Why the reluctance to try Digital?

[Dan Vincent]

There seems to be a need to apologize for using a digital camera, like you are cheating on your wife, if you turn your back on film.

Hey, I love my film SLR's but there are some practical sides to Digital that make them a good choice.

I put a 1GB card in my Nikon 5700 and checked the display for how many pictures I can take. With the film speed set at 100ISO, I can get 419 images in "Fine" quality.

Guys, that's a lot of pictures that I don't have to buy film or pay for processing, and I don't have to sweat out film "fogging" when going through the airport security checks.

After you dump your pictures into the computer you can pick and choose the ones you want to print plus crop, rotate, whatever. The 1gb card cost me about fifty bucks and I can erase it and use it over and over again. Compare that with film cost and developing fees.

How do you post your film pictures here? Well, you must scan them in or have the drug store put them on a disc. Welcome to the digital world, your film pictures are now digital.

My Nikon is 5mp so the images are about 2500 pixels wide. To post here you must reduce them to around 640 to 740 wide so now you are roughly 1/3 the size of your original image.

I think a lot of you folks would be enlightened if you spent the day with someone who works with digital images and you would quickly see how convenient they can be.

You don't have to give up your faithful film cameras, just forget the reasons you don't like digital and give them a try.

OK, let me get my shield for all the arrows coming my way.

[Randy]

I was reluctant to put digital on the board because I don't think there are too many digital collectors, although I do have an old Polaroid digital that makes a great doorstop.

[Dan Vincent]

Randy,

I hadn't thought about collecting digital cameras.

My thought is that they are an excellent tool to quickly take pictures of my film cameras so I can display them here.

The bottom line is you need a digital image to post a picture on the internet so why not just do it in the quickest way?

I've also posted countless pictures of diecast cars, model trains and model airplane engines on various boards.

[GeneW]

minoltadan said:

OK, let me get my shield for all the arrows coming my way.

Dan, are you sure you were in the right photo forum when you posted this? LOL!

Seriously, I haven't found CC to be particularly anti-digital. Its focus is collecting film cameras, period. Yet it provides a couple of digital forums, even though digital is largely off topic. I find that very open.

In contrast look at dpreview.com -- one of the leading sites discussing all manner of digital photography. Not a single forum devoted to film, not even to film scanners. And the prevailing attitude there is "film is dead -- anyone who uses it is hopelessly clueless".

Not to slag dpreview -- I enjoy the site and use it frequently -- but it's an example of a closed-loop ecosystem that feeds on itself. CC, in contrast, is broad minded.

Personally I feel no need to challenge anyone on what tools they choose to take photos with. Above all, photography should be a joy. Whatever type of camera you use, and whatever medium, may you have the joy of it!

Gene

[Randy]

minoltadan said:

Randy,

I hadn't thought about collecting digital cameras.

My thought is that they are an excellent tool to quickly take pictures of my film camers so I can display them here.

The bottom line is you need a digital image to post a picture on the internet so why not just do it in the quickest way?

I've also posted countless pictures of diecast cars, model trains and model airplane engines on various boards.

I have a new Kodak Easyshare 5.0 that I use for that stuff. I use it to take pictures and video of my grandkids most of the time.

[PeterW]

I mentioned in a recent post on Canons that John is at the moment having a love affair with a new Pentax ist Digital SLR. He's working away from home during the week at the moment but this weekend I saw the pictures he took during last week after he finished work. I've got to say I was very impressed by them.

I've got two digitals. One is a little Kodak Easyshare 2 megapixel which I picked up very cheaply together with its charging dock. Like you Randy I use it mainly for pictures of my grandchildren because I can shoot away to my heart's content and just delete the ones I don't think are very good. But I don't just aim and press more in hope than judgement. I do try to compose the pictures as much as possible but kids move so fast it isn't always easy.

The other one is an old, by digital standards, Epson 2.1 megapixel Epson PC850Z. I bought it six years ago to take the pictures for my book on restoring classic car components, and it was 'state of the art' then. I use it mainly now for taking pictures of my cameras for posting and to use on my website. It takes decent pictures, and it's got a useful zoom lens, but it's quite a lot more bulky than the Kodak so I usually slip the Kodak in my pocket - often along with a Canon P&S film camera - when I go out.

Last Friday, though, I didn't take either of these. I took my grandson Luke to the beach in the morning and to the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Light Railway in the afternoon. I decided to give one of my older cameras an airing so I took a 1960s Agfa Super Silette with f/2 Solagon lens loaded witha 36 exposure Agfa 200 colour print. Among other things I took a couple of door shots. Hope to post the results when I've finished the roll, still got 10 to go.

Peter W.

[Dan Vincent]

Randy,

I know my heart is still with film cameras.

My wife asked me what I wanted for my birthday and said she would buy me a Nikon D50 if I wanted it.

My thoughts were of a nice new-looking black Minolta XD-11 so I declined the Nikon digital. Don't need it, my 5700 works fine.

The wife thinks digital is the only game in town now but did admit she got a lot of great photos out of her old Minolta "Talker."

When I use my film cameras I think of exposure, depth of field, shutter speed and all that good stuff that gives us that "Feel" that doesn't seem to be there with the digital stuff.

[GeneW]

minoltadan said:

When I use my film cameras I think of exposure, depth of field, shutter speed and all that good stuff that gives us that "Feel" that doesn't seem to be there with the digital stuff.

It's certainly there with digital in the better models and I find think about those things all the time when I'm shooting digital. I think it depends on the photographer more than the medium. With modern film SLRs and P&S cameras, many photographers put their cams on Auto and just fire away with no thought given to dof, exposure, speed, or even selective focus. Just as those who put their digis on Auto. But, in advanced models at least, all the manual controls are available.

