I saw had a digital P&S, and they were shooting pictures with abandon. That's the first time I've observed that. I do think this is a watershed year for the industry -- not necessarily because of cameras like the D60, but because the price point has fallen to where the P&S folks feel comfortable about getting on board, and because there are now lots of convenient options for getting prints without having to do them yourself.

Then again, I've been wrong before...

I, and i thnk a lot of others, are not yet jumping ship because of
the multiplication factor of DSLR. I'll be jumping ship for the
first company able to match the lenses with the size of the CCD. It
makes it very hard to have a very wide angle with today's DSLR, and
i think they won't have all their potential success as long as this
problem exist.

 

[Dave Lewis]

but.... would you have taken all those shoots if the camera were
not a digital camera? I don't think it's an apples to apples
comparison when comparing the price 35mm film/processing to digital
because in film, you are conscious of the rolls you are going
through..... where as in digital, you can certainly take much more
risks with composition, exposure, etc.

The last summer I used film, I shot 36 rolls of 24. This past summer with digital I shot over 6000 pictures. We simply shoot more pictures when there is not a per picture cost. Whether that is good or bad is not the point here, but it is a selling point for digitals in most folks' minds. I don't think digital will replace film in my lifetime. In fact, I doubt it will for many many years to come. Film will remain as an artsy approach to imagery, and it will remain for the established film camera base for many years to come too. --Dave Lewis

 

[jack stephens]

The technical development of digital cameras is only just starting, and it has a much greater potential for improvements than film ever did, comparable to the case of motor cars vs horse buggies. At least by the time the generation raised on film passes, film as a mass market item will be gone.
I have had my D60 for less than 2 weeks, and already film seems quaint.

Jack

I think film will be around a good long while, but only as a niche
market. I always pay attention to what cameras people are using,
and on my last trip to Fla., Daytona and St. Augustine, nearly
everyone I saw had a digital P&S, and they were shooting pictures
with abandon. That's the first time I've observed that. I do think
this is a watershed year for the industry -- not necessarily
because of cameras like the D60, but because the price point has
fallen to where the P&S folks feel comfortable about getting on
board, and because there are now lots of convenient options for
getting prints without having to do them yourself.

Then again, I've been wrong before...

I, and i thnk a lot of others, are not yet jumping ship because of
the multiplication factor of DSLR. I'll be jumping ship for the
first company able to match the lenses with the size of the CCD. It
makes it very hard to have a very wide angle with today's DSLR, and
i think they won't have all their potential success as long as this
problem exist.

 

[Rick Lay]

(1) the D60 will allow you greater compositional freedom to crop
(eg if you can't get close enough and need more "zoom")

Point taken... but honestly, when was the last time I took the time to crop an exposure? I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have had to crop an image I shot on my D30.... Perhaps for sports or wildlife photography this is key.... but as a hobbyist, and primarily a people photographer.... the extra pixels are of little use. A mercury switch or new firmware that detected the shutter release on the vertical grip and automatically rotated the exposure.... that would be useful!

(2) from my experience 3MP is woefully inadequate for detailed
landscape shots- you really do benefit from the extra pixels the
D60 offers

Yes.... but I sure would like to use my 17mm glass at 17mm for wide angle landscape shots. Most importantly, of all the shots I've taken (10k+), I have never printed one landscape from my D30.... Not because of the resolution... but more because I haven't really taken any interesting ones that were worth printing..... Maybe with wider lenses (sub 28mm after the multipier, this would be interesting). I measure my toys based on results. I did actually sell some Sydney Harbor Bridge/Opera House/Olympic Rings stitched panoramics using my old Canon S20 P&S (and lots of PhotoShop!). I'm eyeing a panoramic head for my D30 so I can take more of these types of shots.

(3) the D60 has a vastly superior buffering system for much better
response and overall feeling of speed

Hmmmm, for the kinds of pictures and photographic situations I've been in.... speed on the D30 have not been an issue..... on the contrary, the near instant shutter release has allowed me to take some perfectly timed shots..... even in multi-exposure mode.

(4) the D60 also has signficantly superior long-exposure
performance (e.g. over 30s or 1 minute) plus you don't have to wait
double-time for the black frame subtraction to complete...

Yep.... but if you are taking long exposure shots.... you will probably be used to waiting regardless.

so i think there are a number of signficant reasons for upgrading.
but that's just me. and i agree with you 100% re: "but you would
never shoot that much on film" argument, people always seem to
forget this!

I guess what I am waiting for is an SLR model from Canon that is in between the EOS-1D and the D60..... 6MP... 1.3X Multiplier...Mercury Switch, 10X Zoom on LCD playback (both features on the new Canon P&S models).....Weather Proof Body.... and the same performance as the D60...... Maybe they'll call this camera the EOS-3D? I would pay $3000US for such a camera.

 

[Rick Lay]

with a film camera.... all you really need is the camera, lenses, & film... the lab provides the processing, paper... and even digital archiving onto CD.

Ricky

Also, there are a lot of costs that aren't factored in digital....

The storage, optical backup, inkjet printing cost, software,
computer hardware, upgrading your camera, technology depreciation,
and.... most importantly....your fiddling, learning, and trial &
error time. Sure, one can say that it's faster to shoot
digital.... but with a good lab, you simply drop off the roll, and
pick up the results....

--
Ricky L. Jones
Canon Elan II, EOS 3, G1, D60(soon)
http://community.webshots.com/user/rljslick

 

[John Mason]

I was thinking along the lines of the serious SLR user finally taking the 6mp resolution point as when to jump ship to digital. But in the context of the whole film to digital question Dave is right on.

It's the consumer point and shooter that is moving to digital in droves that will kill the film market. Once production drops film development costs will go up only accelerating the switch to digital.

Walmar knows this - this is why they are putting in - drop your cf card off and will give you back your prints developing centers. The newer point and shoots all have dpof where you can select the ones you want to print. The lowered cost in this is not being missed and you can get decent digital point and shoots for the cost of a decent APS camera now.

The handwriting is on the wall. I was at Disney a few months ago - I saw almost no film camera's - everyone was shooting digital - maybe only 20 to 30 percent were film shooters. What do you observe at the tourist places? I'd be curious about people's impressions.

(by the way I have a friend who works at Kodak - they predicted this change but the pace of it has pretty much caught them off guard - they assumed their world market would keep them going because the entry price to a digital camera would be high - but that is not proving to be the case. People all over the world know how to do math and being able to take as many pics as you want for free and only print the ones you want is hard to resist.)

I think film will be around a good long while, but only as a niche
market. I always pay attention to what cameras people are using,
and on my last trip to Fla., Daytona and St. Augustine, nearly
everyone I saw had a digital P&S, and they were shooting pictures
with abandon. That's the first time I've observed that. I do think
this is a watershed year for the industry -- not necessarily
because of cameras like the D60, but because the price point has
fallen to where the P&S folks feel comfortable about getting on
board, and because there are now lots of convenient options for
getting prints without having to do them yourself.

Then again, I've been wrong before...

I, and i thnk a lot of others, are not yet jumping ship because of
the multiplication factor of DSLR. I'll be jumping ship for the
first company able to match the lenses with the size of the CCD. It
makes it very hard to have a very wide angle with today's DSLR, and
i think they won't have all their potential success as long as this
problem exist.

--John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[Rick Lay]

In this internet connected world.... it still amazes me how many people tell me "I can barely turn a computer on.... let alone use the internet or process digital pictures."

This is why film will stick around for a long time to come.... In my city, there are film shops every 100 meters.... medium format photographers taking wedding pictures near landmarks.... and tourist buying throw away cameras everywhere. Until a significant percentage of those people get computer literate enough to reap the benefits of digital.... film is here to stay.

but.... would you have taken all those shoots if the camera were
not a digital camera? I don't think it's an apples to apples
comparison when comparing the price 35mm film/processing to digital
because in film, you are conscious of the rolls you are going
through..... where as in digital, you can certainly take much more
risks with composition, exposure, etc.

The last summer I used film, I shot 36 rolls of 24. This past
summer with digital I shot over 6000 pictures. We simply shoot more
pictures when there is not a per picture cost. Whether that is good
or bad is not the point here, but it is a selling point for
digitals in most folks' minds. I don't think digital will replace
film in my lifetime. In fact, I doubt it will for many many years
to come. Film will remain as an artsy approach to imagery, and it
will remain for the established film camera base for many years to
come too.
--
Dave Lewis

 

[Rick Lay]

In this internet connected world.... it still amazes me how many people tell me "I can barely turn a computer on.... let alone use the internet or process digital pictures."

This is why film will stick around for a long time to come.... In my city, there are film shops every 100 meters.... medium format photographers taking wedding pictures near landmarks.... and tourist buying throw away cameras everywhere. Until a significant percentage of those people get computer literate enough to reap the benefits of digital.... film is here to stay.

but.... I am starting to see more and more digital cameras.... even the non-technical guys in my office are buying Digital ELPHs and sharing their vacation shots with me in the office..... funny how we all work in the IT industry & have digital cameras, pdas, and mp3 players....

I think film will be around a good long while, but only as a niche
market. I always pay attention to what cameras people are using,
and on my last trip to Fla., Daytona and St. Augustine, nearly
everyone I saw had a digital P&S, and they were shooting pictures
with abandon. That's the first time I've observed that. I do think
this is a watershed year for the industry -- not necessarily
because of cameras like the D60, but because the price point has
fallen to where the P&S folks feel comfortable about getting on
board, and because there are now lots of convenient options for
getting prints without having to do them yourself.

Then again, I've been wrong before...

 

[KevinQ]

Not that fast if you consider the total cost of using digital SLR, or even the digital P & S.

What we are really seeing before our eyes is the death of film for
most 35mm work.

