Roger wrote:You buy a 35mm still camera and the inherent maximum resolution is already there.
Excuse me, but isn't the chemical equivalent of digital resolution made of three variables (ignoring optics and anything else as we only refer to the recording or capturing medium itself), one being the initial format size, the other two being in the emulsion, i. e. grain and sharpness?
Try marketing that kind of math to the average consumer. On the other hand, it is easy to simply say "6 megapixels is better than 5 megapixels", even though neither is better than 35mm at any native film resolution.
christoph wrote:modern DSLRs have no noticable shutter delay and easily do 3fps for like 15pics!
True, but most people own little $200 point-and-click digicams. Only a few of us lunatics even consider dropping $1000+ on a D-70 or the new D-50.
In comparison, my Nikon SLR cost me just over $300 when I bought it lightly-used in 1992. And it's still going strong, although it's beginning to resemble an old newspaper camera with worn edges and scrapes.
That said, I'm tempted to get a Nikon D-70 body to use with my lenses.
vapparn wrote:On the other hand, 120 film has been here around 100 years or so and it ain't propably going nowhere.
Embarrassingly enough, if they stopped making and selling 120 film today I'd still have enough in the fridge and in the closet to shoot until my kids are old. :oops:
"...but most people own little $200 point-and-click digicams. Only a few of us lunatics even consider dropping $1000+ on a D-70 or the new D-50."
I think that D70 is a real power seller. New D50 may interest people who mainly point and shoot since it is even cheaper than D70. So, not only a few lunatics, I would say.
Roger wrote:You buy a 35mm still camera and the inherent maximum resolution is already there.
Excuse me, but isn't the chemical equivalent of digital resolution made of three variables (ignoring optics and anything else as we only refer to the recording or capturing medium itself), one being the initial format size, the other two being in the emulsion, i. e. grain and sharpness?
Try marketing that kind of math to the average consumer. On the other hand, it is easy to simply say "6 megapixels is better than 5 megapixels", even though neither is better than 35mm at any native film resolution.
Pith this isn't the case. How companies measure pixels is wildly inaccurate. The new Sony 7MP jobs (P200, P150, W7, V3) actually measure the same as their older 4MP. Guess what, the sensor used *is* a 4MP sensor. They interpolate to get 7MP pictures out of it. Sony's done this to extreme in one high-end model, pushing the same 4MP sensor to a 16MP picture.
"That said, I'm tempted to get a Nikon D-70 body to use with my lenses."
Highly recommended.
BTW, my uncle in Japan is hardcore 35mm photographer and didn't get a digital camera because he has a large collection of expensive Nikon lenses. Recently he won a contest where you could buy a D70 (the older version, not the D70s) the equivalent of $650 USD, with the lens. Brand new. He was pretty pleased, needless to say, and immediately started using it with his lenses.
"Evan, why chuckle? Know anybody who owns a PC who has NEVER had a hard disc crash, who has NEVER lost data?
Most of us have family negatives 30-50 years old, sometimes older, which if required could produce prints. On computers with digital data we have trouble keeping stuff five years! THat is, if the format can even be read five years down the line."
One word - backup. Of course if you never backup anything, you're at risk of an occasional crash. The formats for digital photos have not changed in the last 5 years... A TIFF from 1992 can easily be opened now. I still can't wrap my head around people who insist that it's easier and better to keep a box of slides or negatives, have to keep them in decent conditions, etc. rather than just have a box of CDs or DVDs that contains your data. Of course a CD can get scratched, but it's still safer than film, especially if you make multiple copies and store some off-site.
Angus wrote:
Now that camera market has died down, after all how often do people buy a new camera?
More than ever since people are keen on upgrading to the next resolution digital camera.
Some people are...maybe the types who would also be keen to get the latest model car...or phone...or dish washer.
But as we've both said in the past...it is not what's best but what's "good enough" that sells in today's mass market. Most people, having now bought a digicam in the 3-5 Mp region will not be upgrading until/unless their existing camera breaks. After all the media machine is telling us that a 2Mp camera can produce excellent 6x4 prints and that is all most people ever bother with...would they even notice the difference between a 7Mp and 12Mp model?
The proof is in the decline in sales we have been seeing in the UK since November 2004, and are now seeing in the US and Japan - the three markets that first "went digital".
I do wonder...when Joe Average finds that his second or third digicam has broken after three years of use each....if he might go dust the cobwebs off the 35mm and decide that loading a film and having it processed wasn't quite so fiddly after all...
Evan Kubota wrote:Of course a CD can get scratched, but it's still safer than film, especially if you make multiple copies and store some off-site.
I believe that, given enough time, a CD will degrade to an unreadable state w/o any scratches. And I don't think the time period is crazy long either. (10 years or so?) I can't prove it, but I bet there are statistics about such things...
Angus - I never said I did. I've personally lost data once in about 10 years of computer use. Regardless, backing up regularly takes care of that issue. Your house could catch fire with all of your negatives stuffed into a box in the closet. What then?
"I believe that, given enough time, a CD will degrade to an unreadable state w/o any scratches. And I don't think the time period is crazy long either. (10 years or so?) I can't prove it, but I bet there are statistics about such things.."
I tend to think the same thing, and depending on conditions, it can be much shorter than 10 years. Cheaper media is more susceptible. Anyway, if you keep it in a reasonable environment and periodically check the integrity of the data, it's fine. You'd have to take similar precautions with storing film negatives for a long period.
I haven't kept any burned DVDs around long enough to notice any degradation.
Do you know anybody who has owned a PC for an appreciable amount of time (say 5 years) who has never lost any data?
I'll give you a handy hint, the answer is "no"
Ahhhh, do you know anybody who has ever shot film and not gotten a lot of worthless prints back, or grossly over / under exposed film? Digital solves that since you see what you're capturing right away. And then storage-wise, I'm sure just as many people trash, tear, screw up their negatives as their hard drives. And really, I don't think most care.
CDs and DVDs do have a relatively short lifespan, (due to the active properties of the dye layer) but you guys are completely missing the point with them---you just copy the content to a new disc every so often....and it's an EXACT copy. (I keep mine in sleeves in a media safe, so scratches and such are not really a consideration beyond the same care I'd extend to film.) Not to mention that the discs and dyes get better and better if you buythe right brands, and we've gone from CD to DVD to double-DVDs and soon to BlueRay/HD-DVDs....lots of info can be combined. Try copying your old film without loosing any image info, or doing multiple location off-site storage with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who shoot film, the average consumer is not interested in the film look. Only that they can get an "instant image" and email it to their Auntie Em.
Point and shoot, point and shoot. "See how real that looks?"
It's all about ease of use, not quality and that holds true in every industry that produces items for the average consumer- and it's the average consumer that dictates what companies are going to gear for.
mercyboy wrote: Try copying your old film without loosing any image info, or doing multiple location off-site storage with it.
Nonsense. You can scan your film at higher resolution than you'll get from your digital camera and store that offsite.
I know I'm the only guy left saying this, but digital cameras are craziness. The only reason to use them is cost and convenience, all the worst reasons to ever do anything. Of course I don't eat fast food either so...
PS: The top label-side of a CD or DVD is by far the most important to protect from scratches and inks, etc.. People usually think it's the opposite. The bottom side read by the laser is actually very hardy and can deal with minor abrasions since the beam is focusing beyond them. One nick on the top side and you've probably wiped out data.
