Anti-digital backlash continues ...

"Mxsmanic" wrote:
David J. Littleboy writes:

The cost of the body is a pretty small part of the cost of the system;
maybe
1/3 at most.

You don't buy a new system every six months. And with film, you don't
buy anything every six months. But with a DSLR, you shell out $8000 a
year just for an "upgrade."

No, pros who get $8000 worth of work from there cameras do.

The rest of us get two generations from each body: three years. A lot of
people with the D60 passed on the 10D and are still getting D60 quality
images.

And consumer bodies have limited shutter cycles, so 18 months
of heavy use, and the body's dead anyway.

Who said anything about consumer bodies? How many consumers are
spending $8000 on a camera body?

We're talking about US$1,000 consumer bodies here.

Are we?

Yes. You responded to someone talking about the D70.

Pros who can get US$8000 use out of a camera in 18 months have
no trouble buying such a camera.

Pros have to show that such an acquisition is cost-effective.

Yes. The rest of us don't buy $8000 bodies.

The problem with the US$11 roll of film is that you have to pay that
every
time you take the camera out. Shoot a roll a week, and in two years you
are
way ahead with digital.

Two years is a long time. You'd go through three digital bodies in that
time.

As I said above, people buying digital skip generations. My F707 still works
for the snapshot purposes it worked for 3 years ago. If I took a lot of
snapshots, the 8MP generation might be interesting.

Again, it's more expensive to put a roll a week through a 20-year old
camera
than it is to buy a consumer dSLR.

But you can buy a professional film SLR for the same cost as a consumer
DSLR.

What's wrong with a twenty-year-old camera?

Nothing: except that it costs US$11 every roll of film. If you actually use
it, you'd be better off with a US$1000 digital. (Obviously, only if the
US$1000 digital meets your quality needs. But most 35mm users shoot lousy
film, so for most 35mm users, it would.)

And you also have the problem that shutter and film advance
mechanisms have finite lifetimes.

Which you may never reach on a good SLR. Not everyone has the motor
drive perpetually engaged.

At my current rate of wear and tear on my most heavily used SLR, I still
have more than half a century before the shutter is likely to wear out.

See, that's the advantage of film: scanning's such a pain you can't shoot
many frames. Even if you wanted to.

Film cameras are only economical if you don't use them.

I use them all the time, and they still seem economical to me.

Not if you shoot a roll a week: over the three year life of a digital, you
just spent a _lot_ more on film than the cost of the digital.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy writes:

See, that's the advantage of film: scanning's such a pain you can't shoot
many frames. Even if you wanted to.

Not so. I've shot many, many frames. The fact that they are not all
scanned has not caused me to shoot any fewer pictures than I shot in the
old days before scanning.

And, strangely, I shoot far fewer images with my crusty old digital
camera today, too ... mainly because I get tired of wading through
hundreds of nearly identical and largely worthless pictures taken only
because they didn't cost anything to take. In fact, they cost a lot to
take, since my time wasted sorting through them is quite expensive.

Not if you shoot a roll a week: over the three year life of a digital, you
just spent a _lot_ more on film than the cost of the digital.

I spent $8000 up front on digital; with film, I spread that over years.
Thus I come out ahead with film, for the same reason that people take
out loans instead of laying out cash up front.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. We use the film-strip carrier as well as the
mounted-slide feed. (BTW: Don't confuse the film-strip carrier of this
model with the earlier type - totally different. This one is much better.)

The outcomes are good enough, Greg. Autofocus works, range is good,
sharpness is good, automation software is good. When I mention
'compromise' I was speaking to the often neccessary adjustments made on a
per-slide, case-by-case basis - batching naturally obviates that.

Could you produce a scanning
profile with a little less contrast and brightness
so the batch will give you a Photoshop adjustable
image in all cases? I am talking web or Cd catalog
only,... no print applications.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"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

quoting Mxsmanic:
You wouldn't; which is why DSLRs with interchangeable sensors aren't
likely to be forthcoming. After all, interchangeable lenses (across
manufacturers) are still scarce.
endquote:

I am not sure that somebody couldn't make a basic DSLR body with a variety
of interchangeable lens mount adapters. In other words, you plug in one
lens mount adapter for nikon AI/AIS/AF lenses, another body to lens mount
adapter for Minolta AF, and so on. The hardware and software in the mount
adapter would simply couple to the (serial i/o?) control signals from the
camera body. Big advantage to the interchangeable lens DSLR body mfger is
that the camera could be used by any of the major lens mount owners, and
specialty lenses (nikon or canon tilt/shift etc.) could be easily adapted.
This would be most likely for a body mfger who is not a lens maker
obviously, e.g., kodak but not Nikon or Canon ;-)

I also doubt interchangeable sensors will be seen much, if my hypothesized
"sweet spot" around 16 MP for most DSLR users is true. But I do think that
as such chips are mass-produced and used, the differences between cameras
won't be in the hardware or sensors so much as in the software. So it
might be that you buy a (generic) 16 MP DSLR with XYZ lens mount, and then
pay $$ to third party software provider (Adobe..) for software with
various features you want or need, over and above the basic raw/TIFF
formats (e.g., fractal compression, image filtering, "film color
signatures", and so on).

just a thought...

bobm

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

In article , Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. We use the film-strip carrier as well as the
mounted-slide feed. (BTW: Don't confuse the film-strip carrier of this
model with the earlier type - totally different. This one is much better.)

The outcomes are good enough, Greg. Autofocus works, range is good,
sharpness is good, automation software is good. When I mention
'compromise' I was speaking to the often neccessary adjustments made on a
per-slide, case-by-case basis - batching naturally obviates that.

Could you produce a scanning
profile with a little less contrast and brightness
so the batch will give you a Photoshop adjustable
image in all cases? I am talking web or Cd catalog
only,... no print applications.

Sure, but I haven't tried the adjustments. I'm so accustomed to Photoshop
batch and droplets that I just pull 'em in for that work.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 03:42:35 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote:
David J. Littleboy writes:



Pros who can get US$8000 use out of a camera in 18 months have
no trouble buying such a camera.

Pros have to show that such an acquisition is cost-effective.

Yes. The rest of us don't buy $8000 bodies.

The problem with the US$11 roll of film is that you have to pay that
every
time you take the camera out. Shoot a roll a week, and in two years you
are
way ahead with digital.

Two years is a long time. You'd go through three digital bodies in that
time.

As I said above, people buying digital skip generations. My F707 still works
for the snapshot purposes it worked for 3 years ago. If I took a lot of
snapshots, the 8MP generation might be interesting.

Again, it's more expensive to put a roll a week through a 20-year old
camera
than it is to buy a consumer dSLR.

But you can buy a professional film SLR for the same cost as a consumer
DSLR.

What's wrong with a twenty-year-old camera?

Nothing: except that it costs US$11 every roll of film. If you actually use
it, you'd be better off with a US$1000 digital. (Obviously, only if the
US$1000 digital meets your quality needs. But most 35mm users shoot lousy
film, so for most 35mm users, it would.)



The economics are not quite that simple.

Given the widespread switch to digital and the advent of eBay it's
possible to pick up old mid-range film cameras for almost nothing.
High end pro gear or collectible stuff might go for a lot of money but
for $50 or $60 it's possible to pick up a decent enough film camera
and a reasonable lens.

For someone like me who simply can't afford to pay the money for even
a bottom end dSLR or a good 5MP consumer camera this is a massive
benefit and the lenses on a good quality basic 35mm SLR or rangefinder
are going to be easily as good if not better than any digital camera
that would be accessible to my pocket.

Certainly I'm likely to spend quite a lot of money on film processing
over a 3 year period but that's money I can spend a little at a time
rather than all at once and I'm not commited to making a major
investment.

With a good basic 35mm camera and a decent flatbed scanner with a
transparency adapter it's possible to produce excellent scans at 6MP
resolution and with little initial outlay.

With a medium format camera and the same scanner it's possible to
produce scans at a massively higher size and resolution than would be
possible with any digital camera that was remotely accessible to the
non-professional (or very wealthy hobbyist).

I've produced extremely high quality digital images from something as
basic as a Lubitel - stopped down with decent B & W film and on a
tripod with cable release - combined with a scanner.

This isn't meant to be anti-digital and at some point I'd love to pick
up a decent digital camera but right now a good basic 2nd hand film
camera is an accessible and cheap way to get into photography.

In addition, as is often pointed out, digital is not running cost
free. If you want to display your images other than on a screen you
still need to pay for prints from your DSLR... I like having prints
lying around.

Matt

In article ,
Matt McGrattan wrote:

snip lots of good reasoning

In addition, as is often pointed out, digital is not running cost
free. If you want to display your images other than on a screen you
still need to pay for prints from your DSLR... I like having prints
lying around.
Matt

That in and of it's self is a topic, most inkbased prints I've seen to
date are rather fragile and subject to scratches.....more so than
chemical based prints,....and not mentioning fiber based B&W.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"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

Gregory W Blank writes:

That in and of it's self is a topic, most inkbased prints I've seen to
date are rather fragile and subject to scratches.....more so than
chemical based prints,....and not mentioning fiber based B&W.

There's no relationship between image capture and printing. You can
print digital photos in wet darkroom processes just as you can with
images from film. And you can print film images on ink-jet printers,
too, if you want. So shooting digitally or with film does not restrict
your choice of printing methods.

The only exception is traditional optical enlargement, which requires a
film original. But nobody is doing that anymore, since it has no
advantages over scanned film.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

The only exception is traditional optical enlargement, which requires a
film original. But nobody is doing that anymore, since it has no
advantages over scanned film.

Nobody? Really...? That's very interesting.

Ken

In article ,
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote:
The only exception is traditional optical enlargement, which requires a
film original. But nobody is doing that anymore, since it has no
advantages over scanned film.

Nobody? Really...? That's very interesting.
Ken

Yep another IMOP, inaccurate generalization.
Its BS.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"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