giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I have many (too many?) cameras but I got my first digital PS only a few days ago and it left me very puzzled. I remembered old entry level film camera as something not so small, often with relatively low level lenses but which, once understood their limitations (I am thinking to the scale focus 40mm cameras of the 70's) could still produce images which could be enlarged. Now my new toy is in a sense much better. The lens accomplishes things which were simply impossible just not long ago: 5x Zoom, macro...
Also the little thing has a zirillion functions I don't even know and I understand why they become so popular for pictures to be put in the net or as a visual notebook, in fact I would say that I am in a way amazed by the engineering accomplishment but... But...I just cannot get any reason why they sort of killed the film market! I mean, pictures are ok to keep a record of something or to show somebody your new bicycle but are just not up to anything from a decent size sensor (film or digital does not matter), they are flat, they lack details in the shadows, they have noise (10Mpx in a tiny sensor ought to!)... I just don't see how one can seriously come from a 35mm camera and consider this to be a camera. Despite this in a recent trend even people from this group seem to use them as the camera they always carry with them and film was thrown away by many long before good DSLR camera become accessible to amateurs... I am sorry for the rant, just I hoped for more...I need to shot my view camera and enlarge huge whatever it comes out!
GLF
Also the little thing has a zirillion functions I don't even know and I understand why they become so popular for pictures to be put in the net or as a visual notebook, in fact I would say that I am in a way amazed by the engineering accomplishment but... But...I just cannot get any reason why they sort of killed the film market! I mean, pictures are ok to keep a record of something or to show somebody your new bicycle but are just not up to anything from a decent size sensor (film or digital does not matter), they are flat, they lack details in the shadows, they have noise (10Mpx in a tiny sensor ought to!)... I just don't see how one can seriously come from a 35mm camera and consider this to be a camera. Despite this in a recent trend even people from this group seem to use them as the camera they always carry with them and film was thrown away by many long before good DSLR camera become accessible to amateurs... I am sorry for the rant, just I hoped for more...I need to shot my view camera and enlarge huge whatever it comes out!
GLF
photokalia
Established
I think for most people, the convenience of digital would make up for the difference in image quality (I didn't use the word "loss" as the look between digital and film is just different).
The other reason that comes to mind is that most people used P&S film cameras and cheap consumer film, developed at consumer labs anyway. So I don't think the results objectively better than those from a consumer digital P&S apart from looking digital (noise, pixellation, etc). I know people who are perfectly happy with a pixellated noisy image of their kids/grandkids printed on their fridge or used as wallpaper on their mobile phones. Those same photos wouldn't satisfy me, but I think serious photographers (i.e. not just out to make family snaps) are a different breed altogether.
The other reason that comes to mind is that most people used P&S film cameras and cheap consumer film, developed at consumer labs anyway. So I don't think the results objectively better than those from a consumer digital P&S apart from looking digital (noise, pixellation, etc). I know people who are perfectly happy with a pixellated noisy image of their kids/grandkids printed on their fridge or used as wallpaper on their mobile phones. Those same photos wouldn't satisfy me, but I think serious photographers (i.e. not just out to make family snaps) are a different breed altogether.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Nothing against digital, just I expected more from digital PS! I remember a time in which people were dumping perfectly decent SLR for these things and buying small digital cameras which probably were even worst than the current ones. Digital I use every day and I like it!
GLF
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I was flummoxed when, some years ago, I bought a digital camera. This was although I had done some research and chosen the Canon A80, which offered a fair bit of manual control. For something like a week I struggled to make sense of the manual and to remember the things it said at various places. A different world from the one in which I had only set shutter speed, aperture and focus and, sometimes, film speed for the meter.
Merkin
For the Weekend
A decent digital point and shoot is perfectly capable of producing good images. Sure, you might not be able to print billboard sized, but 8x10 or 11x14 is perfectly reasonable.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deac0nb1ues/3771515112/sizes/l/
I shot that with a point and shoot, and it is my most requested/ordered print from people to give as christmas presents so far.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deac0nb1ues/3771515112/sizes/l/
I shot that with a point and shoot, and it is my most requested/ordered print from people to give as christmas presents so far.
mike kim
Established
Maybe you should look into the Sigma DPx series, if you're able to ignore its shortcomings. It's more than a P&S though...
bmattock
Veteran
I find these statements puzzling.
One the one hand is the complaint that the digital point-and-shoot camera is not 'simple' like a film point-and-shoot.
But then, in the same breath, one complains that the same camera does not offer a full complement of manual controls, or that those controls are difficult to understand or use.
And finally, one complains that the digital point-and-shoot does not offer the image quality of a similar 35mm film camera.
It is a pity that the typical digital point-and-shoot is not all things to all people. One supposes that film point-and-shoot cameras have similar shortcomings when taken in that light. For example, a 'simple' film camera likewise lacks manual controls. A film camera which offers high degrees of manual control is no longer a 'point-and-shoot'. And my experience with the simplest of point-and-shoot film cameras (single-use disposables) indicates to me that the image quality is far from acceptable for more than happy-snap type use.
In other words, for me a cheap digital PnS maps more-or-less directly to a film PnS in the same price range and aimed at the same market.
If one wishes to delve into the output in terms of absolute quality, I would accept the statement that film still wins over digital. However, I would also suggest that the average PnS camera user, film or digital, is relatively not interested in that level of detail. The enormous popularity of truly awful (quality) cell-phone photographs tells me that most people interested in convenient photographs just do not care.
I used to carry an Olympus XA2 as my 'backup' camera that I kept in my car center console. Now I keep a Kodak C530. Fully automatic, no optical zoom, 5mp, works a treat. It is not as good as the Olympus in a couple ways. First, it is slower to start up. Second, the Kodak has to have its batteries kept up in cold weather. However, I am fully satisfied with the image quality for the uses I intend it for. And it could not be simpler to use. Turn on, take photo.
Why did digital cameras kill the film star? In my opinion, the reasons are probably fairly complex, but in the simplest terms, it came down to end-user convenience. Now that so many of us communicate by email and posting online (blogs and discussion forums and such), it is far quicker and easier to send or post a digital photo than to do the same with a film photograph. I am not arguing that one cannot do the same with a film photograph, just that it is easier with a simple PnS digital camera.
One the one hand is the complaint that the digital point-and-shoot camera is not 'simple' like a film point-and-shoot.
But then, in the same breath, one complains that the same camera does not offer a full complement of manual controls, or that those controls are difficult to understand or use.
And finally, one complains that the digital point-and-shoot does not offer the image quality of a similar 35mm film camera.
It is a pity that the typical digital point-and-shoot is not all things to all people. One supposes that film point-and-shoot cameras have similar shortcomings when taken in that light. For example, a 'simple' film camera likewise lacks manual controls. A film camera which offers high degrees of manual control is no longer a 'point-and-shoot'. And my experience with the simplest of point-and-shoot film cameras (single-use disposables) indicates to me that the image quality is far from acceptable for more than happy-snap type use.
In other words, for me a cheap digital PnS maps more-or-less directly to a film PnS in the same price range and aimed at the same market.
If one wishes to delve into the output in terms of absolute quality, I would accept the statement that film still wins over digital. However, I would also suggest that the average PnS camera user, film or digital, is relatively not interested in that level of detail. The enormous popularity of truly awful (quality) cell-phone photographs tells me that most people interested in convenient photographs just do not care.
I used to carry an Olympus XA2 as my 'backup' camera that I kept in my car center console. Now I keep a Kodak C530. Fully automatic, no optical zoom, 5mp, works a treat. It is not as good as the Olympus in a couple ways. First, it is slower to start up. Second, the Kodak has to have its batteries kept up in cold weather. However, I am fully satisfied with the image quality for the uses I intend it for. And it could not be simpler to use. Turn on, take photo.
Why did digital cameras kill the film star? In my opinion, the reasons are probably fairly complex, but in the simplest terms, it came down to end-user convenience. Now that so many of us communicate by email and posting online (blogs and discussion forums and such), it is far quicker and easier to send or post a digital photo than to do the same with a film photograph. I am not arguing that one cannot do the same with a film photograph, just that it is easier with a simple PnS digital camera.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I think I was not really clear... I did not complain about simplicity or complexity of operations (in fact I think I said I am amazed by how many things it does), just about image quality... In fact, i don't even really complain about it as I know that a picture is nice for a million reasons, often unrelated with the gear, just i expected more considering how many people gave away their SRLs for compact digitals a few years ago... To me it is a nice toy but it could never be a reason to sell my gear, even if I were not that much in photography.
GLF
GLF