Anti-digital backlash continues ...

I had the exercise, the fresh air, the sun, the interaction with animals
and
people, the enjoyable time and all as side effects of film photography.

And it's having a film camera that allows you to do this? You couldn't have
done it with a digital camera in hand? You couldn't have done it without any
camera in hand?

i like the fact that i
can't access my photos immediately

Did you know that there is no rule requiring photographs made with a digital
camera to be viewed immediately? You actually are allowed to wait as long
as you want before putting the card in the computer.

BTW, doesn't the caps key on your keyboard work with the letter "i?"

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

What you describe above is commonplace
for casual shooters, but IMO demonstrates a
clear advantage for digital capture -- there's
never any need to "finish the roll" to access
the photos you've just taken.


Depends. I've often been motivated to go phototrekking just to "finish a
roll".
I had the exercise, the fresh air, the sun, the interaction with animals
and
people, the enjoyable time and all as side effects of film photography. I
would've had no such incentive with digital capture. I like the fact that
i
can't access my photos immediately; often it could take me a week to
finish a
roll, then another week for it to be sent and come back from the lab, by
which
time i might've forgotten about some of what i shot and often i'm
pleasantly
reminded of it.

Where do you process your 120 film for £3?

First I'll clarify that i'm not new to photography . . . ,

Really?

It's all about what i'm willing to carry.

Wait a minute. A few messages back it was all about strolling in the
sunshine, enjoying nature, things you couldn't do without a film camera in
hand. Then there was all that decisive moment stuff too. And you also used
to like film because you had to wait so long to see the pictures. Now it's
all just about what your'e willing to carry?

Over the past two or three weeks i
purchased a Minox GT-S, a Minox GT-E, (both in prefectly like new
condition,
great cameras, wonderful images, totally love them, will probably keep
them),
an Olympus XA (not as good as Minox 35, probably won't keep, though it
doesn't
matter as not expensive), Fuji silvi f2.8 black and a silver one (24mm
f2.8,
won't keep the silver, may keep the black for a while though not sure), an
Olympus stylus-epic, a Minox CD 150. (won't keep either, though even if i
do
both are inexpensive, all in all, several compacts is no more costly than
slr
with several lenses).

I can see you're really serious about your photography.

Notice a pattern?

I certainly notice a pattern, but the one I notice probably isn't the one
you notice.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

p.s. no intent to lecutre anyone, just thinking aloud

You should back off the $8,000 digital camera obsession and start
thinking
about the $900 models, then maybe digital would make more sense to you.
Or
maybe not ...

Bill


Okay Bill, to be honest, i've been very tempted. And the cost of a a $1000
dSLR
is not much. I've already spent more than that on film cameras lately and
if i
sell them now they'd easily get me a dSLR. I'm just not sure it's a good
purchase for me, and here's why.

First I'll clarify that i'm not new to photography, I did a lot in the
1980s
(even was runner-up in in a competition beaten only by a pro), but i spent
a
decade and a half away from it while i had other interests (including 12
years
of academic pursuits).

It's all about what i'm willing to carry. Over the past two or three weeks
i
purchased a Minox GT-S, a Minox GT-E, (both in prefectly like new
condition,
great cameras, wonderful images, totally love them, will probably keep
them),
an Olympus XA (not as good as Minox 35, probably won't keep, though it
doesn't
matter as not expensive), Fuji silvi f2.8 black and a silver one (24mm
f2.8,
won't keep the silver, may keep the black for a while though not sure), an
Olympus stylus-epic, a Minox CD 150. (won't keep either, though even if i
do
both are inexpensive, all in all, several compacts is no more costly than
slr
with several lenses). Notice something of a pattern? They're all
pocketable,
they all weigh under 200grams. I'd keep such a camera in a belt-pouch
that's
effectively my wallet. I also carry a small pocketable tripod. Notice a
pattern?

The question for getting a bigger camera was "what will it offer me more
than,
say, a Minox GT-S/E?". I don't care much for interchangeable lenses, I
don't
like to use flash, and I've been quite impressed with the quality of
images i
get from them, which I'd say, like many others did, is on par with a 35mm
SLR,
and anyhow, is good enough for my preferred style. But with an SLR i'd
have to
think whether i'd wanna carry it with me when i go out or not. So it
seemed
that purchasing a medium format camera was the most logical option for a
bigger
camera since it'd offer me something dramatically different and worth the
extra
weight of carrying it. Hence i bought the Fuji GA645. Which cost me (like
new
and in "top condition") $550, half as much as a 6.3 megapixel dSLR, and
with
the potential of having a phonemenally higher resolution.

Now all i need is a good film scanner.

I don't shoot that many pictures for a 6.3 dSLR to make sense, not even in
terms of price, but in terms of sacrificing quality for sheer quantity. In
fact, i need to shoot less as i've been too much into photography lately
that
it seemed to occupy too much of my time and attention. I would like to do
more
healthy stuff like exercise/yoga especially considering how stiff my
back/neck
is getting.

I would argue that many hobbyists would be in a similar situation to mine.

From: (Bob Monaghan)

Hi Bill,

thanks for the interesting price info on DSLR price stability, not what I
would have expected. Sounds like you high end DSLR buyers are getting
shafted, right?

Hi Bob,

So if the price drops rapidly (as you said earlier, and incorrectly) we are
shafted because we own a rapidly depreciating asset, but if the price holds
steady we are shafted because the price isn't dropping? Sounds like BobM logic
to me, you win either way and we are shafted ... LOL.

Certainly this reduction in production costs are are also happening with
DSLRs, as sensor chip and other prices are very sensitive to increasing
volumes of production and use, right?

Yep.

Certainly, prices for digital P&S are constantly dropping in the stores,
almost month to month, yes?

Can't say, I don't follow P&S pricing. But wouldn't be a surprise.

Yet you and the other high end digital buyers seem to be getting shafted,
right?

Nope.

Those cost reductions are not being passed down to you, are they?
A DSLR that is $1500 new is only discounted $120 or so ...

Less than four years ago the Canon D30 was a big seller, 3 Mpixels for $3,000.
15 months later it was replaced by the D60 which had twice the megapixels and
sold for $2,200, twice the camera for 70% the price. A year later it was
replaced by the 10D (the one you mention) for $1,500, so in 2 1/2 years the
cost of the current consumer model Canon was halved while the pixel count
doubled. They did this with no price pressure from Nikon either.

I'd call that passing down the cost reductions myself. And the lowest cost 6
Mpix dSLR is now under $1,000 ...

As for the upper end, the 1Ds is around $7,400 right now with 11.1 Mpixels ...
compare that to these Kodak DCS prices from a few years ago ...
$11,000 for DCS 200, 1.5 Mpixels (1992)
$12,000 for DCS 420, 1.5 Mpixels (1994)
$39,000 for DCS 460, 6 Mpixels (1995)

People bought those (I guess), so $7,500 for an 11 Mpix model that surpasses 35
mm film seems like a bargain to many of us

In the meantime, MF cameras feature big rebates right now ...

I'm pretty sure I already own all the MF cameras and lenses I'll ever need

In the meantime, thanks for being so enthusiastic about paying thru the
nose for all this stuff.

I have a deal with Canon ... they keep bringing out great new products and I
willingly buy them Since we are all consenting adults I can't figure out
why it seems to bug you so much though.

I'm sure the nikon and canon stockholders will appreciate it, at least as long

as you stay on the new DSLR buying treadmill ;-)

Nikon is still waiting for their first nickel from me (unless you count the
$5,000 spent on two Nikon scanners) but Canon is no doubt happy to have me, and
the feeling is mutual. And I'm pretty sure I'll stay on the "new DSLR buying
treadmill" since I just ordered a new 1D Mark II as a backup and a
birds-in-flight solution. 8.5 frames/sec for up to 40 shots, 8.2 Mpixels,
world's fastest autofocus ... life on the treadmill is good

Bill

That's odd. When I became involved with photography years ago the standard
advice always was to shoot lots and lots of film, to bracket, to photograph
from every possible angle, etc. because the film was the cheapest part of


photography.

I can't see that being the case for a hobbyist who pays for his film
processing. In a year film can easily exceed the cost of equipment for me if i
let myself go.

For a professional though with thousands of equipment and a need to make money
then yeah, i can see film being the cheapest if you get your money back.

My my, such anger over my little dig at the guy who talked about his camera
taking good pictures. Relax, it's only a discussion on the internet, nothing
to get you so upset.


I'm sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I wasn't angry or upset, and sorry it came
across this way.

(and yes, i'm better than saying this but in this case it's more than
deserved)

?????????????



Lots and Lots of Regards

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
from every possible angle, etc. because the film was the cheapest part of
photography.

I can't see that being the case for a hobbyist who pays for his film
processing. In a year film can easily exceed the cost of equipment for me
if i
let myself go.

:-) The wheel turns... Let yourself go! If it pleases you, that is.

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On 20 Jun 2004 23:33:03 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


thanks for the interesting price info on DSLR price stability, not what I
would have expected. Sounds like you high end DSLR buyers are getting
shafted, right?


What hogwash, bob m. You start with a premise and
a whopping anti-digital attitude, and latch on to any
factoid that can be bent or twisted to support your
prejudice.

For months you've been lecturing us about the
horrific depreciation on digital cameras. When it
is pointed out that this depreciation does not in
fact exist on current DSLRs, you now claim, not once
but twice, that we're being "shafted."

