Bright side to the rise of digital

[Actor]

A couple of months ago my son and I were out driving when he happened to mention that a local pawn shop had a Pentax K-1000 priced at $60. I found this hard to believe so we dropped in on the place to have a look. Sure enough they had a dandy K-1000 with a $60 price tag. Seemed like a bargain to me so I bought it.

Nice camera. It needed lens cap and a battery for the light meter. A test roll turned out great except for one frame which I assume was not-so-great due to an error on my part. However, a check of completed auctions on eBay revealed that $60 is about the going price for a K-1000 so it's not as great a bargain as I thought. Still...

That's the bright side to the rise of digital. Those who love film can now buy cameras at bargain prices that a few years ago would have been out of their reach. A local camera shop has no 35mm cameras priced above $100 and most of them are under $50. (this is second hand information. I haven't checked it out myself.)

The K-1000 joins my Pentax PZ-20 as my main still cameras. I'll keep the 20 loaded with color film while the 1000 will be loaded with B&W. It's got a roll of Ilford in it now.

[Patrick]

Yes, that is one great thing about the rising popularity of digital photography to us film users - the low cost of second hand film cameras, and in some cases brand new film cameras. This is of course a similar scenario to ultra cheap super 8 cameras found at flea markets and garage sales, thanks to video. I notice on ebay there are many medium format cameras going for cheap, including Mamiya 645s. And there used to be a time when a medium format slr was considered an expensive purchase. Ive noticed also on ebay unbelievably low prices of large format monorail cameras. Though unfortunately, lf 'field' cameras still go for high prices.

[Rollef]

Lol, Remember the APS hype? How long did that last? I bought a Nikon Nuvis (black little thing) and it was expensive, some years ago. A couple of months ago I saw one in a a photo store for 100 Nkr (approx 15 USD)....

How long will the DSLR thing last?

[david]

How long will the DSLR thing last?

will last for a long, long time I guess.

good to see old mechanical cameras for cheap, but in the meantime film is getting more and more expensive, not to mention b&w paper and chemicals that are getting quite hard to find as well (I live in a small town, buying from the net is now the only option for me).

reminds me of polaroid, cheap cameras - expensive film.

[Angus]

DLSR's are the foreseeable future for most people.

APS was not a bad idea, but was never going to attract the pro's and was launched at just the wrong time for the consumer who would shortly be dazzled with digital.

And as we all know, anything digital must be better than the alternative.....cos it's digital, innit.

[audadvnc]

And as we all know, anything digital must be better than the alternative.....cos it's digital, innit.

That's funny. I was Xmas shopping in Target last night and saw at least two items that were advertising "analog sound" on the cases. As if it's the new retro trend!

[reflex]

How long will the DSLR thing last?

It is the future. One of my main complaints about digital cameras has always been shutter lag and lack of TTL viewing. DSLRs sort out both of those problems.

My family shoots about 100 digital photos a week. To buy that much film and get it processed would run around $40, which equates to $2080 a year.

I am the only one who is still dedicated to film, and I'm sad to say that I only shoot a couple of rolls a month.

[Nigel]

I still shoot a ton of 35mm stills...I need to buy another 20 rolls.

My shooting has been changing and an agency that I have been trying to get work from flat out told me "No film--Digital only." Which seemed odd to me since if I hand them a file who cares what it was shot on.

I was about to pull the trigger on a DSLR a few months ago but decided to hold off until the Spring and then buy something brand new like the D200. It won't eplace the film that I have been shooting but it will augment it nicely. There is no way I would dare to show up to shoot an architectural on a small format camera let alone digital.

Good Luck

[David M. Leugers]

Just like in motion pictures, there is a place for both film and digital technologies. I know several people (my wife included) that shoot nothing but digital now, and all have lost many photos they intended to keep, but either erased the file, misplaced the file or the CD they recorded it to, or had a hard drive failure the file was on... When the photo is on film, it will outlast you. I shoot any and all photos I even think might be important to me on film. One person I read noted that many of the "keeper" photos of the past were not so highly thought of at the time, but over time they take on real value. It is often the candid shot of routine life that has historical and cultural value over the poised photos... Also like motion picture films, still camera films today are incredible and can make for much more interesting photography.



David M. Leugers

[woods01]

My family shoots about 100 digital photos a week. To buy that much film and get it processed would run around $40, which equates to $2080 a year.

I am the only one who is still dedicated to film, and I'm sad to say that I only shoot a couple of rolls a month.

But how much is it going to cost in personal time to sort through thousands of digital photos? So much time of the present spent on
sorting through memories of the past.

The real hidden beauty of film was not the images but the limitations.
Just a couple of rolls used to record a vacation not the 700 digitals I took
on my last trip.

I spent many hours deleting photos from my trip to England and I had to
wonder just why at the time I felt compelled to shoot so much. Was it
to preserve each memory for me or was it to show off to other people
who didn't go?

My grandfather died a few years ago and I took it upon myself to take
the boxes of slides. As David mused it is the accidents and the dull
pictures that are of interest, 99% of the beauty shots are garbage. Its
the shots of the mundane that are fascinating and especially the people that really matter.

[T-Scan]

I bought my girlfriend a mint Canon AE-1 for $125 a few weeks ago. We've been shooting Velvia 100 and 64T.

[MovieStuff]

One of my main complaints about digital cameras has always been shutter lag and lack of TTL viewing. DSLRs sort out both of those problems.

Indeed they have.

Because we live out in the sticks with no labs nearby, I bought a Canon Digital Rebel for my wife (who is a very picky photographer; Nikons only) and she was stunned at the quality this little Canon DSLR produced. In fact (and I know I'll catch hell here for making this claim) we compared a shot of me she did about 5 years ago on 100 ASA neg to a shot she did recently on the Canon and the Canon was just as sharp, had just as much detail, if not more, than the older shot with the Nikon. We cropped the Canon shot on my eye and compared it to the same cropping on the Nikon shot and the quality was identical with the Canon edging out the Nikon a bit, in my opinion. I think that for 35mm stills, digital has already met the mark. We have since used the Canon for tons of photos and have not found anything on the Nikon that we could not do equaly well or better on the Canon Rebel. DOF is a bit deep but nothing that can't be dealt with in Photoshop.

[Mitch Perkins]

I think that for 35mm stills, digital has already met the mark.

For some, it met the mark years ago, for others it never will. It's a personal thing, donchya know.

IOW, I agree with your use of the words, "I think". ~:?)

Mitch

[Chris Cottrill]

My family shoots about 100 digital photos a week. To buy that much film and get it processed would run around $40, which equates to $2080 a year.

Yes Digital SLR it is the future until something better comes along, which it will and may or may not be compatible with digital techhology. But on the current cost side, if you take your digital photos to a mini lab to get 4" x 6" prints on photo paper so they look like film, you are still spending $40 (100 prints x double prints = 200 prints x $.20 each = $40. And that's if you can find a place that charges only $.20 per print. Many 35mm photo labs only charge $7.95 around here for double prints of a 24 exposure 35mm negative film. That means 4 rolls (96 exposures) x $7.95 = $31.80. Cost of film at Wal-Mart is $5.95 for 5 rolls of Kodak Gold 100. Unless you print all your own photos or don't want prints at all, I don't see any savings, which brings it back to a personal preference thing, not an economic one.

[jpolzfuss]

My family shoots about 100 digital photos a week.

So what do you do with all those pictures? Will you ever watch them?