peterm1
Mentor
I was just thinking.
Imagine for a moment that it is in the mid 1990's and the digital craze (because that is what it still was as only hard core imaging nerds invested heavily in new digital cameras) is just getting under way. For example I recall visiting Singapore around that time (I forget the exact year but probbaly around 1995) and seeing the latest digital marvel. I think it had around an 800,000 pixel sensor (which was also tiny in size) and probably shot at 100 ISO. Its images were bad with next to no dynamic range and blown highlights all over the place. And it cost well over a thousand bucks. Accustomed to using a Leica M3 I failed to see the value proposition for digital camera and put off buying one till the Nikon D70s came along almost a decade later.
I recall a learned article at the time opining that to equate to the resolution of 35mm film a digital sensor would need about 24 megapixels of resolution. Well now we have it - in consumer cameras. And top end full frame cameras now compete with medium format ones at least in the megapixel stakes.
And not only that, we are routinely doing something I never dreamed of at a time when I was happy to shoot with Ilford XP2 at 400 ISO (usually I shot it at 200 ISO for the finer grain that gave). We are able to shoot at 3200 ISO and upwards - way upwards. Digital cameras can do everything a film camera could do and much much more including video (although I confess I never think to use it, so ingrained are my imaging habits) and then upload the product wirelessly to the internet or a digital device.
And for a week away on holidays instead of buy a dozen rolls of film each with a crummy 24-36 exposures we can buy one or more SD cards and go on holidays for a week or perhaps a month and still come home with plenty of storage space for more images. Which we do not need to pay to have developed or printed.
Not only that, the lenses we have access to, are technical marvels (a comment which also applies to cameras of course - don't even get me started on image stabilization!). I was thinking the other day about all the advances that should make a photographer's life a dream (although we still grumble). Computer aided design of lenses means we can design optics we could only dream of a few years ago. And computer aided manufacturing and robotics means we can build them cheaper and more reliably than ever before. And those new manufacturing technologies mean we can build lenses that have aspherics integrated into cheap consumer lenses - impossible less than 2 decades ago due to cost and complexity. New materials too - modern composites may be unsexy but they allow cheaper equipment with tolerances that were difficult to achieve yesterday. And of course new lens coatings that perform marvels in terms of reducing flare etc. Also who would have imagined a few years back the preponderance of ultra wide angle lenses now available (admittedly mainly for sub full frame sensors) - more often at bizarrely fast speeds of around f1 or less. Or for that matter lens adapters that turn manual focus lenses into autofocus ones or which increase the field of view to emulate full frame camera views on sub full frame sensors - while increasing the apparent f stop and improving image resolution. I would have said this was voodoo stuff till it happened.
New lenses are flooding the market right now - often out of China at bargain basement prices as seen recently with the several brands of 50mm f1.1 lenses most of which get surprisingly good reviews and sell for only a paltry few hundred dollars. In some ways it is reminiscent of the 1960s with all those smaller photographic and optic companies churning out cameras, lenses and accessories. Many of them I have not really heard of or only associated with accessories - 7Artisans, Yongnuo, Samyang etc. All of this so we can throw out the equipment every few years to buy new stuff (well manufacturers have to keep the ball rolling after all) :^)
BTW I should not neglect to mention eBay and the like. Who would have considered in 1995 how this kind of technology would change the world and drive demand? I now routinely buy stuff from China, Japan, Canada, the USA and can get access to stuff that I just could not find in Australia or if I had, would have had to pay double, triple or more. Love it or hate it, if eBay did not exist someone would have to invent it - it is that fundamental to the market these days even if many still buy their main photo equipment through bricks and mortar stores.
I am not up on where this will all go - but I expect in the foreseeable future there will continued change and more innovation even if most of that ends up in devices like digital phone cameras - or flyable drones. But that's another story.
Any thoughts?
Imagine for a moment that it is in the mid 1990's and the digital craze (because that is what it still was as only hard core imaging nerds invested heavily in new digital cameras) is just getting under way. For example I recall visiting Singapore around that time (I forget the exact year but probbaly around 1995) and seeing the latest digital marvel. I think it had around an 800,000 pixel sensor (which was also tiny in size) and probably shot at 100 ISO. Its images were bad with next to no dynamic range and blown highlights all over the place. And it cost well over a thousand bucks. Accustomed to using a Leica M3 I failed to see the value proposition for digital camera and put off buying one till the Nikon D70s came along almost a decade later.
I recall a learned article at the time opining that to equate to the resolution of 35mm film a digital sensor would need about 24 megapixels of resolution. Well now we have it - in consumer cameras. And top end full frame cameras now compete with medium format ones at least in the megapixel stakes.
And not only that, we are routinely doing something I never dreamed of at a time when I was happy to shoot with Ilford XP2 at 400 ISO (usually I shot it at 200 ISO for the finer grain that gave). We are able to shoot at 3200 ISO and upwards - way upwards. Digital cameras can do everything a film camera could do and much much more including video (although I confess I never think to use it, so ingrained are my imaging habits) and then upload the product wirelessly to the internet or a digital device.
And for a week away on holidays instead of buy a dozen rolls of film each with a crummy 24-36 exposures we can buy one or more SD cards and go on holidays for a week or perhaps a month and still come home with plenty of storage space for more images. Which we do not need to pay to have developed or printed.
Not only that, the lenses we have access to, are technical marvels (a comment which also applies to cameras of course - don't even get me started on image stabilization!). I was thinking the other day about all the advances that should make a photographer's life a dream (although we still grumble). Computer aided design of lenses means we can design optics we could only dream of a few years ago. And computer aided manufacturing and robotics means we can build them cheaper and more reliably than ever before. And those new manufacturing technologies mean we can build lenses that have aspherics integrated into cheap consumer lenses - impossible less than 2 decades ago due to cost and complexity. New materials too - modern composites may be unsexy but they allow cheaper equipment with tolerances that were difficult to achieve yesterday. And of course new lens coatings that perform marvels in terms of reducing flare etc. Also who would have imagined a few years back the preponderance of ultra wide angle lenses now available (admittedly mainly for sub full frame sensors) - more often at bizarrely fast speeds of around f1 or less. Or for that matter lens adapters that turn manual focus lenses into autofocus ones or which increase the field of view to emulate full frame camera views on sub full frame sensors - while increasing the apparent f stop and improving image resolution. I would have said this was voodoo stuff till it happened.
New lenses are flooding the market right now - often out of China at bargain basement prices as seen recently with the several brands of 50mm f1.1 lenses most of which get surprisingly good reviews and sell for only a paltry few hundred dollars. In some ways it is reminiscent of the 1960s with all those smaller photographic and optic companies churning out cameras, lenses and accessories. Many of them I have not really heard of or only associated with accessories - 7Artisans, Yongnuo, Samyang etc. All of this so we can throw out the equipment every few years to buy new stuff (well manufacturers have to keep the ball rolling after all) :^)
BTW I should not neglect to mention eBay and the like. Who would have considered in 1995 how this kind of technology would change the world and drive demand? I now routinely buy stuff from China, Japan, Canada, the USA and can get access to stuff that I just could not find in Australia or if I had, would have had to pay double, triple or more. Love it or hate it, if eBay did not exist someone would have to invent it - it is that fundamental to the market these days even if many still buy their main photo equipment through bricks and mortar stores.
I am not up on where this will all go - but I expect in the foreseeable future there will continued change and more innovation even if most of that ends up in devices like digital phone cameras - or flyable drones. But that's another story.
Any thoughts?
cz23
-
Yeah but... are our photographs any better than they were back then? Or even decades earlier? I know if mine are it has nothing to do with technological advances.
John
John
mich rassena
Well-known
I know mine are too. Just having the ability to take thousands of images, at almost no additional cost, has made all the difference. I don't buy into the notion that slow a deliberate photography is necessarily better. A lot can be said for interating rapidly.
Huss
Mentor
And yet I have gone back to film, as I think it looks much better and I enjoy the process.
The consumer digital camera market will be dead in the next decade, so enjoy using your smartphones.
The consumer digital camera market will be dead in the next decade, so enjoy using your smartphones.
peterm1
Mentor
I think your observation is partly correct. Certainly my images are not better chosen or composed. But that is down to me and my own inadequacies. But in other senses I would not agree. In fact I would almost say the opposite - I can no longer blame my tools if my images are duds because the technology is so good. (For better or for worse).
I have noticed for example how sharp many of my images are these days and how blurry many were in film days - even the ones I thought at the time to be sharp. I put this down to better lens design and build, better auto focus / focus tracking etc and the advent of high quality image stabilization which was just not available before.
Not only that, I think my images have benefited from post processing. Back in "the day" I did not have a photo lab. Well now I do - on my PC. So any images I like can be tweaked to optimize them. I just could not do that before.
Another feature of digital is that the marginal cost of the next photo is zero. Unlike film where each image cost about one dollar to buy the film and process it. OK it is true this made me slow down and become more careful when deciding whether and when to press the shutter button. And that is a good thing from the viewpoint of selecting shots. But slowing down is not always an option and now if I am shooting in a dynamic shooting situation I can flick to continuous focus, continuous shooting and be fairly sure I will get at least one usable image. Back then I just about never did this even when I had a camera that allowed it - though many pro shooters did of course because they were being paid to get the shot.
BTW innovations I forgot to mention were the camera integrated software ones that help the shooter - for example, predictive AF for shooting fast moving scenes. Or newer and better matrix metering (still in its infancy in the 1990s). And of course for the ordinary "Joe," things like facial recognition and auto scene recognition all of which help the shooter get the shot. I don't use the latter myself - but maybe I should in some situations.
What I am saying is that the technological limits to photography have been reduced. When my images fail it is my fault. And I have regular failures. But at least I know that is not an equipment issue. And part of that failure is picking the wrong image to shoot or the wrong composition - that's down to me. And in that respect at least I agree with you. Here, in that respect, my images are not better than they were before (my own hardware and software sadly has not changed or got better-only older).
peterm1
Mentor
And yet I have gone back to film, as I think it looks much better and I enjoy the process.
The consumer digital camera market will be dead in the next decade, so enjoy using your smartphones.
Going back to film is fine if you enjoy it and it suits your photographic style. This is never intended to be a film v digital thread. That is not its purpose. My point is I am flabbergasted at the speed of technological change and how it has brought photography in one way or another (often via smart phones) to billions of people who would never think to own a camera. But since you have raised it, for better or worse, would we have had that technological change with film? I fear not - it just does not lend itself to it.
But as for me, I enjoy post processing as much as I enjoy shooting the image. I regard it as an absolutely integral part of the process of getting an image (which of course is what it is all about - not which technology gets you there). I understand that not everyone feels like this. So for me using digital is natural - it frees me up to do that processing without having to scan an image a process which itself isfraught with problems and limitations. If you do not, that's fine, I have no gripe with that at all.
However I will say that when I finally did buy an digital camera (after years of sticking with film) it was a revelation - I no longer had to worry about the cost of that next image - should I press the shutter button or not so that was very freeing , not that I often blazed away carelessly. I found the ethos of stopping and thinking before shooting too ingrained (except when I had no choice). And the joy I got from developing an image using post processing was mind boggling. I just could not do it before as I had no lab.
So it's a personal choice thing but even hard core advocates of film over digital should be able to recognize the benefits that have come out of the technology for those who chose to go down this route. And even if they did not benefit from those technologies themselves surely they can marvel as I do at the sheer magnitude and pace of change.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have photo lab, it is in the basement. Just developed two rolls today
But woohoohoo it is. Then our DSLR quits, I already checked, better ones are available for 200$. It wasn't like this then this DSLR was purchased new in 2008. And I almost purchased NiB YN 50 1.4 for 40$, yesterday.
Just one exception. Mic 50 1.1 is great lens. But I'm just holding my 50 Cron ELC. Those are not getting less expensive, but in the opposite.
But woohoohoo it is. Then our DSLR quits, I already checked, better ones are available for 200$. It wasn't like this then this DSLR was purchased new in 2008. And I almost purchased NiB YN 50 1.4 for 40$, yesterday.
Just one exception. Mic 50 1.1 is great lens. But I'm just holding my 50 Cron ELC. Those are not getting less expensive, but in the opposite.
Dogman
Mentor
I was a confirmed Luddite for a very long time. But once I decided to yield to the technology, I discovered I actually like the look of digital photographs. I know that's probably blasphemy to some--it would have been to me 10 years ago as well. When you've spent the better part of three decades becoming comfortable with a process, it's hard to start all over and learn an entirely new process. Yet when I did, I found it very rewarding. In the end, it's not the method but the results that are important.
There's no doubt the technology has helped me to improve my photography. I'm more willing to experiment and take chances. My way of shooting has become looser. My printing has improved significantly. I don't dread spending hours in the dark trying to pull the perfect print and tossing out dozens of sheets of failed attempts. Technology has also offered more exposure to great photography than I had previously been afforded.
I'm not talking about the plethora of photo blogs with almost universally poor examples of photography, I'm referring to the works of past masters and more recent artist-photographers whose images can be researched online. I've learned a lot simply by looking at a lot of what I consider to be good pictures.
There's no doubt the technology has helped me to improve my photography. I'm more willing to experiment and take chances. My way of shooting has become looser. My printing has improved significantly. I don't dread spending hours in the dark trying to pull the perfect print and tossing out dozens of sheets of failed attempts. Technology has also offered more exposure to great photography than I had previously been afforded.
I'm not talking about the plethora of photo blogs with almost universally poor examples of photography, I'm referring to the works of past masters and more recent artist-photographers whose images can be researched online. I've learned a lot simply by looking at a lot of what I consider to be good pictures.
Timmyjoe
Mentor
I'm pretty much done. I've got a few DSLR's that I love using, 16MP & 20MP sensors, all made in Japan, and a few old film rangefinders. Everything just works, so I can concentrate on taking pictures. My favorite lenses were all made between 1949 and about 1980, either in Japan or Germany.
I have a Nikon 1 system, all made in China, and the quality control just isn't there. Lenses that catastrophically fail in the middle of a shoot, bodies falling apart after only a few years of use. Not worth the headache. Like I said, I'm pretty much done, and I can't see myself buying any of the Nikon bodies now made outside of Japan. And although I do have an EOS DSLR that I do enjoy shooting, and a couple of "L" lenses, I never really got on with the Canon autofocus cameras.
Also, a "new" better, faster, more Mega-Pixel camera isn't going to make me a better photographer, so what's the point.
Just my "old man" 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
I have a Nikon 1 system, all made in China, and the quality control just isn't there. Lenses that catastrophically fail in the middle of a shoot, bodies falling apart after only a few years of use. Not worth the headache. Like I said, I'm pretty much done, and I can't see myself buying any of the Nikon bodies now made outside of Japan. And although I do have an EOS DSLR that I do enjoy shooting, and a couple of "L" lenses, I never really got on with the Canon autofocus cameras.
Also, a "new" better, faster, more Mega-Pixel camera isn't going to make me a better photographer, so what's the point.
Just my "old man" 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
back alley
IMAGES
i like the look of digital better also! tried for years to find film/developer/printing combinations that were clear & sharp.
farlymac
PF McFarland
One falsehood in your analogy that I see, Peter, is that the cost per picture is not next to zero. It can actually be quite large once you consider the price of a computer, image processing software, and storage for your images. Add in the cost of a decent printer, inks, and paper if you decide to display your photos, and Internet connection to send your images to whatever photo sites and forums you select.
Then every so often the camera manufacturers change everything about their systems, and if necessary for work, you are forced to upgrade all your equipment so you don't get left in the dust. Include in this the computer systems too.
Yeah, you can save a lot of money going digital.
Having said that, you won't rot out the pipes with pools of stop bath collecting in the traps, or stink up the place, or stain your fingers a nice deep purple. Or have to start all over on a set of prints when someone opens the door to your temporary darkroom space looking for something. Or have to make a half dozen prints until you are satisfied with the results.
I remember the first time I saw the new Kodak processors in action back in 1973, and wondered how long it would take to get that sort of technology into the hands of photographers everywhere (especially mine).
Right now, it is very hard for me to give up on film. It's a known quantity, and I can expect consistent results with whatever combination of camera/lens/film I am using at the time. But I find myself searching now for a lab that will return my film properly processed and scanned all the time. Which drives me to use the digital camera more often, especially for events where quantity is a good insurance policy on getting the right shot. It's still not the high quality sort of equipment I would like to have, but is a big improvement on what I started with.
It's just that with film, I enjoy the process much more. I have a wider range of camera types and formats to select from, and the film selections are still varied enough to have something for whatever you are trying to achieve.
When the digital cameras can simulate precisely the look from different film types, and look and work more like a film camera, then I'll probably be happy. If I can afford one, that is.
PF
Then every so often the camera manufacturers change everything about their systems, and if necessary for work, you are forced to upgrade all your equipment so you don't get left in the dust. Include in this the computer systems too.
Yeah, you can save a lot of money going digital.
Having said that, you won't rot out the pipes with pools of stop bath collecting in the traps, or stink up the place, or stain your fingers a nice deep purple. Or have to start all over on a set of prints when someone opens the door to your temporary darkroom space looking for something. Or have to make a half dozen prints until you are satisfied with the results.
I remember the first time I saw the new Kodak processors in action back in 1973, and wondered how long it would take to get that sort of technology into the hands of photographers everywhere (especially mine).
Right now, it is very hard for me to give up on film. It's a known quantity, and I can expect consistent results with whatever combination of camera/lens/film I am using at the time. But I find myself searching now for a lab that will return my film properly processed and scanned all the time. Which drives me to use the digital camera more often, especially for events where quantity is a good insurance policy on getting the right shot. It's still not the high quality sort of equipment I would like to have, but is a big improvement on what I started with.
It's just that with film, I enjoy the process much more. I have a wider range of camera types and formats to select from, and the film selections are still varied enough to have something for whatever you are trying to achieve.
When the digital cameras can simulate precisely the look from different film types, and look and work more like a film camera, then I'll probably be happy. If I can afford one, that is.
PF
michaelwj
----------------
Apart from photography, the big revolution of the digital era has been in science. Last year I took a dataset containing 500,000 images in less than 3 hours. Each image was about 4MP, with the images containing single photon accuracy. As in, I get a value of 1 when a single photon hits that pixel during the exposure. And I can have close to 65000 photons in the neighbouring pixel with no cross talk or missed photons. It revolutionised high resolution X-ray microscopy, along with many forms of high resolution and super resolution optical microscopy.
While there might still be a debate in photography, science has spoken. There used to be a darkroom in every electron microscope facility, now you get digital images at frame rates impossible with film. Imagine the LHC running on film.
While there might still be a debate in photography, science has spoken. There used to be a darkroom in every electron microscope facility, now you get digital images at frame rates impossible with film. Imagine the LHC running on film.
peterm1
Mentor
" One falsehood in your analogy that I see, Peter, is that the cost per picture is not next to zero. It can actually be quite large once you consider the price of a computer, image processing software, and storage for your images. Add in the cost of a decent printer, inks, and paper if you decide to display your photos, and Internet connection to send your images to whatever photo sites and forums you select"
I see your point and do not entirely disagree with you. But the point I was making is a technical one in economic theory and I probably assumed too much in assuming this was well understood by readers- on reflection there is no reason why it should be understood by anyone except economics nerds like me.
The thing is there is a technical difference between a marginal cost which consists mainly of the variable costs associated with making the next photo and fixed costs which are fixed costs of buying and setting up your gear - camera, computer, software etc. At least some of the costs you mention - cost of a computer, software etc are in the nature of fixed / sunk costs - i.e. you have already spent the money. The important factor with these types of costs is that whether you then go on to make no photos, one photo or a million photos those fixed costs do not really vary much if at all - you have already spent that money after all.
Whereas by their nature marginal costs do in principle vary - they represent any incremental cost for every extra image because they are mainly made up of variable costs - costs like inks and paper etc which you mentioned. But I tend to dismiss these components as I seldom or never print my photos - my photos only exist in the digital domain. The remaining variable costs for me are therefore negligible in the digital world therefore the marginal costs overall are extremely low.
The theory behind this stuff is even more technical than that but the above is close enough to explain what I was getting at. Hence my statement that marginal cost (as defined above) is tiny or next to nothing. Certainly in any event it is less than the marginal cost of taking the next FILM image.
I see your point and do not entirely disagree with you. But the point I was making is a technical one in economic theory and I probably assumed too much in assuming this was well understood by readers- on reflection there is no reason why it should be understood by anyone except economics nerds like me.
The thing is there is a technical difference between a marginal cost which consists mainly of the variable costs associated with making the next photo and fixed costs which are fixed costs of buying and setting up your gear - camera, computer, software etc. At least some of the costs you mention - cost of a computer, software etc are in the nature of fixed / sunk costs - i.e. you have already spent the money. The important factor with these types of costs is that whether you then go on to make no photos, one photo or a million photos those fixed costs do not really vary much if at all - you have already spent that money after all.
Whereas by their nature marginal costs do in principle vary - they represent any incremental cost for every extra image because they are mainly made up of variable costs - costs like inks and paper etc which you mentioned. But I tend to dismiss these components as I seldom or never print my photos - my photos only exist in the digital domain. The remaining variable costs for me are therefore negligible in the digital world therefore the marginal costs overall are extremely low.
The theory behind this stuff is even more technical than that but the above is close enough to explain what I was getting at. Hence my statement that marginal cost (as defined above) is tiny or next to nothing. Certainly in any event it is less than the marginal cost of taking the next FILM image.
No, because you can't fake (or buy) proper framing / composition, creativity, and great content. However, technology is always nice to have in order to get to your vision.
Steve M.
Mentor
My thoughts are......I disagree with your post's intent 1000%. Resolution does not mean anything at all, the image quality of digital sucks, although I do appreciate the convenience factor. And these new lenses, sharp though they may be, generally have lousy IQ. Why do you think companies are resurrecting old classic lens designs these days? The best lenses I ever owned were from the 30's and 40's, and any photographer can take a $50 SLR/TLR/olde medium format folder from eBay and take shots that will blow away any digital camera made, and probably any that ever will be made, especially in B&W. Just because something is new does not make it better. It has to actually be better. So this is not the rantings of an old geezer stuck in the past, rather it's the clear, unvarnished truth of someone that has a good eye and knows the difference between a good image and an imposter.
Well, actually, I do agree with one thing you said. Who indeed would think we would be where we are today. A time where convenience is more important than quality. That's consumerism for you though. To an artist like myself who only dabbles in photography, this is a sad state of affairs, but there it is. I mentioned this in my pottery class the other day, and to a person, everyone in there (the class is taught in a senior center, so we are all wizened and experienced artisans that have been making art of one kind or another for over half a century each) said they didn't like the look of digital. I'm not a Luddite. I love riding my bike, but also have a modern electric bike. They are both fun to ride. Still, they have been making powered bikes w/ some sort of propulsion for over 150 years, so even the new bike is not really new. It's just quieter and lighter (and the latter is a moot point on a powered bike), and also made in such a way that it is almost impossible to fix myself. Parts have to be replaced as units, almost nothing on the power end can be repaired, while the rest of the bike can be easily fixed by almost any one that is handy tools.
So technology giveth, and it taketh away too. Which is why I have two types of bikes. One to ride anytime I wish, and one to ride as long as it is working and the battery has a charge. Just like a lot of us have new fangled electronic cameras, both film and digital, and a strictly mechanical one when the modern one doesn't work.
Well, actually, I do agree with one thing you said. Who indeed would think we would be where we are today. A time where convenience is more important than quality. That's consumerism for you though. To an artist like myself who only dabbles in photography, this is a sad state of affairs, but there it is. I mentioned this in my pottery class the other day, and to a person, everyone in there (the class is taught in a senior center, so we are all wizened and experienced artisans that have been making art of one kind or another for over half a century each) said they didn't like the look of digital. I'm not a Luddite. I love riding my bike, but also have a modern electric bike. They are both fun to ride. Still, they have been making powered bikes w/ some sort of propulsion for over 150 years, so even the new bike is not really new. It's just quieter and lighter (and the latter is a moot point on a powered bike), and also made in such a way that it is almost impossible to fix myself. Parts have to be replaced as units, almost nothing on the power end can be repaired, while the rest of the bike can be easily fixed by almost any one that is handy tools.
So technology giveth, and it taketh away too. Which is why I have two types of bikes. One to ride anytime I wish, and one to ride as long as it is working and the battery has a charge. Just like a lot of us have new fangled electronic cameras, both film and digital, and a strictly mechanical one when the modern one doesn't work.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Do you also have two cars, one that can be used when it is working, and a Fred Flintstone model that you can pedal when the modern one doesn't work. You firing your pottery in a wood stove? Anyone who refers to technology developed in the 1970s as "new fangled" is a Luddite.
By the way, I don't use my film camera when my digital one doesn't work; I use it when I want the film aesthetic for a particular set of images. All my film and digital cameras have been reliable. I had my OM1 CLA'd in 2014 after 40 years as a precaution, and had the battery converted to SR44 so I didn't have to futz with Wein cells. My OM4 had to have the door latch repaired in 2016 after 33 years of faithful service. I also had my father-in-law's Minolta Autocord CLA'd for good measure in 2016, and the focusing mechanism re-greased after 57 years without a problem. I have never had a problem with my digital cameras, though I came late to the game in 2012. The idea that either film or digital cameras are unreliable is a myth.
peterm1
Mentor
"It has to actually be better. So this is not the rantings of an old geezer stuck in the past, rather it's the clear, unvarnished truth of someone that has a good eye and knows the difference between a good image and an imposter"
Nah it's definitely old fart cynicism (possibly learned young). I would know it anywhere. :^)
Nah it's definitely old fart cynicism (possibly learned young). I would know it anywhere. :^)
Dogman
Mentor
As a photographer who has been making art of frequently questionable quality for almost a half century, I have to point out something. It would depend on the type of photography involved. Putting all photography into a single category based on the process involved is like comparing Vermeer to a commercial house painter because both use paint.
I personally despise the "digital look" that was so prevalent 10-15 years ago and still rears its ugly head today. That look is the heavily photoshopped, overly color saturated, hyper-sharpened, eye searing aesthetic that I wish would just simply go away. Once you discount this crap, there's lots of good photography still being done and much of it is digital.
Spanik
Well-known
My photos are better exposed since I went digital. The results I got out of the 300D were so disappointing that I was forced to learn about exposure. I went back to film and now my slides are also better exposed.
Otherwise all my photos are still crap.
Otherwise all my photos are still crap.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thinking about it more, I only like the fact what over-saturated digital cameras market allows to get older cameras for less price. But I have no thrills about where it is going.
Dog eats dog. OVF is the luxury and rare in small cameras now. It is cheaper to slam EVF into it instead. My old Canon P&S has OVF in it...
I hold newer DSLRs similar to my old ones. They feel cheap due to the plastic and they kind of overloaded with next to useless functions, which are slowing me down.
I didn't liked Canon 5D MKII after 5D. Plastic and overloaded with not always working functions. And fresh Rebels are even worse...
I was disappointed with Olympus menus as well. Have to dig deep the manual, just to switch this damn thing to RAW...
Mine 5D photos are better than mine photos with 5D MKII, BTW.
Dog eats dog. OVF is the luxury and rare in small cameras now. It is cheaper to slam EVF into it instead. My old Canon P&S has OVF in it...
I hold newer DSLRs similar to my old ones. They feel cheap due to the plastic and they kind of overloaded with next to useless functions, which are slowing me down.
I didn't liked Canon 5D MKII after 5D. Plastic and overloaded with not always working functions. And fresh Rebels are even worse...
I was disappointed with Olympus menus as well. Have to dig deep the manual, just to switch this damn thing to RAW...
Mine 5D photos are better than mine photos with 5D MKII, BTW.