When did digital get "good enough"?

froyd

froyd

Veteran
Local time
3:56 AM
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
2,320
View My Gallery
Of course, the title of my message assumes it has, and I'm sure there will be those here who'll debate the point. At least, I was smart enough not to post this on APUG.😉

My question has two parts:

Part 1: WHEN and WHAT?
Which is the first digital camera to offer files of a quality high enough to rival film for most applications? (I'd like to keep the suggestions limited to cameras no bigger than full frame DSLR, no S2s or digital backs).

Part 2: LONGEVITY
Did you buy the camera? If so do you still have it?

Aside from GAS attacks, the presumption is that if the camera does not break down, one would continue shooting it until it falls apart (see the hardcore R-D1 user group). But as I am considering taking a blind leap into digital (R-D1, M8, X-Pro?) I'm concerned by the seemingly quick obsolescence of digital cameras either due to malfunction or bested specs. I guess that's what happens when you get used to shooting with cameras that have been around fro 50 years and probably will still be ticking in 50 more.

Help! I want to believe!
 
Image tonality wise, digital is not there. The poor after effects built in cameras only mimic film.

Detail wise you can get 36-40mp professional digital scans from full frame film cameras that can beat most of the cropped sensor even full frame slrs. But this is not always the case, how good you get the film developed and scanned is not always same if you get it done outside.


To answer your question in one simple word: Convenience

Why because it's hassle free , after you take a shot you see the final product. You can transfer images digitally instant, get it printed easily.

It's like how Itunes uses 256kbps mp3 because of its ease of transferring and downloading files , rather than a more time consuming to download richer loseless format music files.

I believe people should get digital cameras, but always have a film camera by your side too
 
It has, and for quite some time now, but it's not as clear-cut an answer as it seems. A lot of it has to do with print size, format, end-use, etc. Depending on these variables, your answer will fluctuate.

4x6 prints? My old 3.1MP CoolPix 880 from 10 years ago could match and beat 35mm film no problem. Larger sizes as well were also OK with that camera to a point. I did a solo show last year with 8.5x11 prints from it and they looked fine; no one had any idea they were digital or low MP from the prints. Here's the gallery from that show: http://www.emasterphoto.com/gallery/毎日-every-day/ Larger sizes would be a problem from that camera though, but used within it's limits it was definitely equal or better than film. As you go up in MP than you go up in final print size while still maintaining similar quality. I've printed 24x36 prints from a 12MP camera and by far they were better quality than anything I would have at the same size from 35mm film. Medium and large format film is another story though for large prints, but then comparing that to 35mm digital or film isn't really fair; you would need to move up to MF digital and then things would get fuzzy again. So, to put it all together, it really depends on your needs as to where the cut-off point will be, though I would say that in most cases any DSLR 8MP and up would be realistic for small to medium sized prints.

As far as the second part of your question, yes I bought cameras that could beat or equal film, and most of them I do not still own. Bear in mind though, that digital tech has moved at a far, far greater pace in the last 10-15 years than mechanical tech did. That's because the medium was in its infancy and and the advances being made generally were significant and frequent enough to warrant upgrading usually. That's not so much the case lately though and things have plateaued and slowed down enough that you can hold onto cameras much longer than before I think. It also depends on your standards too - i.e. I had a D200 which is about 5 yr old tech and it took great pics. My D3 creams it in dynamic range and high-ISO noise control, but that doesn't change the fact that it still took good pics. If a camera takes pics can that satisfy your needs and standards of quality, then there really is no reason to dump it just because something newer comes along. I used the D200 and D3 together for quite some time; no one can tell which is which from looking at the pics. All this means in the end is that longevity is more of a personal choice these days than a technological one like it used to be. I know I will hold on to my D3 until it dies, and considering that the new D4 offers only an incremental gain in resolution, DR, and high-ISO, the D3 will likely stay competitive for a few years more in the professional arena. For a hobbyist, it's likely more camera than almost anyone would need for years to come.

Other than that, not sure what else to say. No one can make you believe anything because ultimately you have to base your choice on personal experience, and you won't get that until you jump into digital and try it for yourself. If your goal, however, is to try and buy a digicam that will last you 20, 30, or 50 years, than that's a misplaced priority and one you should quickly get over. People seem to forget that the cameras made 50 years ago weren't necessarily designed to last that long. That just happened to be a side effect of the tech available at the time. Will cameras today last that long as well? Likely some will, and like those older cameras, it'll probably be the high-end models like the D3 that are built to handle the abuse, but nothing's guaranteed. Just buy a model that suites your intended purpose and get on with things. There's too much enjoyment to be had during the time you own it to be worried about how long you'll own it.
 
What is "good enough"? Good enough to illustrate web articles of free news portals or to make fine prints for sale? There's no need for high quality camera to make small pictures for illustrations or print huge posters seen from large distance.

I second convenience and speed of turnaround. Magazines aren't coffee table albums, they need picture showing bare fact not nuanced tones or resolution. Most consumers also choose convenience over nuances they can read about in tests but can not tell themselves in real pictures. That's aunt Claire, that's uncle Sam - as long we can't mix them with Ann and Tom, it's perfectly fine.
 
in 2006 or so when I got my first digital Minolta SLR.
I would still have the 7D if it wasn't for my move to Nikon after a few years. I used the 7D for maybe 3 years, but could have done so much longer.

I use film for most of my photography nowadays, but I do not bother to use film faster than 400 or sometimes 800, thats where digital kicks in and shows its benefits.
 
I feel that Digital became "good enough" for my hobbist use a few years ago. There might still be some drawbacks but there are also very useful advantages (high ISO, and instant exposure feedback for multiple flash or tricky lighting).

My fears now are those of a man with limited means afraid to sell $2500 of M gear to get a digital camera that is more prone to failures and might be too expensive to repair in just a few years leaving me with no money to replace it. I care much less about depreciation. I would happily sink the funds from my M gear into an R-D1 or X-pro if I had the confidence I could get at least 10 years out of them.
 
10 years is not much to ask of a new camera these days as long as you get something semi-pro on up. In Canon that'd be from the 7D on and in Nikon from the D300s on. Those cams are built with durability in mind, so as long as you're not going to beat them to death they should last the distance.
 
emasterphoto said:
10 years is not much to ask of a new camera these days as long as you get something semi-pro on up. In Canon that'd be from the 7D on and in Nikon from the D300s on. Those cams are built with durability in mind, so as long as you're not going to beat them to death they should last the distance.
Click to expand...

Very reassuring. Good way to think about it. If I were in the market for a DX camera I would consider a D300 without too much hand-wringing.
 
Hi,

Well, if you're not into slides or professional, I'd say when the Leica Digilux 2 and Olympus E-20 arrived. That's saying a good lens in front of a 5mp sensor.

As for how long they last, I had a dSLR in 1997 or '98 and saw one in a charity shop a while ago for a reasonable fee or a trivial fee once I'd sold the media card on ebay and taken the Lowepro case for the M2. It was a bit battered and bashed but the 1.3 mp photo's are perfect for say forums, ebay and monitor only watching. But it did have a good lens in front of it.

Of course, in 1997 or '98 you could get digital back for MF and a lot of people used them for billboards etc.

Regards, David
 
froyd said:
:

Part 1: WHEN and WHAT?
Which is the first digital camera to offer files of a quality high enough to rival film for most applications? (I'd like to keep the suggestions limited to cameras no bigger than full frame DSLR, no S2s or digital backs).

Part 2: LONGEVITY
Did you buy the camera? If so do you still have it?

Help! I want to believe!
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what is it that you want to believe?
Digital resolution and noise ratio beats film many years ago (IF we are talking about 35mm size or smaller, some will argue 6x4.5 but I disagree).

What made me prefer film is the fact that I still get pleasant surprises out of each roll of film that I shoot. With digital, it's all predictable and easy.

So if you just want to see what digital is all about, get a camera and try it. You may like it better than film, or not.
 
For the commercial-type work I do, the Nikon D300 was good enough (c2008?) and so I bought one, and still have it, and use it for that type of work. That was a completely rational decision at the time: I read the various specs, looked at sample pix carefully, and decided it was time to make the move. Previous to that I had a couple of lower-res digital cameras, which didn't do it for *me*.

For my personal work, I still prefer film.
 
clayne said:
Until it reacts like an analog medium and shoulders the highlights appropriately, it's crap. Who cares what the resolution is. It's boring.
Click to expand...

Is this color boring?

7625198498_743d0cf9c9_c.jpg
 
Like he said "until it renders highlights correctly" your image doesn't demonstrate that– unless the sun suddenly became inverse keyhole shaped!
 
Photo_Smith said:
Like he said "until it renders highlights correctly" your image doesn't demonstrate that– unless the sun suddenly became inverse keyhole shaped!
Click to expand...

The sun in insanely bright here. Far too bright to look at with the eye. Would film not be blown out in such a scene?

The percent area of this image blown out is quite small, with the color of sky captured quite well. Is the blown out sun a fatal flaw in such an image?
 
Sorry Ratty
I don't mean to be critical, but it depends is the answer. Some films could have handled the highlights a little better a typical sunset will have an EV of 13-16 depending on atmospheric conditions. Looking at your image I see the sun is covered by thin cloud, the area above the sun is the most disconcerting as the bleed goes up about 4 times the diameter of the sun, that whole area doesn't look right.
I can't tell if the colours are accurate (all sunsets are different) but something about it looks a little over processed to my eye-in other words it looks false.
I don't shoot that many sunsets myself, but I'm sure the area of the sun and the transitions could be captured better with most negative type films.
 
Since I only do black and white and print to FB paper cos I like it, there simply isn't another choice unless opting for extremely expensive laser printing to FB paper. So film wins hands down for that IMO.
If I was doing colour I would use digital without hesitation for its convenience and speeed of processing. Wet printing colour may still be better but few labs still do it by hand and its expensive if they do. Scan to print is a big NO NO for me (no matter how good you think a scan is).

So in short, film for B+W, digital for colour. Kind of makes sense I think, unless you got one of them M9M whatchamacallits.

And yes I think the 5D was a major milestone. Mind you, I rekon the marketing will continue to tell us how much better the next generation is. Just remember that they are really saying the previous generation wasn't upto it after they told you its was when it originally came out.
 
For me it was 2002 with Canon D60, but I work in the newspaper market. I bought one when they were launched and then shortly afterwards bought a 1d which my dad still has and is still going strong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom