Will we all go digital?

thefsb said:
i've been looking around and the dslrs out there (being interested, besides RFs, in macro, telephoto and tilt/shift lenses) and the market seems almost uninterested in the lenses!

from my point of view, it's the selection of lenses i want to use that will dertermine the camera choices. followed by the viewfinder quality.

but in all the reviews i've read on the web, dpreview in particular, there's nest to no info, quantitative or subjective, on the leses!
Click to expand...


Have you looked at all into the Pentax prime lenses? Start with this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml) - it's a few years old now but the comments are still valid. Pentax has long been guilty of producing a very few outstanding lenses and totally failing to make a big fuss about it! Until the K10D they also did not have a near-pro quality dSLR to use these fine lenses on.


Personally I see no need to decide between film or digital - I'll keep using them both for as long as I can.
 
I expect so, as technology marches on. Did you hear all the whoopla about Kodak's new whiz-bang sensor this week? Talk about a company cutting it's own throat.........
 
photogdave said:
But you still end up with a crappier camera. That's my point.
Click to expand...

And a silly point it is. You are saying a Canon 5D is a crappier camera than a Seagull...
The proportion of great cameras to crappy cameras is about the same in digital cameras than it is (used to be ?) with film cameras. The camera has nothing to do with it; it is the recording medium we are talking about. And that, to my mind , is a matter of preference and each to his own....The only thing is, film is being pushed out of mainstream and professional photography at an ever increasing rate. That is no reason to get all defensive. I just returned from holiday. In the same place was a lady that made aquarels where I took photographs. A great opportunity for us to start chatting about colours, light and different media. Not a reason however, to call each other's technique crappy.
 
Last edited:
"No soy yo el timonero, sino el mar que me arrastra"

A somewhat translation to Spanish from a song of Brazilian Paulinho Da Viola.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Morca007 said:
I sure hope not, I just switched to film. :(

The most disturbing, and best, post, however, is the one talking about the infrastructure required to produce film. If it no longer proves a profitable model to each and every level of the various industries involved, it will cease to be.
Click to expand...


It won't There was an interesting article,in fact a group interview in LFI some time a go involving spokesmen from a number of film companies and it very clear there is a strong movement towards small innovative film etc. manufacturers - and they are thriving in a market that is more and more oriented on a limited number of dedicated users.
 
ChrisN said:
Have you looked at all into the Pentax prime lenses? Start with this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml) - it's a few years old now but the comments are still valid.
Click to expand...

chris, thanks for the link. yes, i did look at the pentax lenses and was very interested in the pancake limiteds. the e10d is said to have as good a viewfinder as any dslr body under $1000 and it's compact and light.
 
I happen to shoot film because I like it in preference to digital. The magic of darkroom has fascinated me for longer than 20 years, and I still get the same buzz from seeing my print emerging in red light as I did the very first time. Film, and some film stock in particular, (Tri-X, Neopan, Ilford FP4), has a distinct character and I prefer to hone my darkroom skills to optimise that unique signature, rather than use the digital route. I guess that I just enjoy the craft and individuality that black and white film gives. No two people see the world the same and if you give the same negative to a dozen monochrome printers and ask them to make a print, the results will all be different, though equally valid !!! This organic approach can not be beaten in the way I "WANT" to work and I will always firmly remain a FILM photographer.
 
jaapv said:
There was an interesting article,in fact a group interview in LFI some time a go involving spokesmen from a number of film companies and it very clear there is a strong movement towards small innovative film etc. manufacturers - and they are thriving in a market that is more and more oriented on a limited number of dedicated users.
Click to expand...

this is what happened to vinyl productution as cds took over most of the market. the big plants gave it up and small companies with an interest pick up the business to cater to the remaining but viable niche market.
 
thefsb said:
chris, thanks for the link. yes, i did look at the pentax lenses and was very interested in the pancake limiteds. the e10d is said to have as good a viewfinder as any dslr body under $1000 and it's compact and light.
Click to expand...


Chris:

I have rediscovered how wonderful Pentax lenses can be, and I bought a few lenses recently. Now, I have SMC lenses covering 17mm/28mm/35mm/50mm (including a macro lens)/85mm/135mm. The 85mm lens is awesome for portraits. I use it on a Canon T90 via an adapter.

Raid
 
jaapv said:
And a silly point it is. You are saying a Canon 5D is a crappier camera than a Seagull...
The proportion of great cameras to crappy cameras is about the same in digital cameras than it is (used to be ?) with film cameras. The camera has nothing to do with it; it is the recording medium we are talking about. And that, to my mind , is a matter of preference and each to his own....The only thing is, film is being pushed out of mainstream and professional photography at an ever increasing rate. That is no reason to get all defensive. I just returned from holiday. In the same place was a lady that made aquarels where I took photographs. A great opportunity for us to start chatting about colours, light and different media. Not a reason however, to call each other's technique crappy.
Click to expand...
Wow! You are totally out to lunch on this one my friend.
I did not say a 5D is crappier than a Seagull. Please show me where I said or even implied this. I was comparing specific film cameras to specific digital cameras (EOS 1V to EOS 1Ds MKII and 1D MKIII) and their costs.
I did not go into a "film is better than digital" arguement because that is a waste of time, and I happen to shoot both!
I did not "get all defensive" but now I'm starting to because you're insulting me by saying my point is "silly". Are all opinions you don't understand silly, or just ones realtng to photography?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think English is your first language, so you you may have not completely understood what I wrote. Let me try and simplify it:
I have $3000 to spend on a new camera. I want the best build quality and best focusing/metering and speed for my money. The IDS and ID cameras are more than $3000 so I can get the EOS 1V film camera or the EOS 5D digital. The 1V has better build quality focusing/metering and speed.
If I buy the 5D I'm getting a crappier or lesser camera in these areas than the film camera. Please note that I am not bringing sensor vs. film into this comparison.
 
Still a non-argument, my friend - btw no offense intended, as my last post- You are comparing apples and pears. The fact that a camera is digital or film has to do with this argument. With a film camera you buy the thing without the recording medium - which commands a premium of 1000-2000 Euro on top of the mechanics. So you cannot pull one component out of the system and forget about the rest. Are you going film the whole way chemically? You should- otherwise you lose a major part of the reason you went film in the first place. So you must figure in the cost of film, chemicals, paper, darkroom over the years. Depending on your productivity that could be the price of the camera several or even many times over. Are you going digital? Add the cost of the computer and printer and ink and paper. That will be - again depending on your file count - maybe more, but more likely less than the film camera and added costs. You probably won't be using that computer just for photography - so the price is proportionally less anyway. Oh yes - and maybe higher depreciation - but at the way prices for used film equipment are dropping that is not much of difference either.
Are you going hybrid? The most expensive way of all. Add a good scanner to the total and still pay for processing and buying film. Btw, The low prices for buying and processing film do indeed exist, but I think most of us on this forum are a bit more quality - oriented than that.

So, unless one is a professional, we should leave this whole nonsense out of the equation and go with our heart. Buy the best camera you can afford and make the best photgraphs you can and leave this whole argument to the fundamentalists.

And show me where I said that digital is better than film (or the other way around) I just said a few times that it works better -for me.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
The fact that a camera is digital or film has to do with this argument. With a film camera you buy the thing without the recording medium - which commands a premium of 1000-2000 Euro on top of the mechanics. So you cannot pull one component out of the system and forget about the rest. Are you going film the whole way chemically? You should- otherwise you lose a major part of the reason you went film in the first place. So you must figure in the cost of film, chemicals, paper, darkroom over the years. Depending on your productivity that could be the price of the camera several or even many times over. Are you going digital? Add the cost of the computer and printer and ink and paper. That will be - again depending on your file count - maybe more, but more likely less than the film camera and added costs. You probably won't be using that computer just for photography - so the price is proportionally less anyway. Oh yes - and maybe higher depreciation - but at the way prices for used film equipment are dropping that is not much of difference either....Are you going hybrid? The most expensive way of all. Add a good scanner to the total and still pay for processing and buying film. Btw, The low prices for buying and processing film do indeed exist, but I think most of us on this forum are a bit more quality - oriented than that.
Click to expand...

