"The end is near" - June Consumer Reports Article

L

lencap

Established
Local time
11:31 PM
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
60
View My Gallery
This isn't a troll - please read through with an open mind.

Yes, I know this is the RFF, and most of us have little interest in digital cameras - my point isn't that digital is good or bad, but it is clearly growing and new R&D in cameras, film, lenses and hardware will be increasing left to the bigger brands, or highly profitable niche players, the only companies that can afford it.

We all know that brands are disappearing or merging to stay viable, and that any visit to your local camera store will provide many displays full of high quality film cameras that can be had for pennies on the dollar dispite the high quality images they provide. My local dealer has some demand for Hasselblad and Leica, but you can buy Pentax 6X7, Bronica medium format, and other lesser known brands for almost nothing. He's got five Yashicamats - none over $200 asking price. I'm not trying to troll, but I have an investment in film cameras and take pleasure in using fine equipment. My concern is the dwindling number of photo labs, and the inevitable exodus of knowledgable photographers that will move to digital as an economic necessity to keep clients happy. Then where will I go to learn more about photography as art, something that I've just recently rediscovered? I agree photography will never die, but I've been an avid music lover my entire life and I have to scout really hard to find vinyl records, let alone maintain my collection. At some point it becomes very tempting to digitize my collection and carry it in my pocket on an iPod. I admit that I've taken the first steps. As much as it pains me that seems to be the direction for film based photography. Forums like this need to keep growing and to continue to provide a central source of information and knowledge - as a newbie to this forum my decision to rejoin the world of film photography was largely based upon the feedback, advice and knowledge shared on this forum.

June's Consumer Reports, hitting the newstands now, has an entire section on digital cameras. The review everything from low end point and shoot specials to the Nikon D80/Canon 30D DSLR cameras, and many lenses.

The conclusion - the Nikon 18-55mm Zoom rates 96 (?!) out of 100 for image quality, besting the highly touted Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR DX zoom that costs over five times more.

The Nikon D40 DSLR rates 70, with the Nikon D80/Canon 30D each rated 74, the highest DSLR ratings, outscoring the Nikon D200 which received 71, barely ahead of the D40 at half the price.

The Leica V-Lux 1 rated 74, , slightly trailing the Fujifile Fine Pix S6000fd which scored 77, both of these in the "SLR-Like" camera category.

The highest rated overall digital camera is the Canon Power Shot S@-IS at $280 rating 81, with shutter lag the biggest drawback. It was the only digital camera to score top marks for picture quality, battery life and abilty to take multiple pictures rapidly.

Dpressed yet? Don't be. Some things are just worth doing, regardless of what others think. I'm reminded by Ernst Haas' comment about photography:

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”

To my mind film captures that sentiment perfectly, and always will.

So my question is simple - "What can we do to keep film photography vibrant, and to keep high qualit labs and dealerships solvent?"
 
I for one sure cannot wait to read this article.
Did they do any reviewing of lenses beyond the "kit lens" range, like Canon L stuff (or even some of the Ultrasonic primes)?

I remember a Popphoto not too long ago that put the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS against the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6something IS and said that the Nikon was a better lens because "it cost half of the Canon." Optical quality be damned!
 
Interesting about the Nikon cheap zoom...I've just been playing with one on a D70 and it IS very sharp and actually has nice bokeh. Oddly.

Anyway I don't put much faith in Consumer Reports...they are largely mice of many trades but masters of none. For clothes washers, perhaps, but I'll judge cameras myself or weigh the evidence of experts.

Not to deride your posting, it's very interesting. The above post said it all...we keep film vibrant. I also think we need to accentuate what film does best/better than digital, er, I mean differentiate it more. I used to think chromes would be one of the things that keep fiilm vibrant alongside digital, but I think Nikon has really been developing a kind of "digital velvia" thing. So now I think film will live longest in black and white applications, though chromes will be available as long as "kino film" is still projecting our movies.
 
I once saw a hilarious takeoff on a CR car review in an auto magazine.
They rated a Formula One race car like they do a family sedan.
"CR" said it was too cramped, noisy and got bad mpg.
On a positive note, they said it had good pickup!

I take much of what I see in CR with a grain of salt;
they play favorites, often ignoring good products.
They often seem to have their own agenda.

I have found their annual auto issue to be somewhat useful,
but I would never trust them to help me choose a camera...

Chris
 
dreilly said:
Anyway I don't put much faith in Consumer Reports...they are largely mice of many trades but masters of none. For clothes washers, perhaps, but I'll judge cameras myself or weigh the evidence of experts.
Click to expand...

I have to second this motion. CR tests are simply a joke when it comes to the finer points of higher end gear of any type. Just check out their ratings on stereo systems... brands like JVC and Harmon Kardon come out on top all the time. I apologize to anyone with JVC or other such stereo gear, but it simply isn't HiFi - it's MidFi at best. CR does a great job and provides a very valuable service, but they just don't cut it for some products. I imagine CR rating oil paintings... they'd probably pick a schlock art portrait over a Gainsborough because it is "easier on the eye and less expensive too".

Back to the point brought up earlier; film is here to stay, especially B&W.
 
Yeah, also consider the target audience. Joe and Jane average are probably better served by a P. and S. digicam or DSLR than a film camera anyway. They get instant results, a 'scan' for the web, and the ability to either have a minilab or home inkjet make prints in a hurry.
Didn't the bulk of us start out in those shoes, or the equivalent at the time we started?
Looking at things from that perspective, wouldn't it be pretty irresponsible of Consumer Reports to recomend an MP and Summicron?
I don't think we need to worry about the enthusiast film community going away anytime soon; there is still far too much incentive for us to do things our way, and a need for communication amongst us.
 
Planted Tao-
If you want to see younger people get interested in film, show them good B+W prints. They speak for themselves.
 
Interestingly, I was going to post a thread kinda opposite of what you wrote. I was at Barnes and Noble over the weekend and noticed something I found rather interesting. In their rag rack they had 4 magazines devoted to black and white "mostly" analog photography: JPG, Black and White, Black and White Photography, and a fourth (can't recall the title, seemed mostly angled toward collecting black and white prints). Another mag was devoted to Landscape photography. I bought a copy of Black and White Photography, which had an article on two-bath developers including Diafine. It also had a glowing article on the CV Bessas. The magazing was packed with ads.

I would say the split of traditional vs. digital mags was 60-40%, perhaps, in favor of digital?

As far as CR is concerned, I really don't respect the opinions of that magazine all that much. Most film I purchase on-line rather than big box retailers. I can still get plenty of film there too and have scads of places that develop C41 in my area. I haven't seen that diminish at all. I can buy any film camera I want, and have six film cameras and one digital.

What many of these articles overlook is what drove me back to film in the first place - selective focus. Can't - and probably never will be able to get that out of a digicam so regardless how "almost as good as film" it gets, I'll never shoot them.

That leaves you with DSLRs, which for reasons too numerous to discuss here, I opt with film.

The end is not near.
 
Last edited:
the end is always near- for someone.

CR told me in 1999 that I just had to buy an audi A6 2.7t, so I did.. wonderful car..great rating, they raved!
the next year it's in their 'ten cars to avoid' catagory. Oh well, we can't all drive camry.
 
I buy all my stuff online too. IMO, the only high quality labs and dealerships that work with film can only survive by advertising their services online. The film renaissance (and I believe there is one) is largely driven by internet-enabled people like me who started with digital but realised the appeal of film. I first started taking photographs with a Sony point and shoot digicam, then went on to a LOMO action sampler, then a Zorki. Those of us who rediscovered film are banding together online on places like RFF, so there is no real need to worry.

Clarence
 
CR rated the Camry higher than BMW 5 series. I know which one I'd rather drive. And don't forget when they tested baby seats, yet tested them at more than twice the usual speed, then splashed headlines when they all failed.
 
in 1979 the Dodge Omni and the Plymouth Horizon were claimed to be the best sub compacts by these mags, you can take their claim to the bank if you believe their stories.
 
I actually like CR but for just about any specialized product, they are not the best source of info. And they may not be ad driven but you can bet they are watching the consumer and reviewing the things that the consumer is already buying.
To keep film "alive" requires us to keep spending our money on it. I think there are enough of us around the world to make a viable though small market. And we should reward those people and companies who will serve that market.
Rob
 
I used to read CR and buy appliances, etc, based upon their recommendations. However the products they suggested seemed consistently to have a high incidence of premature failure or poor design. I've had better luck choosing stuff on an arbitrary basis, or based on seemingly inconsequential criteria like looks.
 
this magazine seems to be like the UK's "Which" magazine, they report on everything from Apples to Zoos, and often their reports are way way off the mark. I often think the old adage " Jack of all trades but master of none" applies. they are good for things like bad customer service but their test reports thats quite another matter. They did a test of what they called "photo printers" the winner was a cheap do-all printer. The price outweighed its shortcomings putting at the top of the table. The dedicated photoprinters that we would be interested in were at the bottom because they were too expensive.:bang:
Treat these reports with a very large pinch of salt🙄
 
I read an article on bicycles in the 70s and they stated flat out the best bike brakes are center pull period. Well in cheap side pulls yes, but the best brakes of the time were Campy side pulls [The Brits were using some cantilever on their off road bikes [road bikes with knobby tires same width as regular tires, before mountainbikes] but campy was the gold standard.

If I knew they were wrong about something I know about how can I EVER trust them on something I do not know much about
 
Pay no attention to Consumer Reports. They make serious errors in rating equipment.

The most recent fiasco was a very screwed up report on baby car seats. My gosh. If they can`t handle that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom