| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/29/2006 05:08:11 PM · #1 |
Hello everyone,
Well summer his here and i'm planning on working to get my camera.
While I was looking at catalogs something came up my mind: The non digital cameras are still very good but ... they're not digital.
For me the real advantage of a digital camera is that you can instantly get a glimps at what your photo looks like, and store them on a DVD or a HD but that's it.
So I was wondering: is getting digital only a fashion thing? Or is there a really big advantage to it that justifies the price difference between non digital and digital SLR cams ?
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 05:11:28 PM · #2 |
consider the price of film and developing and over the life of the camera digital is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 05:12:19 PM · #3 |
you will shoot a lot more and experiment a lot more with a digital camera - so IMO you will gain experience and become a much better photographer faster.
In the long run it's much cheaper too and that doesn't hurt ;)
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 05:12:54 PM · #4 |
| For me, the magic of digital is in the processing. When I first started taking pictures, I didn't develop my own film. When I turned that roll into the developer, it was out of my hands. But there can be a great art to developing. When you go digital, you are in control of that image from beginning to end. Once you learn to use programs like Photoshop, you'll soon forget what film is. |
|
|
|
06/29/2006 05:19:29 PM · #5 |
Each time you click the shutter button. Here is what you are thinking:
Film = $$$$$$$$$
Digital = Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free, Free,
Message edited by author 2006-06-29 17:19:44.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 06:16:59 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Smasher:
Hello everyone,
Well summer his here and i'm planning on working to get my camera.
While I was looking at catalogs something came up my mind: The non digital cameras are still very good but ... they're not digital.
For me the real advantage of a digital camera is that you can instantly get a glimps at what your photo looks like, and store them on a DVD or a HD but that's it.
So I was wondering: is getting digital only a fashion thing? Or is there a really big advantage to it that justifies the price difference between non digital and digital SLR cams ? |
If it's only a fashion thing .... well, it's quite fashionable. There were 80 million digital cameras sold last year. Film photography is a technology that is on the downside of it's lifecycle, and fading fast. Remnants will be around for a while in specialty niches. But film has, for the most part, already been replaced electronics.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 08:58:35 PM · #7 |
It is very must a $ thing. If I didn't have a digital camera, and I had a film camera then I would not be as keen on learning how to take photographs rather than snapshots.
I would be one of those always thinking about the developing costs! |
|
|
|
06/29/2006 09:50:10 PM · #8 |
Hmmmm...Let's see... 35,000 shutter clicks Multiplied by .15 (using a online lab color 4x6) Equals $5,250.00 (It's a rough as the local labs go by per roll)... And that is just the 20D, there is the Pro1 and the S50 that have a few clicks through them.
I'm thinking that almost justifies me going out and getting a 1D... :) |
|
|
|
06/29/2006 09:51:43 PM · #9 |
Only if you wanna keep up. :)
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 10:20:43 PM · #10 |
Having used both film and digital, I think digital is definately here to stay and does have advantages over film. Although I do think there is a certain type of "magic" feeling that you get in a darkroom that you don't get from the computer. That aside it definately is a digital world.
The thing that gets me though, is the price of digital cameras. I know people will argue the difference with sensors / electronics etc but I feel it is a marketing ploy.
The starting price for an introductory/prosumer DSLR is the same as the starting price of the pro range of film cameras.
The major companies have now got us thinking we can't expect anything really decent for under $3000. A few years ago we could have gotten a pro range camera and be considering our major expense with glass.
I'm sure the cheaper - heavy weight, dustproof, solid cameras will come, but only after market demands have dictated thats what we expect (and for a reasonable price). The danger I see here thou - is once you have people expecting to pay a certain price - things rarely go down. They just put in a few more features to justify the expense.
Anyway - thats my five cents worth for the day.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2006 11:40:10 PM · #11 |
Assuming lenses are lenses and you need them, then the body is the difference - $1300 for a 30D, a good digital camera. Canon elan 7ne is $340. Nearly $1000 difference!
To shoot digital, you spend nothing. To shoot film...Ritz shows some color kodak print film for $12.99 for 75 exposures, or 17 cents each. And then you need that roll developed - you can do it or send it out. One online place i googled does 24 print color developing only at $2.99 - 12c per image.
So print film, color, will cost you nearly 30c per image, no prints. Digital costs nothing.
The $1000 difference in cameras is gone in 3,333 pics.
Prints are the same price if a lab does them, so that is moot.