All the cost assertions in your post are anecdotal, unsupported, and therefore without merit.
 
Last edited:
You keep dragging factors into this that have nothing to do with my original statement. One can spin the math any way one likes to favour digital or film by throwing around numbers for developing costs, computers and scanners etc.
Again, this is not my point. For X dollar value you get a higher quality machine with a film camera. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
No insults or bad feelings given or received!
 
photogdave said:
No insults or bad feelings given or received!
Click to expand...
Nor this end :). What would be the fun of a forum if we didn't disagree?
You claim I drag factors in - I claim you leave factors out. You look at one component - I look at the whole chain. No wonder we come to different conclusions...;)
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
All the cost assertions in your post are anecdotal, unsupported, and therefore without merit.
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm sure you mean: contain variables and therefore different photographers may come to different outcomes. I thought that was crystal-clear from my post. Anecdotal means something different and unsupported means in this case that I did not write a 200 page book containing tables with the price of each and every aspect varied according to use. I fear you must do that yourself.
 
I'm really conflicted. My standard travel kit consists of my CL, a Canon A-1 SLR and my Sony DSC-V3 digital. I haven't "gone digital" or "stuck with film".

I'll shoot slides for my NRHS chapter so I can give a slide show. I'll shoot some digital and some B&W print film in the rangefinder.

They're only tools. I just pick whichever one I'm in the mood to use, and I use it.
 
jaapv said:
:confused: I'm sure you mean: contain variables and therefore different photographers may come to different outcomes. I thought that was crystal-clear from my post. Anecdotal means something different and unsupported means in this case that I did not write a 200 page book containing tables with the price of each and every aspect varied according to use. I fear you must do that yourself.
Click to expand...

an·ec·dot·al(nk-dtl) adj. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

Not asking for 200 pages, just some facts to back up your assertions. You made claims about the cost of high resolution digital capture vs. the cost of the art of film photography but didn't back them up with any supporting evidence or cost data whatsoever. When you start making cost comparisons it's a slippery slope. You need to provide evidence with this kind of argument, or it's so much meritless "hot air". Just because you say something - insist on it even, it doesn't make it so.

Perhaps you should apply for an on-air talking head job at Fox News or conservative AM hate-jock radio if this is your style of debate. Your argument is a straw man.
 
Bill58 said:
I expect so, as technology marches on.
Click to expand...
Technology sometimes back-peddles on. VHS, anyone? MP3 (a step back from MP2 in some respects)? How about that less-fuel-efficient new car you just purchased compared to the new one bought 10 years ago? How about those blown highlights in magazines?

Webpages and forums (forae?) that consume an obscene amount of bandwidth compared with the more efficient code of 12, 14 years ago? Memory leaks? No problem! Add more memory to it! Fuel problems? No problem! Buy another car that is less environmentally-friendly that saves about 3 mpg than the last one.

Mom and Pop shops? Whaaah? Buy it all with the click of a mouse? Film photos to show? Scan and post them online!

What do you mean "will we all go digital"? The question is: when will most admit it?

OK, I've got to stop drinking 312 right after 5pm on Fridays :eek:
 
Ahhh Gabriel... the cold hard light of reason! It's Friday, have a glass of wine, sit on a patio and watch the people and light change.. They are only images in the end. Film or digital sometimes it doesn't matter at all except to the producer of the image.

I"m going shooting and it'll be with film, after that it's a glass of red. Sante

FWIW I'll scan the negs to get my digital image ;- )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom