Rant: In the land of the Digicams

[FrankS]

For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.

I believe it's the photographer not the gear.

 

[tamerlin]

For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.

I believe it's the photographer not the gear.

Same here... that's why I subscribe to the philosophy that there is actually a best camera: the one
you use. 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

It's not the gear, true, but the photographer has to be comfortable with using the camera. Has to LIKE using the gear. If the gear is getting in the way of photography, then it becomes very important.

I think there's nothing wrong with trying out many different types of equipment, in order to give ourselves a chance to find the right one. The right one being that which we can use without thinking about it, just like an extension of hands and eyes and brain.

 

[RML]

It's not the gear, true, but the photographer has to be comfortable with using the camera. Has to LIKE using the gear. If the gear is getting in the way of photography, then it becomes very important.

I think there's nothing wrong with trying out many different types of equipment, in order to give ourselves a chance to find the right one. The right one being that which we can use without thinking about it, just like an extension of hands and eyes and brain.

Hear hear.

Eloquence isn't my forte but it's like Csab' says. SLRs get in my way while my RFs don't. I feel comfortable shooting my RFs while I feel hampered when shooting SLRs. It's not only using the right tool for the right job but also finding the right tool for the right (wo)man.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Digicams, ok this is the convience culture gone totally nuts. I have yet someone to come up to me and ridicule my Leica M3/Contax IIIa/ Canonet, however when I am shooting with my Nikon F when I am in the mood for SLR, I am seen as one ecentric Gen X crank. I just smile as I know wether I am using SLR or rangefinder, my pictures either in colour or black and white will kick digital ass any day of the week with the old school glass I am using (note right fist in the air in revolutionary salute)

Bill

 

[back alley]

For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.

I believe it's the photographer not the gear.

yet you are so proud about being a wet darkroom worker and not a scanner/printer kind of guy...a contradiction?

i think it's about results based on gear.
that's why i like old canon lenses better than newer more contrasty lenses.
i prefer canon bodies because they are NOT rounded on the sides.
of course the gear is important.
joe

 

[sychan]

I don't see why some people have to project their own beliefs and standards onto other people, and then find those people to be stupid or somehow lacking. What you believe their photographs should be, may not be what they believe their photographs should be.

If you do formal research into why people take photos, it often the case that they don't take photos in order to make pretty pictures (contrary to what many photographers assume).

Take a look at this link for some results of research.

The "unwashed masses" are not the idiots that some people in this thread to paint them to be - they trade the things they don't care about, for the things they do care about. My parents have photos from their Samsung zoom camera that look fine, remind them of the places they went, the people they were with and so on. They certainly appreciate the quality of photos from my fancy cameras, but for them, the photo is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

 

[Bertram2]

When Customs release my R-D1 I'll be shooting digital. For now I'll shoot film. If the R-D1 is truly a traditional RF with a sensor instead of loaded with film, I couldn't give a star's arse whether some people frown upon digital cameras. For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.

And for me only one thing is important, that's how the result LOOKS. If digital one day will look like the films I use at the time then even I will think about purchasing a digital camera.
How does the photo look when it is done, that't for me the central point on which all technical decisions depend.
Bertram

 

[thpook]

I just wrote a long piece on why I think film is better than digital for people to learn on, as a rebuttal to someones statement that "Digital is better to learn on because you don't have to worry about buying film."

What he said:

But that is part of my point, which is that digital lets you go buckwild, and not worry about cost. I wouldn't have taken 1/3 as many pictures as I have in the last year, if I had been shooting film, and wouldn't have learned even a 1/4 of the knowledge I've gained just through trial and error.

What I said (long):

Might be good, might be bad. I'm going to preface what I'm going to say next with this: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, I'm just stating some serious thoughts and questions that I have thought quite a bit about.

You're right, digital lets you go buckwild. I could go out right now with my D70, and easily come back with 300 raw shots and spend the rest of the night processing them. The question isn't one of quantity, it's one of quality. With a digital, you are more inclined to take grab shots and throw away shots. Shots you know are probably not going to turn out. Why? Because electrons are free, man. I ask you, what does that attitude do to your photography? On one hand, you are experimenting to see if something can work, but on the other, you are automatically devaluing what you are doing because it's "free". For instance, rather than waiting for the precise moment to take a photo, you can just set your camera for continuous shooting and fire off some rapid shots thinking "One of them will turn out".

I haven't learned a thing from digital. I forgot things because of digital. Things like metering, taking it slow. I used to shoot large format. I'm not going to say that every shot I took was great, but if I were to separate the 500 some odd shots that I took into four groups about a quarter of them would be in the pretty damn good/excellent category with about a hundred in technical/exposure/development failures 50 or so in the utter crap category with the rest being passable. I can't even begin to claim that sort of success rate with digital.

I went through all of my digital shots for the last year, and while there were some good shots I realized that I wasn't as proud of them as I was of my shots taken with my film cameras. Why is that? Is it because I have money riding on it? Because I have paid for the film that I use and I want to get the most out of my money? Could be. Probably, actually though not the whole story.
Because of that investment (messups cost money) I have heavily self-edited my shots. "No, that won't work, too (insert reason here)." When I shoot film, I take the time to get it right. Not just the money issue but I find that I actually care if a shot turns out or not. Without getting too corny (I hope), when I take a photo I think "There go those little light reactive salts, changing and forming a latent image." When I'm done with a roll, it's like magic in a canister. I know that I have 36 little moments of time that I have stolen, and every time I develop a roll of film, it's like christmas. "Did I get it? COME ON, HURRY UP STUPID FIXER! I NEED TO KNOW!"

Maybe it's obvious, but there's still a bit of romance in film photography for me. I mean, think of medium format. What other type of photography lets you kiss the film when it's done?

MAYBE FILM PHOTOGRAPHY IS WRONG. IF IT IS, I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT!

Seriously, I think digital is great but I think it actually takes longer to learn the lessons you need to learn with digital than with film, because you aren't as invested in the final product. There's also the matter of final output. If you're shooting for web/computer work then the removal of extra steps is convenient and proper. However, I don't think anything teaches you as much about photography as going out with a manual film camera loaded with some good slide/B&W film and doing everything yourself.

Normally I wouldn't c&p from another forum, but I'm too lazy to write out my views on it again tonight.

 

[kiev4a]

>I haven't learned a thing from digital. I forgot things because of digital.

Well said

 

[Kin Lau]

The "unwashed masses" are not the idiots that some people in this thread to paint them to be - they trade the things they don't care about, for the things they do care about. My parents have photos from their Samsung zoom camera that look fine, remind them of the places they went, the people they were with and so on. They certainly appreciate the quality of photos from my fancy cameras, but for them, the photo is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Which is why so many roll their eyes when we stop to take a picture, go for a different angle etc. The "aren't you done yet" look 🙂. For them, good enough, is good enough. It's not that they're idiots, but it just a matter of priorities. In fact, you could probably get them to start a thread on having to put up with "us" (photographers/classic RF users/collectors) and I'm sure there'll be plenty of stories there too 😀.

Can you imagine the reaction we'd get if we tried to explain this thread to one of them!

 

[DougK]

Might be good, might be bad. ... Seriously, I think digital is great but I think it actually takes longer to learn the lessons you need to learn with digital than with film, because you aren't as invested in the final product. There's also the matter of final output. If you're shooting for web/computer work then the removal of extra steps is convenient and proper. However, I don't think anything teaches you as much about photography as going out with a manual film camera loaded with some good slide/B&W film and doing everything yourself.

I disagree with a good deal of what you say in this post (I clipped a lot of it out of the quote for brevity's sake).

For me, there is significant learning value in being able to see if the approach I chose worked or not while I'm there and can shoot again before the moment is gone (mostly true since I usually deal with trees, buildings, and other objects that don't normally move very quickly). If I'm not sure I got the shot or think I might want to try something different I'll shoot again with different settings and without fear that I'm shooting more film than necessary. It's also a great way to learn DOF and the effects of shutter speed very quickly. I could have done the same thing with film, true, but it would have taken longer (delay between shooting and seeing the results) and been more expensive in film and developing costs.

What makes the difference IMNSHO is having the self-discipline to never delete anything in the field. The in-camera LCD is only a rough guideline to how the shot really looks - you won't be able to truly tell if it's a keeper (unless it's grossly out of focus, finger in the picture, or something like that) until you can look at it on the monitor and can place the shots side-by-side to see which interpretation worked better.

 

[tekgypsy]

hmmm.. digital vs film.... SLR vs RF vs PnS

i use all of the above.... even the occasional disposable.... the point is to get the pic, to capture the moment in time.

choose the tool for the job.

when i go hiking/camping/climbing i take a digital because i can get several thousand pix on a few memory cards. it would require a draft animal of some sort to carry the film equivalent. when the weather is inclement i grab the Epic weatherproof (film) because i know it can handle it. i have had digital and film SLRs

ultimately the idea is to capture the moment.. someone else said there are snobs on all sides....

i guess this thread has proved it

 

[DougK]

I wouldn't consider myself a snob or biased to either side. I'm just sick of all the FUD surrounding digital vs. film. Neither is going away anytime soon, much to the chagrin of both camps. Maybe we should learn how to live with each other...?

Nah, that wouldn't be any fun 🙂

 

[thpook]

I agree that there is significant learning value with digitals. I own 2 of them, and I use them. I was stating my opinion and speaking of my experience. I find that the style of shooting digital promotes (rapid-fire) can reduce the quality of your shots. and that if I take my time, I take better photos. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.

I disagree with a good deal of what you say in this post (I clipped a lot of it out of the quote for brevity's sake).

For me, there is significant learning value in being able to see if the approach I chose worked or not while I'm there and can shoot again before the moment is gone (mostly true since I usually deal with trees, buildings, and other objects that don't normally move very quickly). If I'm not sure I got the shot or think I might want to try something different I'll shoot again with different settings and without fear that I'm shooting more film than necessary. It's also a great way to learn DOF and the effects of shutter speed very quickly. I could have done the same thing with film, true, but it would have taken longer (delay between shooting and seeing the results) and been more expensive in film and developing costs.

What makes the difference IMNSHO is having the self-discipline to never delete anything in the field. The in-camera LCD is only a rough guideline to how the shot really looks - you won't be able to truly tell if it's a keeper (unless it's grossly out of focus, finger in the picture, or something like that) until you can look at it on the monitor and can place the shots side-by-side to see which interpretation worked better.

 

[vha]

Just slightly on the side : since i have too much spare time I´v found out that the quotes belongs to Paul Dickson and Abraham Maslow, Paul Dickson with the pig and Maslow with the hammer.

Btw : wonder where a rangefinder camera fits into Maslows model ? 😀

vha.

 

[XAos]

I agree that there is significant learning value with digitals. I own 2 of them, and I use them. I was stating my opinion and speaking of my experience. I find that the style of shooting digital promotes (rapid-fire) can reduce the quality of your shots. and that if I take my time, I take better photos. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.

I wish someone would make the equivalent of a 3MP k1000. Now THAT would be a student camera - reducing the delay in user feedback could be a huge asset (as would saving exposure information.)

I started messing with film after having finally found a P&S Digital that I liked, mostly because I wanted something for low light, and this is an area which cheap digitals royally stink at - lens and sensitivity wise. I have my doubts about the K1000D, but I do sincerely wish that someone would figure out that nothing about interchangeable lenses requires the camera to be an SLR, nor horribly expensive. A P&S could take KAF lenses, so could a rangefinder.

 

[aizan]

I want a digital Contax G, but with Leica's viewfinder...and a few other tweaks.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> I have yet someone to come up to me and ridicule my Leica M3/Contax IIIa/ Canonet,
>however when I am shooting with my Nikon F when I am in the mood for SLR, I am seen
>as one ecentric Gen X crank.

Uncle Bill,
It is probably because they see the viewfinder and think it is auto-focus.

I was taking Christmas portraits this past year at Nikki's school this past Winter with my N8008s. One of the Dad's looked at it and said "Still shooting film. I've got a four SLR's that I don't use after switching to Digital." I looked over and told him "This used to be a Digital Camera. I converted it to film." The camera had started life as a Kodak DCS200ci.

I use all types of cameras, even digital. I love to use them, collect them, and repair them. Lately I picked up a Kodak DCS420c for $75 and find it is really good for wildlife shots where a Telephoto Lens is required. That is definitely the domain of SLR's and DSLR's. "Environmental Portraits" are the domain of the Rangefinder cameras. Fire the shutter, no latency, see the expression through the finder as the shutter clicks.

"Why, my digital camera is so old the pictures have sprocket holes in them"

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/buds1BMP.JPG

 

[Solinar]

I wish someone would make the equivalent of a 3MP k1000. Now THAT would be a student camera - reducing the delay in user feedback could be a huge asset (as would saving exposure information.

That's a great concept, but reason why most non-dSLR digicams suck in low light has to do with the size of their sensors. - Smaller sensors require smaller sized pixel sites, which leads to noise in low light. -

My Nikon 8700, which is a high-end digicam, uses an 8 megapixel sensor that is 6.6 by 8.8 mm in size.

The compact 7 megapixel digicams use a 5.3 by 7.2 mm sensor.

Compact digicams with 5 megapixel or lower use a sensor that is even smaller, 4.3 by 5.7 mm. Think of the multiplyer effect with your current 35mm film lenses, if you slapped that puppy into a Pentax K-100 body.

Enter the Pentax *ist DS. Its sensor size is 15.5 by 23.7 mm, which is much more manageable using lenses from film cameras and it makes ISO 400, even 800 doable. Bottom line the cost of an entry level SLR has jumped by a factor of three.