| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2003 05:24:46 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Morgan:
I find the idea that a 4 megapixel camera of a few years ago will be considered less desirable than a 4 megapixel camera of today a bit difficult to swallow. |
Why ? The sensors are vastly improved.
Noise immunity is better.
Access time is improved, decreasing shutter lag and inter shot delay.
Most technology progress can be charted as a steep slope, followed by a shallower slope. At the start rapid progress is made, until the product becomes 'good enough' and then things settle down a bit. DSLR technology hasn't quite reached 'good enough' and certainly wasn't several years ago.
|
I disagree. Current 6MP SLRS are at least very close to 35mm film in quality. Heck, even old timers like Michael Reichmann of luminous-landscape.com are selling off their medium-format equipment for Canon 1Ds.
Yes, sensors will improve. Cameras will get cheaper. There is still ca. $800 price difference between the cheapest DSLR and film SLR, but the gap will close. Magazines and papers are almost all digitally printed anyway, so way not elimate the scan process?
I think that 8MP on a good sensor. (High dynamic range, low noise, true colours) will outperform any 35mm film.
J.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2003 10:56:44 AM · #2 |
| I work at a very busy camera store, and we sell a ton of the D100's and 10D's Probably more D100's...Very similar cameras, although the D100 has a good spot metering system..something I love to use. I think in making the decision, it comes down to it, the decision should be based on what film SLR lenses you have, so you can hold on to those. Another good SLR at a very afordable price is the Canon Digital Rebel. Same chip at the 10D without some of the bells and whistles, and a plastic body, instead of magnesium. But at $999 for a body and a lens vs. $1400 for th body only on the 10D it is a great way to jump into the SLR without having to mortgage the house and kids. By the way, we have the greatest prices on Digital cameras also. I don't own the place, and don't work on commission, but that is what everyone tells us. It is Ace Photo in Northern Virginia...check out what DPreview has said about them. |
|
|
|
11/08/2003 10:41:33 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by ry_the_photoguy:
Ryan Here thanks for all the great feedback. But I am currently using a film SLR and I don't really know whether I should go digital or stay traditional? |
I'm surprised that after so many replies no one has asked what kind of film SLR do you have, because you may already have a significant lens line-up and this should certainly influence your DSLR decision.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2003 10:25:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by timj351:
My turn. there is always a lot of talk about the affordability of digital cameras and the focus is usually solely on the price of the cameras. That is actually only one part of the equation. For me it was the other way around where I got tired of constantly spending money on film and developing. I didn't even have many choices in the way those pictures were developed. If I wanted them cropped that's extra money and If I wanted them edited a specific way that would be even more money. Of course I could scan the slides or negatives and work on them myself but that also costs a lot of money to either buy a dedicated film scanner or have them professionally scanned. What I did most often with my 35mm camera was just get 4x6's printed and then occasionally scan a few while accepting the mediocre quality of scanning from prints. That is a night and day difference compared to what I can now accomplish with my digital camera. I have learned way more in the same amount of time I would have spent with my 35mm camera and have taken way more satisfactory photos. Sure, I paid a bunch of money upfront for my digital camera but I am not nickled and dimed every time I want to take photos. My camera has been paid for for a long time now, it still takes great photos, and I don't have to pay a single cent to enjoy my photos on my computer. If I want to print some photos there are now lots of affordable options and the best part is that I am in control of how they look. For me, with what I wanted to accomplish, it was film that wasn't affordable.
Now for absolescence. My dictionary defines the word as no longer in use or outmoded in design. According to how I interpret this I would say that the earlier digital cameras are obsolete because even the best models are severely limited in their functionality, they were not described as much more then usable for web use. Digital cameras have been great for all kinds of print applications for a long time now so I don't consider these to be obsolete. I don't interpret obsolescence to include every small and steady technological improvement. I take it to mean significant changes that actually change the way something is used or functions. Obsoescence is a tem that is overused, in my opinion.
T |
Tim, you are absolutely right on this. I am with you 100%.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2003 10:22:13 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by chalcone:
On another note, you guys have a lot of serious time in your hands. Pleasant reading though. |
and I'm glad they do, cuz I am learning alot from this thread :D
|
|
|
|
11/08/2003 10:12:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?
that doesnt make alot of sense :) .. |
Actually, I believe it does. Our perception of "wow" shifts to incorporate what we know is possible. In any technology area, as the performance benchmarks are set, people become used to them, and anything less is then... less. After seeing pix from the 1Ds, everything else is... less. Not BAD, just a bit below the high-water mark. The fact that we have surpassed 35mm film in performance (the previous mass-market camera benchmark) makes the advances in digital all the more amazing. But three years hence, 6Mpix will look to us a bit like 3 does today. |
I totally agree. I was foaming at the mouth over the Canon D30, ... then the D60. I opted for the Oly E-20 due to the affordability and because it was more than adequate for 8X10 prints. But, ideas and needs evolve. Now, I foam at the mouth for the 10D or something like it. I am still gonna wait though.. because I know this is just a step in the trend.
One fine day I will take the plunge, because things really won't stop evolving. Just like with computers. My husband said "wait.. in 3 months they'll have something better".. well, 2 years of that, and you have to stop and say.. "I'm buying cuz it is FAR better than what I have now (not just a bit nicer)" - and if you keep 'waiting for the best' you'll never buy!
:)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2003 12:27:47 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by ronners:
You surely can't argue with the fact that there are images taken decades ago which are still as impressive as the day they were taken. No matter how far technology progresses, it still must absolutely take second place. A $5 plastic disposable camera in the hands of a master will produce more compelling images than anything I can produce with my DSLR. This fact will always be true.
Have you ever heard the comment - "Wow! Your photos are really good - you must have a great camera!"? Would you like to hear that comment? Would you be offended to think that the camera, rather than the artist, was responsible for image quality and emotional connection? I think you would. However, your comments lead me to believe that with better equipment you could surely take better photos. I'm not so sure that this is the case. Really - that's a serious question you need to ask yourself.
It's not the camera, it's what you do with it. I for one will not be chasing technology now that I've got the advantages of an SLR with the (non-chemical) convenience of digital post-processing. |
How utterly true... on all counts. When it's all said and done it is the photographer that takes the photo, not the camera. After all, you wouldn't tell a great cook that they must have some excellent pots! (Not my line, btw. I borrowed it from another Arkansan, Tim Ernst. You can see what he is about here //www.cloudland.net)
That said, I do believe in choosing a camera based on YOUR needs and desires, not those of other people. I chose the Sigma SD9. Which many will regard as an odd, if not downright silly choice. So be it. But until you buy one an evaluate it for yourself, don't knock it. It's quite possibly the best deal in the DSLR arena right now in the 1K price range... providing you can live with its shortcomings, and it does have a few.
The SD9/10 is worth considering. Especially by anyone that does not have a bag of Nikon or Canon glass already.
//www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
//www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
Look at the images full size. Check out the Sigma forum at //www.dpreview.com, you might be surprised.
Message edited by author 2003-11-08 00:31:13. |
|
|
|
11/08/2003 12:16:39 AM · #8 |
My turn. there is always a lot of talk about the affordability of digital cameras and the focus is usually solely on the price of the cameras. That is actually only one part of the equation. For me it was the other way around where I got tired of constantly spending money on film and developing. I didn't even have many choices in the way those pictures were developed. If I wanted them cropped that's extra money and If I wanted them edited a specific way that would be even more money. Of course I could scan the slides or negatives and work on them myself but that also costs a lot of money to either buy a dedicated film scanner or have them professionally scanned. What I did most often with my 35mm camera was just get 4x6's printed and then occasionally scan a few while accepting the mediocre quality of scanning from prints. That is a night and day difference compared to what I can now accomplish with my digital camera. I have learned way more in the same amount of time I would have spent with my 35mm camera and have taken way more satisfactory photos. Sure, I paid a bunch of money upfront for my digital camera but I am not nickled and dimed every time I want to take photos. My camera has been paid for for a long time now, it still takes great photos, and I don't have to pay a single cent to enjoy my photos on my computer. If I want to print some photos there are now lots of affordable options and the best part is that I am in control of how they look. For me, with what I wanted to accomplish, it was film that wasn't affordable.
Now for absolescence. My dictionary defines the word as no longer in use or outmoded in design. According to how I interpret this I would say that the earlier digital cameras are obsolete because even the best models are severely limited in their functionality, they were not described as much more then usable for web use. Digital cameras have been great for all kinds of print applications for a long time now so I don't consider these to be obsolete. I don't interpret obsolescence to include every small and steady technological improvement. I take it to mean significant changes that actually change the way something is used or functions. Obsoescence is a tem that is overused, in my opinion.
T
|
|
|
|
11/07/2003 09:51:32 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?
that doesnt make alot of sense :) .. |
Actually, I believe it does. Our perception of "wow" shifts to incorporate what we know is possible. |
Not necessarily, though true if seen through the eyes of a viewer obsessed by technology. You surely can't argue with the fact that there are images taken decades ago which are still as impressive as the day they were taken. No matter how far technology progresses, it still must absolutely take second place. A $5 plastic disposable camera in the hands of a master will produce more compelling images than anything I can produce with my DSLR. This fact will always be true.
Have you ever heard the comment - "Wow! Your photos are really good - you must have a great camera!"? Would you like to hear that comment? Would you be offended to think that the camera, rather than the artist, was responsible for image quality and emotional connection? I think you would. However, your comments lead me to believe that with better equipment you could surely take better photos. I'm not so sure that this is the case. Really - that's a serious question you need to ask yourself.
It's not the camera, it's what you do with it. I for one will not be chasing technology now that I've got the advantages of an SLR with the (non-chemical) convenience of digital post-processing.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2003 03:48:06 PM · #10 |
| I have been debating between the 10D, D100 and fuji S2. I finally ordered the D100 today! I chose Nikon because the lenses will provide me with more options in the future. Fuji S2 and Kodak pro both take Nikon lenses. Makes the most sense to go with Nikon and invest in lenses that can be used with other bodies. |
|
|
|
08/10/2003 01:52:18 PM · #11 |
On another note, you guys have a lot of serious time in your hands. Pleasant reading though.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2003 11:33:19 AM · #12 |
Speaking of innovations:
//www.dpreview.com/articles/minoltadimagea1/
Minolta's new Dimage camera, with an image stabalised CCD, rather than the more common image stabalised lenses. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 10:07:51 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Man, how come Gordon and magnetic9999 end up becoming such measurabators? :) |
It's not over until someone gets their eye poked out with a ruler... |
|
|
|
08/07/2003 11:37:04 PM · #14 |
Man, how come Gordon and magnetic9999 end up becoming such measurabators? :)
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 09:34:47 AM · #15 |
okay enough already - I've already said which meaning of obsolete I was using, and several people have stated which version they were using.
It means too slightly different things :
1/ no longer useful
2/ replaced by a new and improved design
I'm using it in the second sense, from a design and engineering background.
At least Mag and Morgan are using it from the first sense.
Over and over again I've said that the older DSLRs still work, still take great pictures - there is no argument for all the repeated posts. However, they are also made obsolete in the second meaning of the word, which is the meaning I use day to day, when producing new products that make older ones obsolete. |
|
|
|
08/07/2003 06:28:15 AM · #16 |
Gordon,
You answer like the true engineer. All of your points are valid. Others may include lower thermal noise, lower power consumption, higher pixel count, better colourimetry, greater dynamic range, faster inline transfer rates, etc, etc.
But, does the advance of technology make something obsolete if it still functions well and still exceeds the expectations of the user and the needs for the application? I do not think so.
Michael
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 09:13:50 PM · #17 |
morgan hit the nail on the head when he alluding to obsolescence being an excellent tool of the marketing people. obviously, the more they can encourage the idea that your output isnt good enough, and you need later, greater, newer, just to be good enough, the more units they'll sell.
Well, I say, that if it still works and it does a good job, it ain't obsolete. it's just that simple.
Main Entry: 1ob·so·lete
Pronunciation: "äb-s&-'lEt, 'äb-s&-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus
no longer in use or no longer useful (my bolding..)
Considering that the D30 obviously still works (given that it takes better pictures than most of the stuff being sold), it definitely isn't obsolete :) ..
Considering that the D1, D1H, and D1X are still in use all over the world, irrespective of their pixel output, they are not obsolete.
The eyeglasses, a medieval technology, still in use, not obsolete.
Contrast: Model-T. Can't go fast enough. Doesn't use the correct fuel. Doesn't comply with safety standards. Not in use. Obsolete.
BTW, the person looking for affordable DSLR: I'd wholeheartedly recommend the D30. GREAT camera, very low price now.
Message edited by author 2003-08-06 21:14:08.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 07:26:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
I find the idea that a 4 megapixel camera of a few years ago will be considered less desirable than a 4 megapixel camera of today a bit difficult to swallow. |
Why ? The sensors are vastly improved.
Noise immunity is better.
Access time is improved, decreasing shutter lag and inter shot delay.
Most technology progress can be charted as a steep slope, followed by a shallower slope. At the start rapid progress is made, until the product becomes 'good enough' and then things settle down a bit. DSLR technology hasn't quite reached 'good enough' and certainly wasn't several years ago.
what we have in SLR these days has almost (but not quite yet) reached the level that 35mm film cameras have been at for years. At a much inflated price point.
Of course it is going to get cheaper and better - I'm perplexed why people even seem to question that.
And I'm not saying you can't take a good picture with the current DSLRs.
Nor am I saying you can't take a good picture with a shoebox, a small hole and some light sensitive paper. But the topic is Digital SLRs and the current technology is still very immature compared to the potential it has.
Message edited by author 2003-08-06 19:28:37. |
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:52:21 PM · #19 |
Obsolescence is not really a point of technology as much as it is a point of marketing.
My old 1969 Nikon F is in many ways superior to my 2002 Nikon F100 or 1999 Nikon F5s. For one, the all glass lenses on the older cameras are much sharper than some of the plastic optics offered for sale today. Of course, the newer cameras do have many other amazing advantages, such as auto-focus, which is why they are so popular. Demographics suggest that our ever aging population needs these aids due to worsening eyesight, shaky hands and lack of interest in working a camera.
I find the idea that a 4 megapixel camera of a few years ago will be considered less desirable than a 4 megapixel camera of today a bit difficult to swallow.
Today's enhancements may include extreme onboard image processing and other high power DSP driven stuff in order to enhance the image, but is that stuff really desirable? I am not too sure. Especially, when it is just as easy to post-manipulate the image in a PC with software like Photoshop. There is more control outside of the camera.
It is a bit like computers I suppose and Moore's law (Andy Moore of Intel fame). But, all of that is still heavily laden with marketing hype built upon "gotta have it" and "need it" demand from the consumer. Bigger, better, faster, etc., that sort of thing.
Placing the emphasis on the photographic artwork is really a far better approach to the subject. I learned this first hand a long time ago.
Years ago, I took a drive through the Canadian Rocky Mountains, stopping many times to take photographs. It so happens that a good friend of my who is a well-known R & R musician was touring with his band in the same area, at the same time.
When we met up back in Toronto, we showed each other our pictures. Many images were of the same subjects, but his were outstanding and mine were, how shall we say it, less outstanding.
I had over $40,000 worth of Nikon gear and he had an old Kodak 110 pocket Instamatic that I gave to him when I discarded it as it was of little value to me due to its "obsolescence". I learned that my mindset is that of a technician and a technolgists, and my musician friend, Rod, is a real artist, in every sense of the word, that was the difference. Not the equipment.
So, the bottom line, it is not the tools, gentlemen, it is the creativity and the abilities to "see" that make the photographer. Patience, experience, practice, and a solid understanding of light make for a great photographer, not megapixels.
Message edited by author 2003-08-06 18:55:49.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:31:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i would buy a dslr now (and did), not as a financial investment but as a tool to create the best images i can, starting today and hopefully for some time to come :) ..
waiting for theoretically perfect dslr's of the future would preclude me from the enjoyment of creating images NOW.
i would hope that the poster asking the original question would not be scared to buy one thinking that they should wait for 'better and cheaper' down the road.
In fact, one of the best buys right now in DSLR's is the D30, an excellent 'obsolete' camera ;) .. you can pic one up for $700 and the cameras that have 'replaced' it still don't match it's gorgeous color rendition.
|
You don't need to put the quotes around it, it is obsolete :) I bought my D60 secure in the knowledge that something better would come along any minute. (the 10D was announced about 3 days later and appeared about 7 months later) I took some images I'm extremely happy with that I wouldn't have it I had waited for a 10D. I don't see anything that makes me think that this will not happen for at least the next 5-10 years until it reaches a more mature technology point. There will then still be innovation, just not at the ridiculously fast pace that it is happening just now.
The consumer space is starting to hit that slow down point in terms of MP, but there is a huge amount of immprovement needed to reach the quality of a $10 disposable film camera in terms of responsiveness.
Also, neither the D60 or the 10D could be in any way considered 'affordable' which is what the original poster asked about. (although yet again, affordable is a relative term) If someone is asking about which DSLR is affordable, I get the impression that they are cost sensitive though and no current DSLR fits that profile... |
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:25:38 PM · #21 |
this i agree with. this sounds different from the statements you made before, but if this is what you meant, then I wholehearedly agree :) .
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sheesh, what did I start? Perhaps using # of pixels was unfortunate, there are so many other considerations, and DSLRs as well as consumer level cameras are improving in many respects. I agree with Gordon that you in many cases CAN tell the difference, and image quality (all aspects) will continue to improve.
No, rcamera will not strictly be obsolete, as it will still take useful and possibly striking images, just that a leading-edge camera will do more, in more challenging situtations, with less struggle to achieve a desired effect.
Maybe it is crazy to be upgrading every 3-4 years, but we all still do so regularly. It's not a case of need, its a case of want. |
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:24:13 PM · #22 |
i'm sorry that my willingness to have a conversation about this is so distressing to some ;)
i thought that's what forums were for. . . .
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:23:03 PM · #23 |
i would buy a dslr now (and did), not as a financial investment but as a tool to create the best images i can, starting today and hopefully for some time to come :) ..
waiting for theoretically perfect dslr's of the future would preclude me from the enjoyment of creating images NOW.
i would hope that the poster asking the original question would not be scared to buy one thinking that they should wait for 'better and cheaper' down the road.
In fact, one of the best buys right now in DSLR's is the D30, an excellent 'obsolete' camera ;) .. you can pic one up for $700 and the cameras that have 'replaced' it still don't match it's gorgeous color rendition.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i just think its silly to characterise something that still works perfectly fine in it's ultimate capacity as an imaging device as 'obsolete'.
To me, obsolete connotes that it can't do the job anymore. |
It might be silly to you, but it is correct English.
Obsolete in one sense means 'can't do the job' but also means 'an out of date design'. In the second sense it is perfectly true to say that in a couple of years all of the current DSLRs will be obsolete. There will be newer, better designed versions, with more features, that perform better and are cheaper.
I feel sorry for anyone who buys a DSLR just now and considered it a good long term investment (I've seen people under this delusion in other web forums) It isn't a Leica. It isn't going to have much resale value in 5 years. |
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:23:01 PM · #24 |
Sheesh, what did I start? Perhaps using # of pixels was unfortunate, there are so many other considerations, and DSLRs as well as consumer level cameras are improving in many respects. I agree with Gordon that you in many cases CAN tell the difference, and image quality (all aspects) will continue to improve.
No, rcamera will not strictly be obsolete, as it will still take useful and possibly striking images, just that a leading-edge camera will do more, in more challenging situtations, with less struggle to achieve a desired effect.
Maybe it is crazy to be upgrading every 3-4 years, but we all still do so regularly. It's not a case of need, its a case of want.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2003 06:16:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i just think its silly to characterise something that still works perfectly fine in it's ultimate capacity as an imaging device as 'obsolete'.
To me, obsolete connotes that it can't do the job anymore. |
It might be silly to you, but it is correct English.
Obsolete in one sense means 'can't do the job' but also means 'an out of date design'. In the second sense it is perfectly true to say that in a couple of years all of the current DSLRs will be obsolete. There will be newer, better designed versions, with more features, that perform better and are cheaper.
I feel sorry for anyone who buys a DSLR just now and considered it a good long term investment (I've seen people under this delusion in other web forums) It isn't a Leica. It isn't going to have much resale value in 5 years.
My first digital camera currently has an ebay resale value of $10.
My second digital camera sells on ebay for about a quarter of what I paid for it.
My third digital camera I can't even buy any more, because I can now buy a newer, better featured version for $700 less. In the actual meaning of the word, it is obsolete. It still works. It still takes great pictures. It is still obsolete.
Message edited by author 2003-08-06 18:19:41. |
|
