APS Sucks.

Michael Benveniste wrote:

DaveT wrote in message . ..


This points out an aps feature that is often overlooked. If you don't
have the camera with you then you can't take a picture at all. APS is a
perfect fit for casual non-professional use.

Absolutely correct. I have an Elph Jr. that carries in a pager-sized
pouch on my belt. It has a razor-sharp four element f2.8 non-zoom
lens that gives a very good account of itself. My main camera is a
Canon A1, but anymore, I take many more pictures with the Elph.


APS is one offering to the "grab camera" market, but far from the
only one. Let's compare that Elph Jr. to, say, an Olympus Stylus
Epic 35mm:

Lens:
Elph Jr. -- 26mm 4 element/4 group lens @ f/2.8
Olympus -- 35mm 4 element/4 group lens @ f/2.8
Note -- Elph is roughly equivalent to a 33mm lens for 35mm.

Size:
Elph Jr. -- 3.5" x 2.4" x 0.9" -- 4.4 oz.
Olympus -- 4.3" x 2.3" x 1.5" -- 4.7 oz.

Minimum Focus and required light:
Elph Jr. -- 1.5 feet. EV2
Olympus -- 1.1 feet. EV1

Rangefinder Magnification:
Elph Jr. -- 0.35x
Olympus -- 0.45x

Flash Range at ISO 200:
Elph Jr. -- 17'8"
Olympus -- 19'1"
Note -- These are computed values.
Elph Jr. quotes 12.5' with ISO 100, but ISO 100
numbers are moot unless you can buy ISO 100 film.

Auto Film Loading?
Elph Jr. -- Yes
Olympus -- Almost.

Certainly true although there are handling difference that APS film
shines in but this kind of camera would suck also from the original
posters view.


I could go on nit-picking, or I could run similar numbers against
any of a number of small digitals. But to what point? All of them
are roughly the same size, and all will produce a nice looking print
up to about 8x12 or so. The 35mm Epic does better at 11x16, but a
goodly number of users don't really care about that.

Digitals are much more expensive on the front end and eat batteries or
require frequent recharges. They still have made few inroads into the
not computer savy groups.


So in my mind, we're back to square "A" as in _A_dvanced Photo System.
APS has some nice film handling and recording features. At least in
theory -- the last time I brought a roll of APS into my local
Walgreens, they ignored the H/C/P settings and printed everything as
a 4x6. Twice.

Try Longs, they do fine.


Balance those features against paying a little more for developing
(at least where I live), with fewer choices for film, and the film
goes on sale less often.

Does APS suck? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
alone any decrease in quality. It's even more vulnerable to
competition from digitals.


Your choice, but the PQI does help under some conditions so the
percentage of pictures is better. Digitals are not the average
housewife's choice.

Dale

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

APS is one offering to the "grab camera" market, but far from the
only one. Let's compare that Elph Jr. to, say, an Olympus Stylus
Epic 35mm:

You make a very good comparison. I happen to have both cameras and would be
hard-pressed to pick which 4x6 or 5x7 was taken with which camera.
However, the Elph Jr. is a little smaller and fits a pocket a bit better.
Also, I occasionally like shots in the horizontal format. Of course, I know
I can print any 35mm neg any way I ask, but the convenience outweighs the
bother.
Developing and printing is roughly the same where I live, occasionally a bit
more for the APS.
The size advantage and choice of instant format change is what usually
prompts me to grab the Elph Jr. However, I still like the Stylus Epic too.
It often depends on which film I have on hand and what is a good bargain at
the time.
Ken

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:01:44 +0100, "Peter Stegemann"
wrote:

(Michael Benveniste):

Does APS suck? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
alone any decrease in quality. It's even more vulnerable to
competition from digitals.

If I want to buy a digital camera that matches the Ixus L1, I have to
pay around 500 Euro. To replace my Pronea 600i, I'll have to pay
1800 Euro. 35mm is no alternative, I'm scanning my negatives.

Your price quotes seem a little high to me here in the U.S., but
that's not the point. My post started: 'APS is one offering to
the "grab camera" market, but far from the only one.' Far less
expensive digitals fall into that "snapshot" category. Any SLR larger
than a Pentax 110 is overkill.

Saying "35mm is no alternative" is an exaggeration, as many
people do scan 35mm negatives and slides. If you're scanning every
shot on a roll, APS is more convenient, but at that point the cost of
the scanner, film, and developing go a long way to offsetting the
initial cost of digital, not to mention the time spent doing scans.

If APS is not a choice for you, fine. But people should accept, that
_their_ choice is not the only possible choice.

I respect your choice and I'm a little baffled that you read my post
otherwise. But I also accept that the aggregate of people's choices
defines the market. Quoting Kodak's latest quarterly report:
The U.S. film industry volume decreased approximately 7% in the
nine month period ended September 30, 2003 as compared with the
nine month period ended September 30, 2002. The most current
U.S. market data trends suggest that, for the nine month period
ended September 30, 2003, digital substitution accounted for the
majority of the industry decline.
and also:
Net worldwide sales of consumer digital cameras increased 117% in
the third quarter of 2003 as compared with the prior year
quarter...

Myself, I own a Pronea S in addition to my 35mm gear and the Pentax
110 I mentioned above. But I see APS as being in a classic market
squeeze, with digitals taking the life out of the consumer film camera
market and the established 35mm competitors limiting opportunities for
growth in the professional or prosumer markets. Can APS carve out a
niche large enough for survival? We'll find out soon enough.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:13:56 -0800, Dale DePriest
wrote:


Digitals are much more expensive on the front end and eat batteries or
require frequent recharges. They still have made few inroads into the
not computer savy groups.

I admit to running around in pretty geeky circles, but all the sales
reports I've seen say otherwise. See my other post for a quote from
Kodak on the subject.

As the old line goes, a technology used by all of your friends is not
mainstream. A technology used by all of your friends' parents _is_
mainstream. When I just surfed to http://www.walmart.com, the top
banner read: "Order 4x6 Prints of Your Digital Photos. Just 26c each
-- every day."

So in my mind, we're back to square "A" as in _A_dvanced Photo System.
APS has some nice film handling and recording features. At least in
theory -- the last time I brought a roll of APS into my local
Walgreens, they ignored the H/C/P settings and printed everything as
a 4x6. Twice.
Try Longs, they do fine.

Where I live, Longs is a jewelers. Walgreens is simply the closest
place that offers 1 hour APS service. I do have other alternatives,
including two good labs nearby. For that matter, next door to
Walgreens is a grocery store with a Konica processing drop-off box. I
tried them once as well. Not only did they fail to provide next day
service as promised, but the "free replacement film" they included was
35mm! It took a call to the manager to get a replacement APS roll.

Your choice, but the PQI does help under some conditions so the
percentage of pictures is better. Digitals are not the average
housewife's choice.

None of the processors I've tried uses the POI data. Instead they use
the same correction features for APS as they do for 35mm color prints
For example, see: http://www.dalelabs.com/aps.html.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message

APS is one offering to the "grab camera" market, but far from the
only one. Let's compare that Elph Jr. to, say, an Olympus Stylus
Epic 35mm:

Size:
Elph Jr. -- 3.5" x 2.4" x 0.9" -- 4.4 oz.
Olympus -- 4.3" x 2.3" x 1.5" -- 4.7 oz.
snip
All of them are roughly the same size

Michael:

You should do the math:

Based on the dimensions quoted, the Elph Jr. is 7.56 cubic inches, and the
Oly is 14.83 cubic inches. Almost twice as big. Not even "roughly" the same
size. Not to take away from the Stylus, it's a fine camera. But it is NOT in
the same size league as the Elph.

Tom P.

Michael Benveniste :

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:01:44 +0100, "Peter Stegemann"
wrote:

If I want to buy a digital camera that matches the Ixus L1, I have to
pay around 500 Euro. To replace my Pronea 600i, I'll have to pay
1800 Euro. 35mm is no alternative, I'm scanning my negatives.

First of all let me repeat that I wrote: "If _I_ want to buy...". As expressed
in that posting, camera and format choice is a very individual decission.

Your price quotes seem a little high to me here in the U.S., but

You're free to post different prices and an explanation why you think
they are enough. But it will be difficult for you to find a camera like the
Ixus L1 for digital at all. My main points for the Ixus L1 a

- Uses same film as my main cameras.
- Very sharp and crisp pictures
- Very small and lightweight
- Low light lense

that's not the point. My post started: 'APS is one offering to
the "grab camera" market, but far from the only one.' Far less

APS was not only an offering to the grab camera market.

expensive digitals fall into that "snapshot" category. Any SLR larger
than a Pentax 110 is overkill.

For anyone? You define that?

Saying "35mm is no alternative" is an exaggeration, as many
people do scan 35mm negatives and slides. If you're scanning every
shot on a roll, APS is more convenient, but at that point the cost of
the scanner, film, and developing go a long way to offsetting the
initial cost of digital, not to mention the time spent doing scans.

The time spent doing scans is especially for APS rather low. The time
is spent mainly be the scanner. And this is exactly the reason why
35mm is no alternative (to me, as mentioned several times before).
Switching to digital would cost me at least 500 + 1800 Euro, not yet
calculating to cost of new lenses due to different negative sizes. The
scanner I already own did cost me 800 Euro and it also scans all my
old 35mm and some other weird old formats.

If APS is not a choice for you, fine. But people should accept, that
_their_ choice is not the only possible choice.
I respect your choice and I'm a little baffled that you read my post
otherwise. But I also accept that the aggregate of people's choices
defines the market.

I really don't care about what "people" do. That seems to be the main
difference between us. I think the discussion which format is best is
useless. It's interesting why someone else made a choice if I am in a
similar situation. But most of the people on earth are not me, so I do
my own decision and for me there is no matching alternative to APS.
For a lot of people in this group this is the same, for similar or different
reasons. For some of them APS is just a snapshot-system for some
other reasons. For some of them it's just plain crap but they can't
afford buying something new.

Myself, I own a Pronea S in addition to my 35mm gear and the Pentax
110 I mentioned above. But I see APS as being in a classic market
squeeze, with digitals taking the life out of the consumer film camera
market and the established 35mm competitors limiting opportunities for
growth in the professional or prosumer markets. Can APS carve out a
niche large enough for survival? We'll find out soon enough.

It won't survive. And 35mm will become a freaky niche format, too.
That's live.

The quality-discussion is really senseless. "The people" will produce bad
pictures, no matter which system they use. Most digital cameras sold
today offer worse quality than many cheaper 35mm and APS cameras.
People just don't notice...

On 30 Oct 2003 10:25:37 -0800, (Michael Benveniste)
wrote:

Elph Jr. -- 3.5" x 2.4" x 0.9" -- 4.4 oz.
Olympus -- 4.3" x 2.3" x 1.5" -- 4.7 oz.

Well, it's academic, as the Elph Jr. is discontinued, but from my
perspective, I'd say the Jr. is "roughly *half* the size," not
"roughly the same size." I also appreciate the drop-in loading and
reduced pocket space of the APS cartridges. The original post about
bad print quality and such is just bogus ranting in my experience. If
I was planning a wall full of 11 x 14 enlargements, I'd use something
else, but that's an extremely uncommon occurrance here.

As to the broad generalities of APS marketing history, I 'd say the
failure to provide a full spectrum of films is probably the biggest
shortcoming. Also, back to my favorite subject, compactness, the high
end SLR APS cameras were only marginally more convenient to drag
around than a 35mm, so why switch. Folks who want prosumer SLR
features can probably thread a 35mm film OK, so drop-in loading isn't
significant. In theory, the exposure data recorded could allow for
better printing, but as has been pointed out, use of the technology
was slow in arriving. In the low end point and shoot spectrum, I
still see plenty of cameras and film in discount chains around here, I
don't think the death of APS is imminent, but high volume, low margin
sales don't argue for any ongoing expansion or investment.

I'm eyeballing digitals lately myself. For regular frequent use, they
would be fine but for an occasional shooter, they represent a large
up-front and quickly obsoleted investment.

All this said, if I'm ever looking for a replacement pocket camera and
still want film, I'm well aware that the Stylus series is worth a
look.

DaveT

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:15:47 +0100, "Peter Stegemann"
wrote:

Your price quotes seem a little high to me here in the U.S., but
You're free to post different prices and an explanation why you think
they are enough. But it will be difficult for you to find a camera like the
Ixus L1 for digital at all.

Well, let's start with the D100. The local price here for that camera
works out to under 1300 Euros, not 1800. Of course, you won't find a
new APS camera like the Ixus L1/Elph Jr. either, it's been
discontinued.

that's not the point. My post started: 'APS is one offering to
the "grab camera" market, but far from the only one.' Far less
APS was not only an offering to the grab camera market.

Are you reading the same thread as I am? Or are you just
reacting to what you perceive as criticism of your deeply invested
format?

_No one_ stated that it was only for the grab camera market. Instead,
we were looking at the advantages and disadvantages it has in that
category.

expensive digitals fall into that "snapshot" category. Any SLR larger
than a Pentax 110 is overkill.
For anyone? You define that?

For the times you can do what you need to with an Epic, or your Ixus,
an SLR is overkill. For everyone, yes.

The time spent doing scans is especially for APS rather low. The time
is spent mainly be the scanner. And this is exactly the reason why
35mm is no alternative (to me, as mentioned several times before).

And why is the scanning time on APS shorter? On my Canon 4000, at
least, it's directly proporational to the total number of pixels
scanned. In other words, scanning an APS negative takes 59% of the
time of a 35mm negative at the same resolution, simply because you
only get 59% as much data. You can achieve the same speed for the
same quality as APS by scanning 35mm at a lower resolution.

I really don't care about what "people" do. That seems to be the main
difference between us.

I don't care what people do when it doesn't have any influence on me.
For example, I don't really care how much money you've sunk into APS.

But when even "people" do something that influences the market,
perhaps you should care. Already, new APS camera choices has become
limited. As fewer people use APS, you'll find older film on the
shelves and fewer places that will process APS correctly on-site. It
will also get more expensive to process APS film, because unlike older
formats, APS requires expensive special equipment, and those costs
have to be born across a decreasing number of customers.

I think the discussion which format is best is useless.

Now am I sure we're not reading the same thread. _No one_ is trying
to say what format is the "best." What I stated is that for me, the
advantages APS offers aren't worth the extra cost even when picture
quality isn't at issue.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Michael Benveniste :

wrote:

Your price quotes seem a little high to me here in the U.S., but
You're free to post different prices and an explanation why you think
they are enough. But it will be difficult for you to find a camera like the
Ixus L1 for digital at all.
Well, let's start with the D100. The local price here for that camera
works out to under 1300 Euros, not 1800. Of course, you won't find a

Where is "here"? In germany a dealer for cheapskates offers it for
1599 Euros and I'm not sure wether I really want to buy there. A
512 MB flash card costs about 117 Euros.

And I would really miss the user interface of the Pronea 6i. The
features of the D100 should be roughly o.k.

It doesn't matter anyway wether the price is 1300 oder 1800 Euros.
This is both a lot of money to get what?

new APS camera like the Ixus L1/Elph Jr. either, it's been
discontinued.

It's still available. And as I already own one, I don't need to buy
another one. Most I wrote was about

_No one_ stated that it was only for the grab camera market. Instead,
we were looking at the advantages and disadvantages it has in that
category.

This statement of yours is pretty much general:

Does APS suck? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
alone any decrease in quality. It's even more vulnerable to
competition from digitals.

Even if we limit this discussion to the grab camera market, it
won't change anything for me. Still nothing can replace my L1.

expensive digitals fall into that "snapshot" category. Any SLR larger
than a Pentax 110 is overkill.
For anyone? You define that?
For the times you can do what you need to with an Epic, or your Ixus,
an SLR is overkill. For everyone, yes.

If you limit it down this way, this is a pretty much empty statement.

And why is the scanning time on APS shorter? On my Canon 4000, at
least, it's directly proporational to the total number of pixels
scanned. In other words, scanning an APS negative takes 59% of the
time of a 35mm negative at the same resolution, simply because you
only get 59% as much data. You can achieve the same speed for the
same quality as APS by scanning 35mm at a lower resolution.

What about batch scanning? For sure I'm scanning the whole film.
Sure sure, you can limit the comparison down to scanning one
negative only. But if I do this, I want to get the maximum out of
that negative and in that case scanning takes hours for _any_
format.

I really don't care about what "people" do. That seems to be the main
difference between us.
I don't care what people do when it doesn't have any influence on me.
For example, I don't really care how much money you've sunk into APS.

Most of my money went into the lenses as APS cameras are pretty
cheap to get and the scanner scans all small formats. So I could
reuse most of my equipment. It all get's down to buying 2 new
cameras (an SLR body and a snapshoot) and a new lense for the SLR
until sensor sizes change. The time the market offers a camera like
the L1 for a reasonable (that means: reasonable to me) price, I will
quickly replace it. When the films in my fridge are empty in some
years, I will replace the SLR. But there is really no need to hurry.

But when even "people" do something that influences the market,
perhaps you should care.

It's always the masses who influence the markets. So I would have to
care for everything.

Already, new APS camera choices has become limited.

I already have my cameras. And these models are cheap to get.
SLR used, snapshoot still new.

As fewer people use APS, you'll find older film on the shelves and
fewer places that will process APS correctly on-site. It will also get
more expensive to process APS film, because unlike older formats,
APS requires expensive special equipment, and those costs have to
be born across a decreasing number of customers.

This is simply true for _all_ dying formats. No need to panic. The
same problem will occur for 35mm, just a little later. And believe
me, 35mm will be struck hard, too. Between digital and middle size
format, 35mm will become simply useless. If you go for old style
analogue quality, you will go for middle size and up. If you go the
other way, you will choose digital. No need for 35mm nor APS.

I think the discussion which format is best is useless.
Now am I sure we're not reading the same thread. _No one_ is trying
to say what format is the "best." What I stated is that for me, the
advantages APS offers aren't worth the extra cost even when picture
quality isn't at issue.

So your main reason to post was to complain about development
of APS in your area is expensive and sucking?

Have I mentioned that I also own a Pronea S which is an SLR that
is simply without competition on the whole camera market? Small,
lighweight and easy to use?

Btw, Nikon is sooo stupid. Why did they miss to convert their IX
line to digital? A Pronea SD would have rocked the entry level
SLR market. Now Canon is doing that more or less...

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:28:48 +0100, "Peter Stegemann"
wrote:

Michael Benveniste :
Well, let's start with the D100. The local price here for that camera
works out to under 1300 Euros, not 1800. Of course, you won't find a
Where is "here"? In germany a dealer for cheapskates offers it for
1599 Euros and I'm not sure wether I really want to buy there. A
512 MB flash card costs about 117 Euros.

I'm here in Boston, MA, US. The US Warranty Price is $1499 from any
of a number of local firms. The dollar strengthened a little, so
that's 1303 Euros as of this writing. B&H and Adorama also have it at
that price. 512 MB CF cards price start at about $100 and go up from
there.

It doesn't matter anyway wether the price is 1300 oder 1800 Euros.
This is both a lot of money to get what?

It is a lot of money, especially for an amateur. Given the amount of
shooting I do and the lack of deadline pressures, _for me_ it's not
worth it. Yet.

Does APS suck? I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
alone any decrease in quality. It's even more vulnerable to
competition from digitals.
Even if we limit this discussion to the grab camera market, it
won't change anything for me. Still nothing can replace my L1.

Replace? For any one individual, perhaps not. Compete with the L1?
Yes, and very successfully at that. The Stylus Epic, Canon S10, and
Pentax S4 all capture the same angle of view at f/2.8. Each offers
the advantages and disadvantages of its own format. But we're looping
here.

For the times you can do what you need to with an Epic, or your Ixus,
an SLR is overkill. For everyone, yes.
If you limit it down this way, this is a pretty much empty statement.

That's all I was saying. Pretty dull, huh?

What about batch scanning? For sure I'm scanning the whole film.
Sure sure, you can limit the comparison down to scanning one
negative only. But if I do this, I want to get the maximum out of
that negative and in that case scanning takes hours for _any_
format.

As I stated earlier, if you're scanning a whole roll APS is more
convenient. But I read your response as saying the faster scan time
was the reason, which doesn't make sense.

Most of my money went into the lenses as APS cameras are pretty
cheap to get and the scanner scans all small formats. So I could
reuse most of my equipment. It all get's down to buying 2 new
cameras (an SLR body and a snapshoot) and a new lense for the SLR
until sensor sizes change. The time the market offers a camera like
the L1 for a reasonable (that means: reasonable to me) price, I will
quickly replace it. When the films in my fridge are empty in some
years, I will replace the SLR. But there is really no need to hurry.

Cool. No one is asking you to change.

It's always the masses who influence the markets. So I would have to
care for everything.

Only the markets for goods and services which impact you.

This is simply true for _all_ dying formats. No need to panic. The
same problem will occur for 35mm, just a little later. And believe
me, 35mm will be struck hard, too. Between digital and middle size
format, 35mm will become simply useless.

All three formats are feeling the impact today, as Kodak's quarterly
report shows. APS is getting hurt the hardest, though.

Since medium format is predominantly a pro format, and the workflow
advantages of digital are greatest for professionals, I expect medium
format to lose market share at least as fast as 35mm. Here in the
U.S., wedding photographers have embraced digital at an astounding
rate.

So your main reason to post was to complain about development
of APS in your area is expensive and sucking?

My post was to point out that alternatives exist for snapshooting.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Along with limited film
choice, these are the disadvantages I've experienced with APS.

Have I mentioned that I also own a Pronea S which is an SLR that
is simply without competition on the whole camera market? Small,
lighweight and easy to use?

You didn't mention the S, but I did. Mine is sitting right next to
me. Comparing the Pronea S to, say, the Nikon N55 yields almost
exactly the same results as comparing the Ixus to the Epic.

We could go a few more posts speculating on why the Pronea S failed to
win market acceptance, but fail it did.

Btw, Nikon is sooo stupid. Why did they miss to convert their IX
line to digital? A Pronea SD would have rocked the entry level
SLR market. Now Canon is doing that more or less...

Had the Pronea line sold enough to survive an year or two, they might
have done just that. But the magic $1000 price point wasn't
achievable by anyone until well after the Pronea's were pulled.

Once Canon has gotten all the cream out of the market this Christmas
season, Nikon will follow suit with a "me too" offering, probably
based on the N75. Given the pattern of the last 15 years or so, you
expected anything different?

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.