If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... MATT WILLIAMS wrote: The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to get film for in two years or so. Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe $100 so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2 years. CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of old point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them! Example, I just picked up a new old stock JVC mini DV video camera, 2 years old originally MSRP was $1128, street price was $875, I just paid $165. Now it's considered "Old school" and about 10% it's original price. -- Stacey |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future people will
be buying will be Digital not film based. As an example I am selling an old lap top from six years ago for around $80 dollars on ebay. Unit works fine. It cost my brother-in-law $2500 dollars new. He got a lot of use for work and pleasure out of the unit. If my drebel will be worth only $25 dollars in a few years and I got a lot of pleasure and use out of the unit then that is okay. My Mamiya M645 with 80mm lens that I bought five years ago for $450 dollars is now worth about $250 to $275. It does not diminish my happiness with buying the camera and all of the great shots (and some not so great) that I have taken and will in the future take. The only fear I have is being able to get film for it in the next decade. I remember when CD's first came out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years. There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished greatly in the coming years. "jjs" wrote in message ... "Stacey" wrote in message ... MATT WILLIAMS wrote: The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to get film for in two years or so. Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe $100 so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2 years. CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of old point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future people will
be buying will be Digital not film based. As an example I am selling an old lap top from six years ago for around $80 dollars on ebay. Unit works fine. It cost my brother-in-law $2500 dollars new. He got a lot of use for work and pleasure out of the unit. If my drebel will be worth only $25 dollars in a few years and I got a lot of pleasure and use out of the unit then that is okay. My Mamiya M645 with 80mm lens that I bought five years ago for $450 dollars is now worth about $250 to $275. It does not diminish my happiness with buying the camera and all of the great shots (and some not so great) that I have taken and will in the future take. The only fear I have is being able to get film for it in the next decade. I remember when CD's first came out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years. There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished greatly in the coming years. "jjs" wrote in message ... "Stacey" wrote in message ... MATT WILLIAMS wrote: The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to get film for in two years or so. Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe $100 so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2 years. CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of old point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, MATT WILLIAMS posted:
(much snipped) Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future people will be buying will be Digital not film based. [...] That presumes a lot about the place that digital cameras occupy in the photographic world. As has been pointed out, photography hasn't eliminated any other artform in well over a century of use. While we *presume* that digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below. Those specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest cost rather than who can do better. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished greatly in the coming years. [...] I suspect that your concern isn't over the number of choices of MF film, as there are many more than you'd probably be willing to consider. Too many for the market to support. Niche products are likely to be discontinued as volume drops below a practical minimum. For example, if one can manufacture more product in a short run than can be sold over the course of years, only an irresponsible management would keep making it. The longer you keep an inventory, the less profitable the product, among other practicalities. Regards, Neil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Bill Hilton posted:
From: "Neil Gould" While we *presume* that digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below. These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras that serious photographers are comparing to medium format are the dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels) and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally different animals than the 5 Mpix point-and-shoots. I wasn't referring to point-and-shoots, alone. Many dZLRs and dSLRs are in the 5-8 mp range, and there doesn't seem to be any big rush to go beyond that, even though the capability to do so has existed for quite a while. Of course, for some applications the top-end dSLRs are viable alternatives to MF. But, that's not to say that they match MF quality. Those specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest cost rather than who can do better. You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel model out early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark II which will ship in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix 4/3 model and since the sensor is about 1/4 the size of the full-frame models you can extrapolate that full-frame models from Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same pixel pitch, so we're not done by a long shot. I agree with you, but, resolution isn't the only race in town! Pixel pitch is only one dimension of an image, and for my money, it isn't the most critical dimension for anything but enlarged prints. Then too, when I look at the comparisons between film and digital, I'm often appalled by the image aspects that many people seem to love. All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm film (I know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf. [...] Well, having used some of them, I still wouldn't trade my Leica SLR kit for any of them. By comparison, the dSLR renditions look "flat", lacking both tonality and detail. Then again, some people like that look. I've been testing my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same scenes and making 16x20" prints for comparison and while Velvia has better colors and a wider gamut and I feel I get better big landscape prints from scanned film there's no doubt that the digital files are good enough for many pro applications like product shots (catalogs, etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide, saturated color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film would likely find digital appealing and that's where the high volume film sales come from. Agreed. But, as I suggested above, these are application-driven issues. It's not superior image quality that makes digital attractive; it's the suitability for specific applications that are not sensitive to digital's limitations. Even having said that, one can't presume that all product shots benefit from a limited, unsaturated color gamut. One nightmare job that I had was to edit a couple thousand dSLR images of technical products that were painted in monochromatic schemes (I wasn't the photographer, but the photog wasn't the problem). The lack of tonality obliterated the subtle gradations that defined the shape and important features of these products! I spent hundreds of hours enhancing these for use in a catalog that I was publishing. It would have saved that client tens of thousands of dollars to have shot these products using film instead. I believe that one has to evaluate the task, then choose the appropriate tools rather than the other way around. Also, let's not overlook that film scanners have come a long way as well, and will likely keep ahead of direct digital for quite a while. Some of us are not going to pay 5x+ the price of a decent "pro-sumer" film scanner for inferior dSLR quality. So, there are many concurrent options at this point, and I'm content to simply sit back and observe how people actually spend their money. ;-) Neil |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Bill Hilton posted:
From: "Neil Gould" While we *presume* that digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below. These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras that serious photographers are comparing to medium format are the dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels) and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally different animals than the 5 Mpix point-and-shoots. I wasn't referring to point-and-shoots, alone. Many dZLRs and dSLRs are in the 5-8 mp range, and there doesn't seem to be any big rush to go beyond that, even though the capability to do so has existed for quite a while. Of course, for some applications the top-end dSLRs are viable alternatives to MF. But, that's not to say that they match MF quality. Those specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest cost rather than who can do better. You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel model out early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark II which will ship in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix 4/3 model and since the sensor is about 1/4 the size of the full-frame models you can extrapolate that full-frame models from Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same pixel pitch, so we're not done by a long shot. I agree with you, but, resolution isn't the only race in town! Pixel pitch is only one dimension of an image, and for my money, it isn't the most critical dimension for anything but enlarged prints. Then too, when I look at the comparisons between film and digital, I'm often appalled by the image aspects that many people seem to love. All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm film (I know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf. [...] Well, having used some of them, I still wouldn't trade my Leica SLR kit for any of them. By comparison, the dSLR renditions look "flat", lacking both tonality and detail. Then again, some people like that look. I've been testing my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same scenes and making 16x20" prints for comparison and while Velvia has better colors and a wider gamut and I feel I get better big landscape prints from scanned film there's no doubt that the digital files are good enough for many pro applications like product shots (catalogs, etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide, saturated color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film would likely find digital appealing and that's where the high volume film sales come from. Agreed. But, as I suggested above, these are application-driven issues. It's not superior image quality that makes digital attractive; it's the suitability for specific applications that are not sensitive to digital's limitations. Even having said that, one can't presume that all product shots benefit from a limited, unsaturated color gamut. One nightmare job that I had was to edit a couple thousand dSLR images of technical products that were painted in monochromatic schemes (I wasn't the photographer, but the photog wasn't the problem). The lack of tonality obliterated the subtle gradations that defined the shape and important features of these products! I spent hundreds of hours enhancing these for use in a catalog that I was publishing. It would have saved that client tens of thousands of dollars to have shot these products using film instead. I believe that one has to evaluate the task, then choose the appropriate tools rather than the other way around. Also, let's not overlook that film scanners have come a long way as well, and will likely keep ahead of direct digital for quite a while. Some of us are not going to pay 5x+ the price of a decent "pro-sumer" film scanner for inferior dSLR quality. So, there are many concurrent options at this point, and I'm content to simply sit back and observe how people actually spend their money. ;-) Neil |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:
I remember when CD's first came out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years. There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished greatly in the coming years. I remember the so-called transition from LPs to CDs as well. First of all pre-recorded Cassette tapes were outselling LPs even before CDs were available. Most of the public were perfectly happy with their cassette tapes as they are with MP3s today. Record store management couldn't wait to get rid of the LPs as they took up way too much floor space. They relegated them to the corner as soon as they could and then discontinued selling them shortly afterward. The oft cited comparisons between LPs and film are dead wrong. First of all it cost around $3,000 at that time to have a record mastered and to run off a small run of LPs. It costs me around $12 to buy a roll of film and have it processed (E6). No one mastered LPs in their basement, however I know of many people who process their own film and have their own darkroom. Plus, there was no internet then either. If the internet had been turned up in the mid-80s, you would not have seen the rapid decline in LPs that we saw. There were many people who wanted to purchase them but the record stores didn't want to handle them. I agree with most in this group that film will ultimately be made in low-wage countries and will be mostly available by mail order. It is comforting for me to see 110 film still for sale at the drug store and film sizes like 126, 127 and even 620 available by mail order. There is no need to fear the LP scenario with film. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:
I remember when CD's first came out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years. There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished greatly in the coming years. I remember the so-called transition from LPs to CDs as well. First of all pre-recorded Cassette tapes were outselling LPs even before CDs were available. Most of the public were perfectly happy with their cassette tapes as they are with MP3s today. Record store management couldn't wait to get rid of the LPs as they took up way too much floor space. They relegated them to the corner as soon as they could and then discontinued selling them shortly afterward. The oft cited comparisons between LPs and film are dead wrong. First of all it cost around $3,000 at that time to have a record mastered and to run off a small run of LPs. It costs me around $12 to buy a roll of film and have it processed (E6). No one mastered LPs in their basement, however I know of many people who process their own film and have their own darkroom. Plus, there was no internet then either. If the internet had been turned up in the mid-80s, you would not have seen the rapid decline in LPs that we saw. There were many people who wanted to purchase them but the record stores didn't want to handle them. I agree with most in this group that film will ultimately be made in low-wage countries and will be mostly available by mail order. It is comforting for me to see 110 film still for sale at the drug store and film sizes like 126, 127 and even 620 available by mail order. There is no need to fear the LP scenario with film. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Neil Gould" While we *presume* that digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below. These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras that serious photographers are comparing to medium format are the dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels) and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally different animals than the 5 Mpix point-and-shoots. Those specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest cost rather than who can do better. You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel model out early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark II which will ship in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix 4/3 model and since the sensor is about 1/4 the size of the full-frame models you can extrapolate that full-frame models from Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same pixel pitch, so we're not done by a long shot. These products will become available only if the manufacturers are convinced that there is a large enough market to allow them to become profitable. If I was a camera manufacturer I would be quite content to let my competition spend their R&D money "fighting for bragging rights" while I concentrated on the low end consumers market because that is where the money is. All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm film (I know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf. I've been testing my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same scenes and making 16x20" prints for comparison and while Velvia has better colors and a wider gamut and I feel I get better big landscape prints from scanned film there's no doubt that the digital files are good enough for many pro applications like product shots (catalogs, etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide, saturated color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film would likely find digital appealing and that's where the high volume film sales come from. Bill Given that the bulk of the film market is 35MM and that the high-end digital cameras already surpass 35MM further product improvements are not required. I do not believe there is any incentive for the camera manufacturers to build a product superior to those already announced. Jerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Happy Thanksgiving! | Basic Wedge | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | October 13th 04 10:11 PM |
New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 57 | October 7th 04 11:10 PM |
Not happy with prints from Kodak T400CN | Phil | Film & Labs | 5 | May 27th 04 03:25 PM |
Shutter CLA prices and qualities | AArDvarK | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | April 15th 04 07:55 PM |
Happy Easter ! | Benedikt Schenker | Film & Labs | 0 | April 8th 04 01:20 PM |