I don't believe we are seeing the death of most 35mm work. Not
from the d60, or the d100. As much as I love digital, and it is
mostly what I use, lets take a reality check first. 35mm film still
makes up for 80% of the business [Pop Photography], and digital
sales actually took it's first decline in sales last year. Most
experts agree 35mm film will still hold the majority business for
at least another decade. Time will tell.

 

[Rick Lay]

The handwriting is on the wall. I was at Disney a few months ago -
I saw almost no film camera's - everyone was shooting digital -
maybe only 20 to 30 percent were film shooters. What do you
observe at the tourist places? I'd be curious about people's
impressions.

Well.... as digital photographers ourselves.... we are more conscious of other digital cameras and photographers than those using film.... Everyday, I walk by the two of the most beautiful and most photographed landmarks in world (the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House).... and the majority of the photograhers are using film camera (mostly Point & Shoots). I think the number of people I see with film SLR gear is about equal to the folks using P&S digitals..... I can probably count on one hand the times I have seems people with Digital-SLRs.

(by the way I have a friend who works at Kodak - they predicted
this change but the pace of it has pretty much caught them off
guard - they assumed their world market would keep them going
because the entry price to a digital camera would be high - but
that is not proving to be the case. People all over the world know
how to do math and being able to take as many pics as you want for
free and only print the ones you want is hard to resist.)

I did a project at Kodak 10 years ago.... and they had a digital imaging division back then.... so I think there is more to come from them. If you look at Kodak's latest point and shoots.... you can get 4 megapixel cameras from them with idiot proof ease of use (docking station, software, etc.) for under $450. They are focusing on the big picture.... "how can we sell inexpensive digital technology that ordinary people find valueable and still make money?"..... I bet that on the R&D, marketing, and manufactoring cost, Canon & Nikon have LOST money on their digital SLRs ventures. Kodak is looking for the sweet spot in digital photography..... but meanwhile they are making incredibly high margins on film, chemicals, processing equipment, etc.

 

[steve reed]

I'm always amazed at how many people are technology illiterate in today's world.

That is one reason I'm happy places like Wal-Mart and Costco getting Fuji Frontier printers. They take compact flash card/smart media, zip disk, floppy, whatever.

Even my mom could shoot a bunch of pictures, remove the card, drop it off at Costco, and pick up the pictures in an hour.

Within a year or so, you'll be able to do the same at basically every place you can get 1 hour photos now. Including those "film shops" you find every 100 meters today.

Digital's replacement of film is coming faster than many people realize.

-Steve Reed

This is why film will stick around for a long time to come.... In
my city, there are film shops every 100 meters.... medium format
photographers taking wedding pictures near landmarks.... and
tourist buying throw away cameras everywhere. Until a significant
percentage of those people get computer literate enough to reap the
benefits of digital.... film is here to stay.

but.... would you have taken all those shoots if the camera were
not a digital camera? I don't think it's an apples to apples
comparison when comparing the price 35mm film/processing to digital
because in film, you are conscious of the rolls you are going
through..... where as in digital, you can certainly take much more
risks with composition, exposure, etc.

The last summer I used film, I shot 36 rolls of 24. This past
summer with digital I shot over 6000 pictures. We simply shoot more
pictures when there is not a per picture cost. Whether that is good
or bad is not the point here, but it is a selling point for
digitals in most folks' minds. I don't think digital will replace
film in my lifetime. In fact, I doubt it will for many many years
to come. Film will remain as an artsy approach to imagery, and it
will remain for the established film camera base for many years to
come too.
--
Dave Lewis

 

[markjaz86653]

In this internet connected world.... it still amazes me how many
people tell me "I can barely turn a computer on.... let alone use
the internet or process digital pictures."

This is why film will stick around for a long time to come.... In
my city, there are film shops every 100 meters.... medium format
photographers taking wedding pictures near landmarks.... and
tourist buying throw away cameras everywhere. Until a significant
percentage of those people get computer literate enough to reap the
benefits of digital.... film is here to stay.

I doubt it. Those film shops, if they want to survive, will convert to service shops that let people send in or bring in their digital images and have them converted, tweaked, cropped, printed, and/or framed. The digital point-and-shoots will replace the film point-and-shoots. The consumers who can turn a computer on (and they won't need to do much more than that) will be able to go to a Web site, upload their photos, have them tweaked, printed, and delivered. The ones who can't turn on a computer will be able to take their camera or their image storage device to their local shop and have the same services done.

The consumers will relentlessly drive this process to eliminate every possible step except pushing the shutter button. They won't want to buy film, and they won't want to go to the local shop and drop it off, wait an hour or a day, and pick it up to see what their shots look like.

The medium format landmark photogs will also go digital and they will be able to print the image for the consumer on the spot, or email the digital file for custom processing later. If the consumer doesn't have an email address (this will become very rare) the photographer will be able to send the image electronically to their neighborhood shop for printing and delivery to the consumer.

I believe that for most photography applications, the places where someone actually uses all of those "nasty chemicals" to develop film will be few and far between.

Regards,

Mark J.----------------------EOS 1D ~ 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 28-70mm f/2.8 L ~ 550EX