Are all digital cameras crap?

Wow, that thread wandered around a bit. The answer is yes, current
digitals are mostly excremental. As advanced bits of consumer
electronics, they're great; but as functional photographic tools, they
leave almost everything to be desired.

Bad ergonomics, fiddly controls, incomprehensible menu systems, and
viewfinders that are any combination of inaccurate, dim, grainy,
unfocusable, or slow, depending on the technology. All but a few
high-end models suffer excessively from the dreaded shutter lag.
Mechanically, most models are poorly constructed and seem unlikely to
significantly outlast their warranties; and are virtually unrepairable
afterwards.

Granted, I started taking pictures in the 50's; but I consult in the
computer industry now and have been using various digital cameras since
the very beginning; I like to think I have some perspective.

Except for a handful of very expensive models, a cheap 70's Yashica is
easily a better photographic tool than a digital camera.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
Wow, that thread wandered around a bit. The answer is yes, current
digitals are mostly excremental. As advanced bits of consumer
electronics, they're great; but as functional photographic tools,
they
leave almost everything to be desired.

Bad ergonomics, fiddly controls, incomprehensible menu systems, and
viewfinders that are any combination of inaccurate, dim, grainy,
unfocusable, or slow, depending on the technology. All but a few
high-end models suffer excessively from the dreaded shutter lag.
Mechanically, most models are poorly constructed and seem unlikely to
significantly outlast their warranties; and are virtually
unrepairable
afterwards.

Granted, I started taking pictures in the 50's; but I consult in the
computer industry now and have been using various digital cameras
since
the very beginning; I like to think I have some perspective.

Except for a handful of very expensive models, a cheap 70's Yashica
is
easily a better photographic tool than a digital camera.
Do you know of any DSLR that has more shutter lag then a film SLR? My
20D has a shutter lag of 0.15 seconds including the time it takes to
AF.
The 20D takes close to 5 shots a second, how fast does you SLR take
them.
I can shoot at ISO 800 without noise, can you?
I have used a film SLR for over 25 years, the 20D has the exact same
feel.

Scott

Scott

Scott Schuckert wrote:

Wow, that thread wandered around a bit. The answer is yes, current
digitals are mostly excremental. As advanced bits of consumer
electronics, they're great; but as functional photographic tools, they
leave almost everything to be desired.

They do what they are meant and capable of doing which is a lot and they do so
quite well.


Bad ergonomics, fiddly controls, incomprehensible menu systems, and
viewfinders that are any combination of inaccurate, dim, grainy,
unfocusable, or slow, depending on the technology. All but a few
high-end models suffer excessively from the dreaded shutter lag.
Mechanically, most models are poorly constructed and seem unlikely to
significantly outlast their warranties; and are virtually unrepairable
afterwards.

I am impressed with the density of falsehoods in the prior paragraph.

A photographer used to 35mm slr equipment would compare only the DSLR's that are
very 35mm slr like. And he will find pretty much the same setup as on SLR's.
DSLR's ranging from the Canon D30/60 to 20D, Nikon D70, *ist D, Maxxum 7D are
NOT 'high end' yet provide great tools for image capture and printing to medium
large sizes (ca. 15" x 10") to very good quality. Shutter lags are on the order
of 50 -60 ms, the same as the film cameras the recent 10 - 20 years. Ergonomics
of the cameras is very good to exemplary.

Granted, I started taking pictures in the 50's; but I consult in the
computer industry now and have been using various digital cameras since
the very beginning; I like to think I have some perspective.

Yes: your perspective. Which from -this- perspective is both petulant and
factually wrong.

-DSLR's have matured into fine tools for serious photographers.
-Most (99%) news and magazine photography is digital.
-Much advertsing and other commercial photography is digital.
-Many "amateur" photographers have been working more and more in digital
enjoying the fast feedback in the field and fast work on the computer, low
recurring cost, high quality output and much more. By amateur, here I mean
people who typically shoot a couple dozen to 100's of 36 frame rolls per year
and consider photography an important part of their life.

I still shoot 100% film, but it is clear that digital is the way to go for a lot
of the photography I do.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Holmes wrote:

I have never met a film camera which has a delay between pressing the
button and the shutter operating.


A 'good' SLR has a delay of about 50 - 70ms. Doesn't sound like much until
you're trying to get a shot of the baseball on the bat.

(An M6 (or EOS 1nRS pelicule) has a delay of about 6 ms. Which is close enough
to 0 to really not matter)

Some SLR's will delay slightly more for AF and/or pre-flash.

Regarding DSLR's, the shutter lag is similar to SLR's in most cases.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Yes: your perspective. Which from -this- perspective is both petulant and
factually wrong.

Well, you know, the original poster asked for an opinion, and he asked
in a pretty non-formal (are they crap?) way. What I offered was exactly
that; I provided few technical "facts" for you to call wrong.

That said, I stand by my statements. The OP didn't limit the field to
DSLR's, so the vast amount of dreck below them must be considered.
Prosumer models like the D70 are indeed not good enough; the viewfinder
in particular falls flat. Ever try to focus one of them manually?
Horrors like eye level EVF's are best not discussed in public.

What YOU seem to be fixed on, the top-level DSLR's are indeed fine
units. I speak of the Canon 1D/20D, the Fuji S2/S3, and the Nikon D1/D2
models. They are indeed widely and wisely used by professional
photographers, and are priced accordingly - well out of range of most
people who don't earn their living with them. They likely represent
less than 1% of the digital market. I also wonder if the'll be
functioning or even repairable in 5, let alone 10 years.

So yes, in ALMOST all cases, the current cameras are "crap."
They can be made to produce good work, but they're not particularly
good cameras.

In article , says...
What YOU seem to be fixed on, the top-level DSLR's are indeed fine
units. I speak of the Canon 1D/20D, the Fuji S2/S3, and the Nikon D1/D2
models. They are indeed widely and wisely used by professional
photographers, and are priced accordingly - well out of range of most
people who don't earn their living with them. They likely represent
less than 1% of the digital market. I also wonder if the'll be
functioning or even repairable in 5, let alone 10 years.

What are you on about? The Pentax *ist DS, the Nikon D70, the Canon
300D and the new Oly E-Volt are all priced roughly the same as a high-
end point and shoot digital. They all respond quickly and act just like
a film dSLR for all intents and purposes.

I mean, for less than a grand (chump change these days) you can get a
high performance dSLR and a decent zoom lens.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Scott Schuckert wrote:

Well, you know, the original poster asked for an opinion, and he
asked
in a pretty non-formal (are they crap?) way. What I offered was
exactly
that; I provided few technical "facts" for you to call wrong.

What the OP ask was "are ALL digital camera crap?" he did not ask if
some were or most he ask if all were.

There are a lot of people getting great photos from cheap point and
shoot digital cameras but they are not in the same class as a good
DSLR. And it is rather stilly to claim that a camera like the 20D is
out of the rangle of most people, at a cost of around $1200 you will
likely spend more on lenses then the body, which is pretty much true of
any SLR digital or film.

Scott

In article .com,
Scott W wrote:

What the OP ask was "are ALL digital camera crap?" he did not ask if
some were or most he ask if all were.

Oh, come on. In general conversation, if asked "Do all humans have two
legs?" you wouldn't reply in the positive? I SAID there were a few
exceptions, as there are with every broad statement.

There are a lot of people getting great photos from cheap point and
shoot digital cameras but they are not in the same class as a good
DSLR.

AGAIN, granted in that they can be made to produce good pictures.
Doesn't mean they're well designed cameras. The question wasn't "Are
all digital pictures crap?"

And it is rather stilly to claim that a camera like the 20D is
out of the rangle of most people, at a cost of around $1200 you will
likely spend more on lenses then the body, which is pretty much true of
any SLR digital or film.

Depends on your universe of discourse. I maintain (and I know a bit
about photo marketing, having managed camera stores) that 98% of the
people who walk in the door will laugh in you face when you suggest
they spend that much on a camera.

Scott Schuckert wrote:

Prosumer models like the D70 are indeed not good enough; the viewfinder

Below, find a post from rec.photo.digital.slr-systems made yesterday. Unlike
you, this fellow actually uses the D70, and regularly, and for revenue work.
eg: Unlike you, he knows of what he speaks.

Cheers,
Alan

-------- Original Message --------
Path:
news.gazeta.pl!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!news.nask.pl!new sfeed.pionier.net.pl!news.glorb.com!postnews.googl e.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Swriter33
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Subject: D70 vs anything else
Date: 13 Feb 2005 20:19:34 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: . com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.252.31.22
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1108354779 9426 127.0.0.1 (14 Feb 2005 04:19:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:19:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.252.31.22;
posting-account=HEnj6A0AAADRl32p0QSSYUzbjZZ7KxcH
Xref: news.gazeta.pl rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:5288

After watching this newsgroup for so long, I have decided to post my
reasons for deciding a D70 was the best choice for me and I hope this
helps those still on the cheaper dSLR fence.

a) 1/500 true flash sync. I'm mainly a wedding photographer and use a
flash on 90% of my images, indoors and outdoors. Handsdown, main
reason. (If you don't understand this one, a point and shoot might be a
better choice)

b) Flash management. see above plus the built-in wireless. Can't say
enough about how handy it is to pop off the sb800 and use it wireless
and still get great exposures, not to mention being able to use it to
drive groups of sb600's.

c) Good looking noise - I shoot concerts/plays telephoto in low light
without flash and the noise actually looks better than film grain.

I've logged almost 14,000 images with this D70 and really don't have
anything to complain about or wish different. I've gotten all I wanted
from it in quality of image, ease of use, speed and dependability not
to mention the incredible battery life.

Tony

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, perhaps I was a little hasty, but there was the grey water, the
homosexual camera, the climbing slugs, the `test-please ignore`s, the
idiot americans.... But on closer inspection, it appears to be your odd
sense of humour, and equally odd hobbies!!

But look again at your original post - if that isn't trolling, I'm a
bad judge of character.
.
.
.
.
OK, so I'm a bad judge of character!

Oh, ok, I'll let you off this time, but watch out in future!(:-)

--
alan

reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net