That's it I'm done chasing technolgy...

sitemistic said:
If you are making nothing larger than 8x10's or only posting on the web, the kit lenses are as good as anything. I agree, though, that Rockwell seems to be all over the place on his advice.
Click to expand...
Must respectfully disagree.
Kit lenses generally have slow, variable apertures, are difficult to focus manually, and not built as well as most manufacturers' mid-level, and of course, premium lenses.
Also they are generally not as sharp even at smaller print sizes. I'm just speaking from personal shooting experience, not test charts or data sheets or any of that stuff.
 
Hmmm I have a Canon S3 P/S digi cam. It takes movies too! I use it but not a bunch, when I do I know I have a whole $280 into it. I'm aware of the product life cycle in consumer goods and that's why I'm sitting out the dSLR dance. Some digital PS are pretty good for immediate gratification and time/money saving on processing.

I have a PoS digital I bought for $19 for a digital "crappy cam" it's fun!

The rest of my artillery is film based. It's still a very affordable option compared to laying out $1000 - $2000 for a very good dSLR and lens combo.

BTW @ Sitemistic... the Contax G series has a manual focus option... I prefer it to the 'autofocus'. It is possible to be a lo-tech user of Contax G cameras.
 
My only digital camera, a 3.3 Mpix Nikon Coolpix 990 that I purchased new around 2000 is also my only autofocus camera. It spends most of its life on a copy stand archiving documents in B&W, and occasionally it gets some use photographing things I want to sell on the internet. PDFs are handier than microfilm, and the camera is way faster and more portable than a scanner, so this was a place that it made sense to go digital. For the copy work I manual exposure and manual focus.

Other than that, the newest camera I own is the Canon New F-1 I bought new around 1983.

I do some bird photography, so maybe at some point I'll get a DSLR for that. I have an FD-EOS adapter for my big bird lens, and an EOS Adaptall-II mount for my shorter Tamrons, so it won't involve a major investment beyond the camera body. I still have plenty of slide film in the freezer, though.
 
Three or four years ago I bought a Nikon D70s with the latest 18-200 VR zoom lens ... it was a relatively expensive combination but very effective. It still works as well as the day I bought it and takes an excellent photograph albeit only 6 megapixel. If I was going to sit around musing about what it's worth now and what it may not do compared to the latest equivalent, the D80, I'd prefer that someone slap me into reallity or take it off me and give it to someone who needs a fine DSLR.

It's a consumer item ... not an investment item or a piece of art ... and I'm happily consuming it without giving a thought to what it cost me or what it's now worth! :angel:
 
One way to look at it is most digital bodies are rentals thanks to depreciation.

I just traded up from a D50 Nikon to a second hand D80 which came with a lens that I wanted for a while. All things considered, it's an incremental improvement.

I would like to keep both bodies, but it's time to let the D50 go before it gets much further past its sell-by date.

As Keith mentioned these bodies are consumer items. Both Nikon and Canon sell millions of them new. So this is no shortage of any of the popular consumer DSLR's. I have found that their second hand value drops by as much as a third while they are current models.

After the next version comes out their value plummets rapidly.
 
I got a 4 MP P&S, then a 6 MP DSLR, and recently a 10.1 (I like the point one, very impressive). I still use the P&S for junk shots. And I pull out the 10.1 to impress my friends that think I'm out of it because I'm not digital. What should I do with the 6 MP?
 
The other side of technology may be worth chasing though. Kodak has improved their TMAX400 to TMAX400-2 (as I'm sure Ilford and Fuji are doing too). Zeiss is still working hard to make better and better lenses; as is Leica. There are many other improvements in photography that are worth using. Remember how bad cable releases and tripods were.
 
Last edited:
literiter said:
Technology cannot compete with talent! Never could...never will.
Click to expand...

I strongly believe that this really is the case. Having said that I do embrace the new technology. My dslr is about 3 years old and when it dies I'll buy another and enjoy it as long as it lasts. But I'm OK with that knowing that I still have my M6 and it'll last forever, or longer than me which is the same thing from my perspective. I use the 2 different kits for very different types of shooting but while I enjoy using the M6 the most I hope I never have to give up what the dslr does very well. This point of view is much more difficult without a very understanding wife. I'm lucky.
 
I have the Pentax istDS (silly name). It's only 6.1 MP but Pentax made sure their first DSLR's had backward capability, so with my Super Takumar 300/4 ($150 used) and an adapter (m42 to K mount) I now have a 450mm equivalent in 35mm terms, ideal for bird photography. That lens, and my other old Super Takumar lenses, sure make 6.1MP look good.

I'm a bit ambivalent about buying the new Pentax K10D (10.1mp) as people keep telling me that 10MP will produce more noise at higher ISO settings than my 6MP.

I have no idea why this is so, but I'm taking it as an act of faith at this point. And of course waiting for the K10D price to come down, although right now you can buy a new one for about $500.

Ted
 
The Nikon Coolpix 990 is probably the best eBay camera ever made.

I keep one on a tripod with an AC adapter for auction photos.

Fantastic macro for watch photos, coins, etc.

I paid $50 for one and $15 for the other.
 
JimDE said:
I'm back with my G2 and film. I am so tired of chasing mega pixels only to end up with back focus, front focus, black frames, and a hunk of metal not worth 1/10 what it cost new. They can have the dSLR's and all the headaches and financial loss. In reality buying digital is always being a step or two behind current technology and the camera companies know this and play our wallets empty chasing the latest and greatest for the right to see your shot instantly.

I'll keep a waterproof point and shoot digital for those quick shots but no more dSLR chasing for me. I have enough confidence in my ability to capture an image that I can wait to see my image as i did from the mid sixties through this digital age. Heck what i have spent and lost in digital SLR's I could of had a heck of a Leica system in my bags.

Anybody else tired of the digital merry go round?
Click to expand...

Yep...

Mine is a Panasonic Lumix FZ1, firmware hacked to get aperture and shutter priority modes making it an FZ1v2 with effective image stabilization and 12X optical zoom and a "Leica" lens. Small sensor and a mere 2.1 megapixels, enough for small prints and more than enough for the web. It also doesn't have an IR filter, so I can do some pretty decent infrared with just a Hoya IR filter (see avatar).

This little camera is effectively my "big zoom" lens. It's something like a 420(?)mm focal length in 35mm. Unlike 35mm "big zooms" I can hand hold it down to 1/8th at full zoom, no need for a tripod and it only weighs a few ounces. It's also "fast" with an f2.8 throughout the entire 35-420 (equiv) focal length range, no loss of stops as you zoom.

This is the ->only<- advantage I see to digital. Small sensor cameras that leverage the tiny focal plane for ridiculous zoom capabilities. Everything else? Film, film, film.

PS - Because of the silly "megapixel" race, these cameras go for a song now. Trust me, for just 6x4s this camera has enough resolution for a darn good print. I've gotten some decent 8x10's out of the thing - one hanging from my wall, with a little interpolation.
 
Last edited:
M. Valdemar said:
The Nikon Coolpix 990 is probably the best eBay camera ever made.

I keep one on a tripod with an AC adapter for auction photos.

Fantastic macro for watch photos, coins, etc.

I paid $50 for one and $15 for the other.
Click to expand...

Heh. Fortunately I had some grant money I had to use up when I bought mine for around $1000. It was _Time_ magazine's machine of the year, because it was the first digital camera that was considered adequate for photojournalism--the Ermanox of digital cameras, as it were. I bought mine to replace microfilm for academic research in libraries and archives, because it had good macro capabilities and enough resolution to do OCR on a photographed page, and for this purpose, JPEGs at 3.3Mpix, maximum compression are fine. One reason I haven't upgraded the camera is that newer DSLRs don't offer a small enough file size straight from the camera.

I took some regular photographs with it when I got it. The shutter lag was incredibly annoying, and I like to be able to get shorter DOF than the small sensor allows, even with a 2x extender. The 2x and wide lens attachments are of very nice optical quality, though.
 
I use a D50 alongside the RFs for flash, macro and tele photography. In terms of DSLRs, it's rather long in the tooth and utilitarian. But it does what I need it to do, although it doesn't excell in it; dynamic range is abysmal, skin colours have a tendency to fall apart in orange and purple instead of flesh tones, resolution is so-so, and when the battery's not charged it's as dead as a dodo..

Sure I've been tempted to upgrade to a Fuji for better dyn. range or a D200 for better resolution and flash control. But at $1500-$2000, neither will improve my pictures over the D50 the way a $5 roll of Reala will.

The end result is that I've lost interest in DSLR progress (for what that's worth), and I'm focusing on getting the most out of the 50mm on an M.
 
I have an Oly u810 and use it for ... photos in the ads. Had an D70 and later an D1x (bought it used) but both are sold. The Epson RD-1s was my entry into the RF world but still it was digital ... (sold)

A friend of mine is participating in the mega-pixel race. His argument is that more megapixels allow for a tighter crop later in PS. So the D300 is going to replace his D200 soon. I haven't seen him carrying his camera or taking photos for a year or so... ;)
 
When I was working at a photo agency, I was fortunate enough to get my digital ya-yas out by trying out some fairly pricey hardware (Canon 1D's, etc). Then I ditched my SLRs for RFs. Then, years later a client of mine gave me an old Olympus 510 digital p/s (all 2.1MP of it), which came in handy for a number of things. More recently, I snagged a used Casio EX-850 p/s (all 8.1MP of it), and it comes in much handier than the Olympus did: smaller, faster, more versatile (even a full-manual mode), and allows for bigger prints if I want. It even has a video mode that's so surprisingly good that I might even use it once in a while (and I'm generally so not into things video-related). And, I couldn't give a rat's derriére about its resale value, since I'll keep it till it breaks and can't be cheaply fixed.

In fact, the Casio is so good that whatever small, fleeting desire I might have had–and it wasn't much to start with–for anything bigger and badder in the digital realm has been fully and effectively squelched. I like to think of cameras like this as near-perfect for people who really aren't that into the d-thing, but are too smart to totally ignore digital's usefulmess.


There are some things in life a little digicam handles just fine. For everything else, there's film. :)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Technology is obsolescences for sale.

Technology is obsolescences for sale.

Sjixxxy said:
....... Say, for example, five years from now, some hot-shot new prodigy joins the Ilford R&D team, and invents an emultion unlike anything we have today. Something crazy with the speed of 1600iso, yet resolves the same as modern 100iso film in 120 format. Instand upgrade, with no additional investment needed to upgrade my equipment to get much higher resolution results.
Click to expand...

The truth according to Sjixxxy and the best argument yet for film not being dead! Somewhere right now some kid (no gender implied) is tinkering around with chemistry and photography wondering how to make a better image until one day it will be off to the races just like that.

Technology by its own nature is always bordering on obsolescence (trust me after more than 40 years in manufacturing, the latest and greatest is old news next month or even next week). dSLRs are no exception, I splurged with my first retirement check and purchased a Sony A100 which led to more lenses, flashes, etc, etc. I was seduced by technology, but I now have awaken from the dillusion that Auto this and auto that would enable me take better pictures. The only technology that I need to take a great picture is right here in my head. Now where did I put my Contax and the Tri-x?:D
 
Last edited:
Papa Smurf said:
Technology by its own nature is always bordering on obsolescence (trust me after more than 40 years in manufacturing, the latest and greatest is old news next month or even next week). :D
Click to expand...

It's called survival of the fastest (engineering, testing, production & marketing). Without a continuously accelerating stream of product, the manufacturers can not survive. It's a lot less about increased value in the product than it is about creating the illusion that something will always be more advanced, and therefore, indispensible. If the consumer ever figures that one out and becomes sated at a certain level, the economy will fail and the country will bankrupt in a matter of days. Are you really waiting for something better to come along?
 
I've been able to maintain this scenario for a few years now: digital for work, film for play. When I play, it's with the G2 and Mamiya 7...great fun!
 
In this digital world, I do not own a digital camera. I started photography with a digital p&s, but I felt that all-auto is holding me back. So I got a film SLR, because digital SLR's were too expensive. I'm happy I went the film route. I love negatives. I have no use for a digital camera.
 
I shot a roll of chrome over the weekend and dropped it off at A&I (LA lab) and was happy to see a few other hapless souls dropping off film as well. Some guy in front of me dropped off about 40 rolls of 120.

My film was done in a couple hours and I happily plopped my butt onto a chair, fired up a lightbox and with loupe in hand I eagerly looked at my work through curled acetate sleeves while making notes with a grease pencil.

Way more fun than sticking in a compact flash card and going through a couple hundred images that all seem to look the same to me.

Long live film!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom