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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras are no good
I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no good. The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras, but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards, this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to think that the number of shots you can take is not so important. Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can from my film camera. One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital camera shines. There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good digital camera have gotten. Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly. The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in 5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting. Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. With a mass manufactured
product, no one model will usually suit everyone's tastes. There will be people who nitpick about this feature vs that feature and wish that it had x, y and z. As technology improves, people's expectations grow higher as well. A couple of years back, when 2-3 megapixels was the standard for CCDs, people were wishing for 4, 5, 6 or even 8. Now consumer models are hitting the 8 megapixel zone, people want 12 and beyond. I think film cameras were also limited very much by physical factors - mainly the film and the process of exposing frames. Because manufacturers did not have control over the film, there weren't many factors to play with - apart from shutter and aperture. Maybe they could improve the AF and exposure control electronics, but that was largely "intangible" to users. With digital and the use of CCD / CMOS sensors, and digital processors we're in a whole new ball game. There are so many more variables now and much of the factors can be tweaked - i.e. how large CCDs are, how many photosites/pixels go into the CCD, and everything else that goes in to the processory and firmware such as speed of operation, buffer memory, image processing algorithms etc. Digital is progressing, but I think there is plenty of scope for improvement. Cheers, Julian http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums on the net! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. With a mass manufactured
product, no one model will usually suit everyone's tastes. There will be people who nitpick about this feature vs that feature and wish that it had x, y and z. As technology improves, people's expectations grow higher as well. A couple of years back, when 2-3 megapixels was the standard for CCDs, people were wishing for 4, 5, 6 or even 8. Now consumer models are hitting the 8 megapixel zone, people want 12 and beyond. I think film cameras were also limited very much by physical factors - mainly the film and the process of exposing frames. Because manufacturers did not have control over the film, there weren't many factors to play with - apart from shutter and aperture. Maybe they could improve the AF and exposure control electronics, but that was largely "intangible" to users. With digital and the use of CCD / CMOS sensors, and digital processors we're in a whole new ball game. There are so many more variables now and much of the factors can be tweaked - i.e. how large CCDs are, how many photosites/pixels go into the CCD, and everything else that goes in to the processory and firmware such as speed of operation, buffer memory, image processing algorithms etc. Digital is progressing, but I think there is plenty of scope for improvement. Cheers, Julian http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums on the net! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
"Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no good. The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras, but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards, this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to think that the number of shots you can take is not so important. Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can from my film camera. One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital camera shines. There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good digital camera have gotten. Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly. The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in 5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting. Scott |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
"Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no good. The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras, but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards, this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to think that the number of shots you can take is not so important. Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can from my film camera. One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital camera shines. There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good digital camera have gotten. Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly. The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in 5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting. Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
hotchkisstrio wrote:
Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad! Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered = lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras?? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote: : Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad! : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered = : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras?? The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium, no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved" medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works, to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one". I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried and true Digital. Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
stormwatcher wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote: : Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad! : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered = : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras?? The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium, no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved" medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works, to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one". I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried and true Digital. Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:35:33 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
wrote: stormwatcher wrote: : hotchkisstrio wrote: : Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad! : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered = : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras?? The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium, no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved" medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works, to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one". I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried and true Digital. Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL Many people have a hard time adjusting to change, especially at the rate technology is changing almost everything we do both directly & indirectly. As a general rule the older we get the harder it seems to be for us to learn something new. This is not intended to be an age discrimination statement but we tend to be creatures of habit & often take comfort in the familiar. Rather than face that we now need to learn something new because it's better, we might find it easier to berate something new in order to justify the old, thus we can remain in our comfort zone. As I remember back, I learned about computers on a Digital PDP-8 & my 1st home computer was an Apple IIe back when every part in it could be purchased @ Radio Shack! Yes I now have a nice P4 PC so I have kept up. However this tendency to stick with what we know or reluctance to accept something new is far more common than most people think. Look at medical Doctors as an example. Many if not most still don't believe in acupuncture even though the newest MRI machines have been able to confirm the accuracy of the 2000+ year old practice. Did you know that Surgeons are not "required" to use any new procedure even if it has been "proven" to save XX% more lives than an older method? It's up to the Doctors & Hospital to make those choices & many Doctors stay with what they know best, even if it's not now the best thing for the patient. Strayed a bit too far off topic but change does not come easy to many & that has both a good & a bad side to it. Digital photography & I are good friends, it allows me to do so much more than I was able to afford to do with film alone. Each still has it's place depending on the situation but here is something to consider. A strong ElectoMagnetic Pulse (EMP) will disable almost every automobile on the road today because they have several microprocessors in them that they need to run but many older automobiles (pre-1980) would likely be unaffected & still functional. So as already stated by the previous post, older technology still has it's place where it actually may be better but like it or not, technology is & will continue to impact us with little regard as to our individual acceptance of it or not. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Berbaum wrote: stormwatcher wrote: : hotchkisstrio wrote: : Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad! : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered = : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras?? The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium, no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved" medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works, to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one". As to the original comment that some "audiophiles" insist that CDs sound bad, that was often true originally. Thanks to "audiophiles" current CDs are far superior. Digital alone doesn't produce good sound (or pictures!). As for analog vs digital, I agree Randy. We are often creatures of habit and with film having been around for so long, it is difficult for many to give up. And whether film or digital, they are both only tools for producing an appealing photograph. Personally, though owning a digital camera, I still prefer film at this point. But I also can recognize that the improvements in digital have been tremendous. The day when I buy a dSLR are probably not too far off. I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried and true Digital. Yup, technology marches on. My only wish is for the lense mount to remain the same. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Best Price on Digital Cameras. | Joe Walsh | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | August 18th 04 09:52 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |