Somewhat OT: A warning...

[peterc]

for those thinking digital.
Read Hooked and Cooked !

Peter

 

[oftheherd]

I suspect things moved ralatively as quickly at the beginning of film usage. Certainly in the 20's and 30's there was a lot of changes in film cameras and a lot of models. Why just think, they moved from a 120 and 616 sizes to 35mm. And that down from 4x5 down from 8x10, etc.

Even since the 60's think of the changes. Auto diaphram, TTL exposure, auto exposure, auto focus, matrix metering and so on.

While I don't like to think of so many and quick changes and what they do to the wallet, the alternative is to ask the manufactures to quit enhancing digital. If they can successfully go to say 20 MP in a 35mm style camera, who would want to say not to bother?

A few days ago I implied I didn't like progress. I do tend to like it slow, but I am sure not against it. I don't want to live in caves with my pigs and sheep and the stray mammoth.

 

[dr.kollig]

Fighting against digital is like....

Fighting against digital is like....

10 characters

 

[jan normandale]

I don't think there is so much a fight against digital as a decision not to drop film. There is room in my world for both. I believe the market economy will always provide me film the question will be quality and price.

 

[peterc]

the alternative is to ask the manufactures to quit enhancing digital. If they can successfully go to say 20 MP in a 35mm style camera, who would want to say not to bother?

I don't think there's any suggestion that digital enhancements should be stopped. However, it's more a warning that enhancements will continue unabated as they did with computers. And the only way to get the upgrade is to buy a new one. With a dSLR that means tossing an investment of $750 and up.
With a film camera from the 1990s, 1970s, 1950s or 1930s, you can upgrade to today's technology by inserting film.

Peter

 

[ch1]

What I think will be interesting is the actual reaction when Leica finally introduces the Digital M. Why would one think there will be place for its cachet of "timeless excellence" when making products that become obsolete in 18 to 36 months?

 

[desmo]

That's true; the manufacturers had run into a sales slump with film cameras not because of digital but because cameras had reached such a high degree of quality that even mid range cameras were fantastic and there was NO REASON TO KEEP UPGRADING.

Digital is their saviour. Not only are they far more expensive, they have unlimited upgrade potential.

Comparing digital prints with chemical prints from film, in my experience, shows film to be the winner depending on WHICH FILM AND LENS COMBO not on digital versus film. Ordinary colour neg film captures about the same resolution as a 12MP digicam (Kodak have suggested that to match 35mm, digicams would have to be 35MP; that is comparing the best 35mm colour film from Kodak).

I shoot colour for work: people, events, conferences etc But I shoot B&W for my personal art. B&W film vastly outperforms colour in resolution with the best being Gigabit at 600lppm (for their 35mm film) versus about 200lppm for the best colour film (ordinary colour film resolved about 100lppm). That 600lppm on 35mm would equal 311 megapixel and the limit therefore becomes the lens resolution NOT the film.

Digital is convenient and in many ways a con job. As a pro, I need to use it for convenience not for quality. It saves me money in the long run since I don't have film and processing costs and can see whether I have 'got the shot' in real time.

So I'm sticking with film and keeping my voigtlander, my 120 cameras and my 5x4. Perhaps the lenses will never be able to resolve all that Gigabit film can capture (900lppm on their 5x4 sheet film allowing up to a mind boggling 10 Gigapixels depending on lens quality) but it sure beats digital on the mural size B&W prints I make and sell as art.

So the argument between the two is a con; it isn't about film versus digital, it's about sales volumes and producing lenses for film that can capture that massive resolution the best film is capable of. The manufactureers have let us down because they see it as a dead end commercially.

 

[peterc]

Why would one think there will be place for its cachet of "timeless excellence" when making products that become obsolete in 18 to 36 months?

That is something I have been wondering about as well. Most, if not all, digital equipment is obsolete (pre-production on at least the next generation has already begun) when it hits the market. Fuji ran into this with the S3 Pro ... refining the product took so long that it hit the market overpriced and underfeatured compared to the competition.
I guess there isn't competition for the digital M, but it will likely offer significantly less than cheaper alternatives (I know, some will say there is NO alternative to a Leica) of similar and greater megapixel count.
And there will be the inevitable teething problems when the hardware gets used by actual people and the complaining over crop factors etc.
But I imagine some people will be happy ... but they'll have to be at peace with the crop factor and remain satisfied with a megapixel count that looks smaller every six months.

Peter

 

[Dracotype]

Comparing digital prints with chemical prints from film, in my experience, shows film to be the winner depending on WHICH FILM AND LENS COMBO not on digital versus film. Ordinary colour neg film captures about the same resolution as a 12MP digicam (Kodak have suggested that to match 35mm, digicams would have to be 35MP; that is comparing the best 35mm colour film from Kodak).

I shoot colour for work: people, events, conferences etc But I shoot B&W for my personal art. B&W film vastly outperforms colour in resolution with the best being Gigabit at 600lppm (for their 35mm film) versus about 200lppm for the best colour film (ordinary colour film resolved about 100lppm). That 600lppm on 35mm would equal 311 megapixel and the limit therefore becomes the lens resolution NOT the film.

Digital is convenient and in many ways a con job. As a pro, I need to use it for convenience not for quality. It saves me money in the long run since I don't have film and processing costs and can see whether I have 'got the shot' in real time.

So I'm sticking with film and keeping my voigtlander, my 120 cameras and my 5x4. Perhaps the lenses will never be able to resolve all that Gigabit film can capture (900lppm on their 5x4 sheet film allowing up to a mind boggling 10 Gigapixels depending on lens quality) but it sure beats digital on the mural size B&W prints I make and sell as art.

So the argument between the two is a con; it isn't about film versus digital, it's about sales volumes and producing lenses for film that can capture that massive resolution the best film is capable of. The manufactureers have let us down because they see it as a dead end commercially.

Its always nice to know that one is justified in using film for resolution over digital. But I think this is not the only reason I use film. It is also becuase it is not as sharp as digital. I use film becuase of its eccentricities. I think this is the one thing that digital can never duplicate: the lovely grain, abnormal spectrum respose, the ability to push/pull, the hands on nature. But that is the same reason why any of us use and older camera, becuase of its eccentricity. Remember that.

Drew

 

[desmo]

actually film IS as sharp as digital (and sharper) and for many of the same reasons.

Digital APPEARS sharper sometimes because of software but effectively sharpness is a function of resolution and lens performance.

I do agree though that film has a uniqueness that digital lacks. Digital looks quite plastic at times.

 

[dgray]

Actually, the interesting thing to me is what will the camera manufacters do when digital sales slow way down. They apparently already have begun to do so - the huge boom years seem to be over for now. Most amateurs do not have the same upgrade fever that we all do, and are perfectly happy with their 4-5 MP point and shoots. People that want a digital camera, for the most part, now have one. So, will the rapid upgrades continue at this pace if the demand slows and there isn't the huge P&S market to drive it? For a while computers were upgrading by leaps and bounds like this too, and their growth has slowed way down. My computer is incredibly fast and has incredible amounts of memory, so I really don't need more right now. I think we are approaching that same point with digital also. We all were willing to live within a certain performance level when we chose 35mm film. We all had the opportunity to increase the resolution and quality of our shots by moving up to MF or LF film. But we chose to stay for the convenience and price of 35mm, which was "good enough." Digital SLRs seem to me to be getting there also. If my 13X19 prints look fantastic at most ISO speeds, how much more do I need? OK, maybe occasionally I will want to print larger or have more tonal range...., but, just as with 35mm film before, what am I willing to pay or sacrifice to get that little extra boost that I rarely need? If my 12MP full frame body looks great for what I use it, why would I quit using it and pay $3000 for something more? Why didn't I do that with my Leica and move to 8X10 before? There is a point where it just isn't worth it any more, and I feel like the market is REAL close to that point. If there was a digital rangefinder with whatever sized sensor that had a good range of lenses to cover, say, 20-90mm focal lengths and had 10-12 MP of good high ISO performance, I would buy it and be happy, no matter what developments happened in the future to make it "obsolete." Gear is to get the job done, and if my gear gets my job done, why would I want to ditch it and pay more for something else? Basically, I guess I don't think that the manufacturers are going to be able to sustain the throw away, disposable market culture of nice digital cameras that much further into the future, and something like a nicely built Leica Digital M will have a place. But "just one more upgrade!"

 

[aad]

The thing with film-if you want your image on a computer screen, digital has an advantage in that it's a first generation copy, where all film will be a digital picture of a picture, taken with a fancy camera/scanner. Film really needs to be judges as say, a transparency to a computer screen. Even print to print comparisons handicap film.

On the upgrade fever-maybe the money will run out of the digicam market before it leaves film?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Now that color film has been invented, I wonder what will happen to B&W...

 

[swoop]

Actually I just want two digitals and that's all. A canon 5D would suit me perfect. And a digital rangefinder. Other than that. I have no need for digital camera as I rarely use them except when I know I don't have time to be a darkroom. But if I do. I prefer darkroom work over digital. And will be sticking with film for as long as it's around.

 

[desmo]

Well said; i'm with you 100%
I have a voigtlander and 3 lenses but have refrained from buying the RD1 as I know I'd not be satisfied with 6MP (I already use a Canon 6MP for events etc). I print A3+ quite often and like you, would buy an RD2 if one came out at 12MP or so. I'd then probably keep that for ages.

I'm sure the camera companies are tearing their hair out trying to figure out what to do to sell more gear.

For me, the bargains to be had in 2nd hand film cameras coupled with my 2 enlargers are fantastic and unlikely to be beaten by digital in 'value' for a very long time.

Hell, I just bought a 5x7 Durst Laborator enlarger with B&W and Colour heads including a Rodenstock APO Grandagon 150mm enlarer lens for NZ$650! That's US$450.
I have a toyo monorail with 2 lenses plus a Cambo Wide with Schneider 47mmXL lens. All together that kit cost me under US$1500 over the past 2 years.

To get the same quality in digital would cost me at least $30,000 and probably more like $100k

Digital? Convenience goes only so far.

Actually, the interesting thing to me is what will the camera manufacters do when digital sales slow way down. They apparently already have begun to do so - the huge boom years seem to be over for now. Most amateurs do not have the same upgrade fever that we all do, and are perfectly happy with their 4-5 MP point and shoots. People that want a digital camera, for the most part, now have one. So, will the rapid upgrades continue at this pace if the demand slows and there isn't the huge P&S market to drive it? For a while computers were upgrading by leaps and bounds like this too, and their growth has slowed way down. My computer is incredibly fast and has incredible amounts of memory, so I really don't need more right now. I think we are approaching that same point with digital also. We all were willing to live within a certain performance level when we chose 35mm film. We all had the opportunity to increase the resolution and quality of our shots by moving up to MF or LF film. But we chose to stay for the convenience and price of 35mm, which was "good enough." Digital SLRs seem to me to be getting there also. If my 13X19 prints look fantastic at most ISO speeds, how much more do I need? OK, maybe occasionally I will want to print larger or have more tonal range...., but, just as with 35mm film before, what am I willing to pay or sacrifice to get that little extra boost that I rarely need? If my 12MP full frame body looks great for what I use it, why would I quit using it and pay $3000 for something more? Why didn't I do that with my Leica and move to 8X10 before? There is a point where it just isn't worth it any more, and I feel like the market is REAL close to that point. If there was a digital rangefinder with whatever sized sensor that had a good range of lenses to cover, say, 20-90mm focal lengths and had 10-12 MP of good high ISO performance, I would buy it and be happy, no matter what developments happened in the future to make it "obsolete." Gear is to get the job done, and if my gear gets my job done, why would I want to ditch it and pay more for something else? Basically, I guess I don't think that the manufacturers are going to be able to sustain the throw away, disposable market culture of nice digital cameras that much further into the future, and something like a nicely built Leica Digital M will have a place. But "just one more upgrade!"

 

[brightsky]

I think Mike Johnston is right, professionals are on an eternal merry-go-round. They aren't in control of the end product and those to whom they sell their work will keep raising the bar.

The camera shop where I take most of my film to be developed started getting quite busy last year. When I asked why, I was told it was because the majority of other pro/semi-pro shops in the area stopped developing film. Last week, the young man behind the counter at Walgreen's lab told me they use only one send out lab in Texas now because their other contract labs got out of the business.

I'll still bet film will be around for many years to come, but it's going to get very expensive and developing options outside the home will be very costly. It may no longer be available locally and will have to be mail order. Perhaps even imported from Eastern Europe or Asia.

I think Mike Johnston is right, professionals are on an eternal merry-go-round. If those to whom they sell their work raise the bar to match the output of the latest and greatest digital gizmo, they'll have to respond with their wallets. Isn't 8 megapixels now the lowest resolution accepted for publication? How many actually meet only the minimum requirement? Since the manufacturers have throttled back on film cameras, film, and paper, they will have to continually "improve" their digital products and ancillary equipment to match or exceed sales projection. I don't think the digital wave has fizzled yet. Medium format digital has yet to be commonplace or affordable. Software is still evolving too.

 

[pvdhaar]

Are they trying to tell me that I should not be using my Kodak DCS200ir and Nikon E3 anymore?

Sure you can, just like I will keep clicking the shutter on my 6MP dslr until it wears out. But I guess brightsky is right that in a competitive environment things differ.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if medium format makes a comeback in a couple of years, but now in its digital form. Not because it's absolutely essential, but merely because image editors will select pictures taken with MF over small format (not dissimilar to how MF slides stand out on a light table amongst 35mm).

The biggest pain will lie in the fact that unlike in the old days where you could buy a 2nd hand Hassy, Pentax or Mamiya for a modest sum and you'd be in business, you now have to come up with $$ to get started in MF-digital.

 

[Kin Lau]

If you shoot _alot_, then the camera is just a tool, and like any well used tool, you'll wear it out and have to replace it. Busy wedding photog's will likely shoot 26k to 50k shots per year. Nature (birds and mammals, not landscapes) and sports shooters will easily do that in a year if it's for $$$, probably 2x or 3x. I know I shoot 15k a year and that's just for fun.

Use the right _tool_ for the job... if you need a 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10, then use it. If you want or need Velvia or Tri-X or Portra for the look, then use it.

If you're shooting for fun, then just enjoy it. I shoot film RF's for the fun factor, both in the process and in the results. Film is just different from digital, not better, not worse, just different.