You can set up a darkroom for printing for $1000-1200. A computer with some basic photo software is the same price. Both take time to learn to use well - BUT once i retouch a digital image i can make 100,000 copies all the same - if i work with a negative and dodge and burn it has to be done for each print...and they won't all be exactly the same. Now you can scan the negatives and work in on the digitally, but you add in the cost of a scanner or having the images scanned so it is still more costly this way.
Digital wins in cost.
Digital wins in speed - i can take pics of a subject and have prints, retouched and done in less time than you can turn the film into negatives, let alone all the other stuff you need to do (scan or get the enlarger turned on, etc)
Digital has no chemical by products, takes up less space in my house too.
So how long will it take you to capture teh 3,333 images? I'm taking 2,000 a month...so 6 weeks?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 12:21:36 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
consider the price of film and developing and over the life of the camera digital is cheaper. |
Yeah minus the hard drive needed to store the images and the hard drive needed to back up the images and the CDs needed to back up that hard drive off-site and the printer needed to output the image and the software needed to process the image and the colorimeter needed to profile your monitor and a monitor that accurately reproduces color add that to fact that you can buy a film SLR for $100 with lens and dSLR goes for around $1,700 for the body...yeah digital is definitely cheaper than film ;). |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 12:33:51 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by tmhalling:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
consider the price of film and developing and over the life of the camera digital is cheaper. |
Yeah minus the hard drive needed to store the images and the hard drive needed to back up the images and the CDs needed to back up that hard drive off-site and the printer needed to output the image and the software needed to process the image and the colorimeter needed to profile your monitor and a monitor that accurately reproduces color add that to fact that you can buy a film SLR for $100 with lens and dSLR goes for around $1,700 for the body...yeah digital is definitely cheaper than film ;). |
You can't compare a $100 film body with a $1700 dSLR any more than you can compare an F5 with a Pentax *istDL.
250Gb HDs can be had for under $50. Blank DVDs are $1. And then you want me to back the files up off site - GREAT! i'll never lose my images! My negatives however, can only be in one place at a time - and therefore are at a high risk of permanent loss. If i send my files to proper lab, they will color correct so i don't need to. And my 19" CRT was $175 deliverd about 2 months ago, is color corrected too (spyder off ebay for $100).
And what, like 3% of home darkroom users even do color, right? So digital gives me color or b&w etc all for the same price.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 12:45:02 AM · #14 |
Hi, you seem to have already thought this through. But for the record (for the most part) digital is the defacto pro photography industry standard. You can work so much faster and get better results with much less effort. Film is great for someone who 'just has to do film' but very few pros under the age of 50 shoot film anymore.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 01:11:26 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by texaskev:
Hi, you seem to have already thought this through. But for the record (for the most part) digital is the defacto pro photography industry standard. You can work so much faster and get better results with much less effort. Film is great for someone who 'just has to do film' but very few pros under the age of 50 shoot film anymore. |
I am definitely pro-digital but I also realize there is a bit of a downside. I recently overheard two photogs speaking at an Epson seminar and they said that digital has taken photography out of the hands of the average consumer which is great for business because most consumers can't get good results with cheap digital cameras. I know there are several threads regarding this debate so I don't feel like re-hashing what has already been gone over but what about the ability to pre-visualize your shot. Sure you can take 1,000s of images - I have been guilty of this - but how many of those are quality or have emotive value? Of course that is a generalization and an unanswerable question with every photographer giving different answers. There is a thread somewhere on this as well.
Besides everything mentioned above - the cost storage is not as cheap as one is lead to believe. All it takes is one hard drive failure to bring the whole house of cards down. I run a mirrored RAID to avoid this and recently crashed it and had to re-build it. I was able to recover a back-up image from a striped array on the same computer. Even Macs run out of storage space and are vulnerable to hard drive failure. I was actually thinking of getting the yellow machine network RAID but it cost around $600. If you want a true back up it will cost you and keep costing you especially if you are shooting 1,000s of images a month. I do it but I really hate burning my images to CDs - not DVDs because they will be obsolete in a matter of years much like film - because of the sheer number of CD's I need to back up to this doesn't even include the cost of the back-up software.
In conclusion, I love digital and obviously shoot with it quite a bit but I do see some advantages to staying with film. Peace.
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 01:18:55. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 01:41:01 AM · #16 |
Working backwards...
Why will CDs be around when DVDs will not? You lost me on that logic.
I may be unique, but in 23 years of PC use, and 20 years of ownership i have yet to have a HD fail. Perhaps because i outgrow them and replace them about every 2 years? Not sure. A friend has had a couple of failures (on 4 or 5 year old drives), and i did lose a mobo and power supply a few years back.
