bmattock
Veteran
I agree.
I agree with this as well. Read the consumer-oriented magazines such as PC Magazine or Consumer Reports and they will say nothing about DoF, sensor size, etc. They'll talk about pocket-ability, battery life, optical zoom, speed of start up and shot-to-shot, speed of auto-focus, face-recognition and other whiz-bang features that typical consumers either want or have been told they should want. Values that enthusiasts would consider important, like a fast lens, large sensor, good ISO performance, dynamic range, and so on, won't be considered in terms of what makes a 'good' camera for the typical consumer, let alone influence a reviewer to urge consumers to buy film cameras instead.
Yes, film is superior in lots of important ways. Joe Sixpack doesn't care, and he is the market. Are 'we' enough of a market to ensure the survival of film in some manner? I don't know. But the fact that it is superior doesn't matter to its survival - it either will or will not survive because enthusiasts will buy it, not because it is superior to digital.
I would not want to lean on the argument that film should survive because it is superior to small digital sensors, for the simple reason that that statement may not remain true much longer. Full-frame sensors in point-n-shoots? Doubtful. But more and more large sensor/small cameras created to serve the small enthusiast market that currently loves film.
filmfan
Well-known
Forgot DOF crap... film is all about the grain and texture
bmattock
Veteran
Again, not a valid reason to argue that film will survive. Yes, the grain is a lovely thing and digital noise is not anywhere near as pretty. Average consumer (which is the market) does not know or care - they probably would prefer to have no grain at all.
You can list dozens of reasons why film is better than digital, each of them true. It does not matter to the long-term survival of film. Period.
rodinal
film user
In fact, it is...
A 35mm frame has a size of 24x36 mm, times four equals 96x144 mm, in inches 3.8x5.7, pretty close to 4x5 format.
Possibly you are thinking about the area. Likewise 4x5 format has about 16 times the area of 35mm format, but depth of field calculations relate to linear ratios, not area.
Indeed...
btgc
Veteran
Come on...first thing what proud owner of XYmpix digicam realizes that he can't make "cool shot with background out of focus" (well, they can mimic the look shooting at long end of zoom). This is one of most discussed questions in amateur photosites, discussing how to select background and apply Gaussian blur to it.
I've told this, school guy I know, recently got complete SLR kit just to have direct control over DOF, no matter what one could think about rise or decline of film manufacturers.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Indeed...
Could be a units confusion. It should be noted that:
24x36 = millimeters
4x5, 8x10 = inches
6x6, 6x7 = centimeters
2 1/4 x 2 1/4 = inches
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Scanning backs are the devils creation. (although some panoramic cameras use scanning lenses: also created by the same devil).
My problem is with the LF ones (I don't do pano, and have no interest in it). But the same holds true: You are not taking a picture, but a series of pictures.
Granted, for what they are designed for (typically architecture) they work wonders for multi-cars. Or even "less than the price of a high end BMW". Film for me, and a decent scanner. Send out the ones that make it for pro drum scans, and you can still save money.
bmattock
Veteran
You are describing enthusiasts, even if they shoot digital point-n-shoots. The average camera user does not go near a discussion forum and would not know depth-of-field from a load of coal.
bmattock
Veteran
I don't want to speak for Pickett, but I believe he said that "Actually, outside the hallowed halls of photo enthusiast web sites." Meaning he was NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU since you're on a photo enthusiast website right now. He was referring, I believe, to the Great Unwashed. You not being one of them.
bmattock
Veteran
Sony stopped manufacturing Betamax machines in 2002. No one currently manufactures Betamax tapes. The fact that you can buy them is completely analogous to those who argue that AgfaPhoto still exists because you can buy film labeled 'Agfa' that comes from cold storage. Show me the existing betamax manufacturing plant.
Fujitsu
Well-known
Not true. Betamax soon became a niche "pro" product but remained available all the time. If thats the fate of film, fine.
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
That's a good example. In the battle for competition technologies and products adapt themselves to find new market niches.
Look at this: A scientific approach to managing competition
I'd be interested in seeing the growth curve of the films against that of the digital devices to verify if the film already reached the bottom of the fall.
Jamie123
Veteran
Yeah, that was me. Ok, maybe not all P&Ss will be FF but a lot of them will. Sure, marketing has convinced consumers that the tiny sensors with lots of MPs can be just as good as big sensors but sooner or later they will need a new marketing angle and "bigger is better" is always a good angle. Marketing will tell consumers that their old P&S with a tiny sensor is junk compared to the new shiny P&S with a bigger sensor. And as sensors get cheaper to manufacture it will also get more viable to put them in compacts. A Canon 1000D with an APS-C sensor is not more expensive than a decent P&S was a few years ago.
Is this going to happen this year? Most likely not. Will it happen eventually? Probably yes. Micro 4/3 is a start and so is the X1. More will surely follow.
And remember, we're talking about this as an argument whether or not film will survive. The OP's point was that those people who want shallow DoF will still go for a film camera instead of a digital compact. I say this point is moot because sooner or later there will be the option to get a FF compact so this won't be a reason to stick with film.
Gid
Well-known
What you think he was referring to and what he said are clearly not the same. I fail to see how you can get "professionals" from that. More like a CYA operation on your part.
Incitatus
Member
Will film ever control the market again? no - but for the time being there is a large enough market to support it - maybe there will be much fewer options -
If kodak or fuji go away then someone else will fill that void- at least for another 10 years
If kodak or fuji go away then someone else will fill that void- at least for another 10 years
pawel glogowski
Member
To be precise DoF does not depend on crop factor / size of the frame.
But nevermind - most of You probably know that, and say otherwise just to make that specific mental leap to actually describe something else (that's not always fully convenient).
But nevermind - most of You probably know that, and say otherwise just to make that specific mental leap to actually describe something else (that's not always fully convenient).
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
antiquark
Derek Ross
Thanks, interesting graph in that article:
It's possible that the digital vs film battle could follow the same arc as the ballpoint vs fountain pen did.
Imagine the ridicule you would have faced back in the 70's if you stated that "some day people will willingly pay $400 for a fountain pen."
bmattock
Veteran
Or a roll of film.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Sorry, can't follow you.
DoF does depend on the size of the negative / sensor. That's the whole point here. The OP argued that this effect was going to help keep film alive -- which I find hard to believe. It seems indeed more likely that larger sensors will become more common, not in snapshot cameras but say in the segment that's now populated by the EP-1, etc.