There is *no* problem, bob. None at all.
The problems are in your feverish imagination.

Actually the pro/semi pro consumer is getting the shaft
because a sub standard is being pushed & applied to all format cameras
not just 35mm. Never before has a technology in photography
changed so quickly or changed the business climate,
therefore whats good today is alot less tommorrow and dats da way it iz
and dats the way it gonna be. Don't be surprised if no one wants to buy
photography in the not so distant future. Glad I draw, paint and have
some real talent beyond what others decide.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

Hi Bill ;-)

Good posting, but you answer your own question to me, yes?

a) high end DSLR buyers get shafted because prices remain relatively high
without the expected "learning curve" price cuts during the short shelf
life of the products, and

b) high end DSLR buyers get shafted because the new models are better and
cheaper, thereby causing a major depreciation of their recently purchased
high end DSLRs (also true for digital P&S etc.) which are now "obsolete"
;-)

I have previously focused on (b) because it is so often ignored by digital
advocates suggesting we abandon MF for the benefits of DSLRs and that film
costs are so huge while ignoring other costs associated with digital. ;-)
But I appreciate you pointing out (a) to us ;-) This is esp. curious since
most digital still and video cameras seem to be dropping in price at least
quarterly. So it really is a pricing anomaly that high end DSLRs don't
drop much at all from initial street pricing as you documented in your
posting ;-)

I have also noted:

c) digital cameras are often uneconomic to repair after 2-3 years after
last sale, so they become "kilobuck disposables"

With most MF film camera systems, you can get repairs for kilobuck bodies,
at least 7 years after last sale (per Magnuson-Moss Consumer Protection
Act) and often for 2 or more decades (cf. Hasselblad in past etc.). You
can get repairs from independent repair shops too. But with digital
cameras they not only got back to the distributor, but get sent back to
Japan for repairs, hence the long repair times, yes? And in my experience
the costs make most such repairs uneconomic after a few years, as you can
buy a working model with accessories on eb*y for rather less $$ ;-)

And as I have noted, my arguments are losing their "sting" as prices of
DSLRs drop below $1,000 US$ and MP rise to 8 MP and above ;-) There are
less $ to lose and depreciate, and the chance of the user holding on to
the 8MP or above DSLR as "good enough" without trading up to the new model
also increase. But as you point out, the key is how many rolls/yr one
shoots to decide the breakeven point, if quality factors are acceptable
etc.

Then again, I think DSLRs will be a niche market, like MF although rather
bigger, in a few years time as the mass market takes up embedded cameras
in cell phones and PCs and palm video-pilots ;-)

grins bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Loiskelly1 wrote:

When I got my 1992 Ducati, I had to wait six months for delivery, which was
not an
indication that they were making many of these.

That's a wonderful bike that should hold its value far better than its high
volume Japanese competition, which makes your analogy entirely appropriate for
the MF vs. digital debate.

Hope you bought a 916, or, better still, a Superlight!

The 916 was not available until 1994, which made the only fuel injected model the
851 at that time. I test rode a SuperLight, and found that the handling was
actually slightly worse, due to the lower seat height. Also, take the tool roll
out of a Supersport, and it weighed the same as a Superlight. The early wheels on
the Superlight also had a tendency to loosen at the bolts . . . not a good thing
for wheels to do on a high performance motorcycle.

So if you have not guessed which Ducati I own, it is a 900 Supersport. I actually
placed my order in mid 1991, and got the delivery in November 1992. It has been a
fairly reliable and enjoyable motorcycle, and the styling still attracts lots of
attention. I have owned and raced much faster motorcycles, though this is the one
I have always enjoyed the most.

Compare that to my camera choices, and only my Nikon FM remains from my earlier
photography choices. Since much of my photography interest dates from around the
time I got the Ducati, that Nikon FM is the only working camera I still have from
that time. The Mamiya 645 outfit I had then has been sold years ago.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Fil Ament wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Obviously, though the statement from Nikon involving the D70 would then imply that
their margin of profit on the D70 would be very high, which also implies that they
might be well overcharging for them. Somehow, I don't think that is the situation in
their statement. Instead, I think the press release was written to draw attention to
their newest product, the D70, and draw attention away from other products with which
they have not done as well as expected. They could just as easily written a statement
about increasing digital P&S production, while decreasing film P&S production, but I
think they chose the wiser path of using a marketing opportunity to push the D70.

Well the small dealers (not B&H are selling them at or very close to cost) from what I hear
as are most camera bodys sold this way to get people into the store.

Interesting . . . if that is indeed absolutely the situation, then these are either loss
leaders to generate other sales, or they are attempting to almost dump these to gain market
share. Unfortunately, profits are needed to continue research and development.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!