I recently overheard two photogs speaking at an Epson seminar and they said that digital has taken photography out of the hands of the average consumer which is great for business because most consumers can't get good results with cheap digital cameras.
I don't think the 'average consumer' got good results with film either! A snapshot is a snapshot no matter the camera or medium. A cheap camera only makes it worse. Shutter lag now exists more than with film though IMO.
but what about the ability to pre-visualize your shot.
digital has not changed this. you can still do it. try it and you'll see it's the same as with film. ;P
how many of those are quality or have emotive value?
Speaking of the average consumer again? Digital doesn't remove the emotion from an image (at least canon cameras don't have that custom function) so i am confused by what you mean?
It used to be said the difference between a pro and an amature was how many images were in the pros garbage can - now amatures too can shoot more and perhaps catch that emotive, meaningfull image. Assuming the shutter lag on their cheap cheap digital camera will allow it.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:10:31 AM · #17 |
I grew leaps and bounds when I got my 10D...first digital camera I have ever owned...just imagine me worse than I already am...yea that's the benefit of digital. Allows you to take 100,000 or more photos in a year when only the utmost highly paid professional would do that with film...well I don't even know if that is true...has anyone ever taken that many shots with film in a year...if so you must be a millionaire!!
Clint
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:25:03 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Working backwards...
Why will CDs be around when DVDs will not? You lost me on that logic.
I may be unique, but in 23 years of PC use, and 20 years of ownership i have yet to have a HD fail. Perhaps because i outgrow them and replace them about every 2 years? Not sure. A friend has had a couple of failures (on 4 or 5 year old drives), and i did lose a mobo and power supply a few years back.
I recently overheard two photogs speaking at an Epson seminar and they said that digital has taken photography out of the hands of the average consumer which is great for business because most consumers can't get good results with cheap digital cameras.
I don't think the 'average consumer' got good results with film either! A snapshot is a snapshot no matter the camera or medium. A cheap camera only makes it worse. Shutter lag now exists more than with film though IMO.
but what about the ability to pre-visualize your shot.
digital has not changed this. you can still do it. try it and you'll see it's the same as with film. ;P
how many of those are quality or have emotive value?
Speaking of the average consumer again? Digital doesn't remove the emotion from an image (at least canon cameras don't have that custom function) so i am confused by what you mean?
It used to be said the difference between a pro and an amature was how many images were in the pros garbage can - now amatures too can shoot more and perhaps catch that emotive, meaningfull image. Assuming the shutter lag on their cheap cheap digital camera will allow it. |
Originally posted by TomFoolery:
I grew leaps and bounds when I got my 10D...first digital camera I have ever owned...just imagine me worse than I already am...yea that's the benefit of digital. Allows you to take 100,000 or more photos in a year when only the utmost highly paid professional would do that with film...well I don't even know if that is true...has anyone ever taken that many shots with film in a year...if so you must be a millionaire!!
Clint |
Gates predicts DVDs obsolete in 10 years
Right on the other points - the DVD is going to be replace though. Do a google seach for DVDs obsolete.
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 02:25:46. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:38:30 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Now you can scan the negatives and work in on the digitally, but you add in the cost of a scanner or having the images scanned so it is still more costly this way. |
And if you do that, you're in digital already so what does it matter? Digital is definitely the way to go, especially for learning. Don't know what that setting will do? No problem, change it and find out. You'll even get immediate results on what you just did. You don't have to worry about the fact that you just wasted a film frame and you don't have to wait a week to see what that change did, and by then you forgot what you did to begin with.
Digital is here to stay, there is no stopping it now. If you want to shoot film, that's fine by me. I'll stick with my digital.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:11:02 AM · #20 |
Wow thanks for all the replies :D! it's nice to see how pasionate this community is!
Well, you guys convinced me lol!: I'll work more hours and get a dSLR ^^.
Also, it'll be my first SLR type camera so i'll be a rookie. So if you say it's easier to learn with digital then it's another reason (even though i already had thought about that :)).
I'll probably get something between the 350D and the 30D but i'm really not sure since by the time I get my money and everything (I'm also moving to another city etc...) maybe there will be newer, better cameras out there for the same price.
I'll keep you updated :).
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 03:11:46. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:17:55 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
but what about the ability to pre-visualize your shot.
digital has not changed this. you can still do it. |
I do not know about dSLRs but sony R1 definitely let me pre-visualise the shot. And i am very happy with it.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:53:02 AM · #22 |
| About DVD. It doesn't matter if it becomes obsolete. All you have to do is put the data on the new hot storage. Data is so easily transfered. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 05:28:40 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Smasher:
Wow thanks for all the replies :D! it's nice to see how pasionate this community is!
Well, you guys convinced me lol!: I'll work more hours and get a dSLR ^^.
Also, it'll be my first SLR type camera so i'll be a rookie. So if you say it's easier to learn with digital then it's another reason (even though i already had thought about that :)).
I'll probably get something between the 350D and the 30D but i'm really not sure since by the time I get my money and everything (I'm also moving to another city etc...) maybe there will be newer, better cameras out there for the same price.
I'll keep you updated :). |
Can't you get a cheap second hand 35mm SLR so you can learn the basics whilst saving up for the dSLR? That's what I'd recommend if you haven't used a SLR yet. You could probably find one at a carboot for about £10
I think I'd personally be a lot further behind in my photography if I hadn't learnt on a good ol'fashioned 35mm SLR first, because it forces you to think harder about the technicalities (making you understand metering, aperture etc better) AND put more thought into composition etc. Of course when you have a dSLR you can put the same thought into each shot, but when each shot is free and quick to review the temptation is not to. So imho it's best to learn that slow, calculated approach whilst you have the incentive of every frame costing, then you will be able to transfer that technique when you've got your dSLR.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 05:36:29 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by tmhalling:
I am definitely pro-digital but I also realize there is a bit of a downside. I recently overheard two photogs speaking at an Epson seminar and they said that digital has taken photography out of the hands of the average consumer which is great for business because most consumers can't get good results with cheap digital cameras. I know there are several threads regarding this debate so I don't feel like re-hashing what has already been gone over but what about the ability to pre-visualize your shot. Sure you can take 1,000s of images - I have been guilty of this - but how many of those are quality or have emotive value? Of course that is a generalization and an unanswerable question with every photographer giving different answers. There is a thread somewhere on this as well.
Besides everything mentioned above - the cost storage is not as cheap as one is lead to believe. All it takes is one hard drive failure to bring the whole house of cards down. I run a mirrored RAID to avoid this and recently crashed it and had to re-build it. I was able to recover a back-up image from a striped array on the same computer. Even Macs run out of storage space and are vulnerable to hard drive failure. I was actually thinking of getting the yellow machine network RAID but it cost around $600. If you want a true back up it will cost you and keep costing you especially if you are shooting 1,000s of images a month. I do it but I really hate burning my images to CDs - not DVDs because they will be obsolete in a matter of years much like film - because of the sheer number of CD's I need to back up to this doesn't even include the cost of the back-up software.
In conclusion, I love digital and obviously shoot with it quite a bit but I do see some advantages to staying with film. Peace. |
I think you're out of touch with reality when it comes to what a beginner can do with a modern low cost digital P&S. Many are now so good that amateurs are content to send files directly to home printers and they get better than what they used to get from a commercial film lab. Some of the P&S models even have WiFi built into them.
What are the advantages of staying in film that you see?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 06:30:46 AM · #25 |
Smasher
I dont think there is any doubt that digital is the way to go. If you want - get a SLR camera. Its sometimes good to use both but its a personal preference. I think the cost aspect of ongoing cost of digital verses film is 50/50. Certainly digital is immediate and has all the advantages that others have listed.
A bit of personal advice thou - if you are considering a 350D or the 30D. I own the 350D and am very happy with it. I seemed to have gotten it at a good time - it seems to be a great improvement on the 300D - with a lot of specs of the more up-market models (20D/30D) BUT. If money is not a major issue I would consider the 30D. Mainly because of the heavier build, dust-proofing etc.
My own background of photography is of the travel type. Throwing camera and lenses into a shoulder bag, dust, dirt and rough handling. Moderate priced SLRs generally could cope with this sort of treatment (within reason).
Digital SLRs on the other hand are very suseptible to dust and it can be a problem. I had to get my own camera sensor cleaned last week after 6 months of use. I believe the 20/30D are a little more secure for dust and rough handling.Maybe owners might be able to enlighten you more on that score.
Because of the cost of camera bodies I won\'t be changing mine for a while and will spend what money I have on better lenses. But if you think you will be involved in photograpy for a while, consider the better body to begin with if you can scrape up the money. Lenses are not so much a problem because they will interchange between bodies of the same make. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/31/2025 07:10:01 PM EDT.