For those of us who grew up on manual-only cameras, the basics flow naturally into our work. There were no options

Having said that, I'll frankly admit to putting my cams on Auto when taking a rapid series of shots of family events, etc., but old habits die hard and most of the time I prefer to at least 'advise' the camera on what it's doing

Gene

[kiev4a]

I have nothing against digital. In my opinion both digital and analog have their strong points. Digital is taking over, no question about it. Someday I may shoot most my photos with digital equipment. Gene is right--it's a lot easier.

One of the main reasons I was drawn to CC was the film emphasis. The brand boards on P.net and other forums have been taken over by the digital crowd. The Nikon board is an endless stream of questions from new D-50 and D70 users -- questions that could be answered if they would just read their owners manuals. It's hard to find film user post among all the digital clutter.

I think there should be a place for digital on CC. But the philosophy being the forum is stated on the home page in big letters FILM. Digital is an aside--a courtesy. If you take away the stated film emphasis it won't be long before this board, like just about every other board, will be taken over by the "new breed" and those of us interested in film will have a heck of a time finding related posts among the digital chatter.

For me, it's not which is better. It's that I enjoy the process necessary to shoot a film photo. I'll be the first to admit that I shoot a lot of my film stuff with the camera on auto. But I still enjoy the process of learning something new with each photo. And I enjoy talking with others who have the same priorities. That's not to say I don't enjoy reading the digital posts. It's just not my main interest. I'm here for film talk because it's getting tough to find it anywhere else.

As I have stated many times, my main problem with digital is the technology is so perishable. I grew up in a time when camera models had a life span of 5 to 10 years. If you plunked down a considerable sum for a top of the line camera you knew your investment wasn't going to lose much of its value for a long time. Now, you pays your money, and six months later the camera is replaced by a newer wiz bang model and your camera is technologically obsolete. When the digital market settles down, like computers eventually did, I'm sure I'll be a lot more interested.

I've looked at digital SLRs -- especially the Nikons. The viewfinders on the D-50s and D-70s are about as bright as the one in my 1965 Petri Flex. To get a camera with the amenities of my film gear it would have to spend $2,000 to $5,000--and a year later my camera would be old news. I just don't like the philosophy of the new age of photography. Some people do, and that's fine. But it's nice to have a nice place like the CC Forum where one can escape from the uproar and chat with folks with like interests. If you make digital anything other than an aside on this forum, the atmosphere will radically change in a short time. I think if you look at the backgrounds of a majority of the new members, you will discover they have come here because CC is different.

[byuphoto]

I have nothing against digital, as I have stated before it is the price and longevity issues. The problem is what I call the Bic syndrome. If you don't know the Bic company makes disposable lighters and pens. I grew up in an era of Zippo lighters, good pocket knives(that actually were carried in the pocket) and Sheaffer fountain pens. Now w e have the disposable age. Evrything is a one time use throw it away. We have bred a society geared toward one time use. We have disposable, cameras, razors, knives, lighters, lives and marriages. Even automobiles are replaced every few years, I have a 1972 Ford Bronco bought new with 300,000 on it. How many of todays vehicles will l;ast that long and I can overhaul it under a tree.
Now before the the new is worn off a camera the company bring out a new and improved one at less price.Even the P&S didgitals are subject to this. A $300 one would cost under 100 if film.
I got caught up in the same thing. I bought a Canon Digital Rebel for $800 in march of '04 by July I had a 20D for 1300 and the bought a $3500 1D MkII. I then bought a used Kodak Pro14c. The Kodak had a full size sensor, that all the other manufacturers boo hooed, now Canon is touting the very technology they once ridiculed. I did not get rid of them for some Zen like reason. My divorce forced me to sell them off.The DReb was less than a year old but Canon had introduced the Rebel XT at 8 MP and $700 effectively cutting in half what you could get for an old Rebel. Now the 30D has replaced the 20D at $100 less price and as far as I can tell you get a larger LCD and slightly less noise but many are rushing to dump there 20D's for a new 30D must have. the 20D is just over a year old for Gods sake. They claim the 30D shutter is guaranteed for 100,000 cycles and the 20D never was but to my knowledge no pro has worn out a 20D. My God My old F1 is way beyond that by now
I never heard an owner of a new F1n ever tell an owner of an old F1 he really needed to upgrade. Sorry there I go again. Peter you are a very bad influence on me ;-)

[John Parry]

I've posted a few pictures taken with a digital camera - my mobile phone. Good for quick results. I don't have a problem with digital picture posts, 'cause I see it as one of the strongest points about the board that "You are encouraged to post pictures on here" - whatever the medium. I have nothing against digital cameras, I just don't want to talk about them as I have nothing constructive to say.

Regards - John

[GeneW]

Rick, I feel your pain, as they used to say. The digital market is marked by relentless new models, but it's somewhat understandable given the technology is in its infancy. These machines are half camera/half computer and it's like watching the evolution of microcomputers all over again. TRS-80's, Apple II's, CP/M, DOS, Windows, Mac, 286, 386, Pentium, Dual Core ... it's a moving target.

I've owned I don't know how many personal computers since buying my first one in 1980. Personal computers are finally beginning to plateau -- no need to change every 2-3 yrs. At some point I expect this to happen with digital cameras, but the technology is still being invented as I write this. It's just the reality of the beast.

The lovely thing about mechanical cams is that they're far less complex than electronic ones and just last and last. Not to mention they're ever so much cheaper to purchase.

But then I'm preaching to the converted, non?

Gene

[byuphoto]

Gene you said it in a nutshell. Camera companies are more like electronices acompanies and more and more we see Sony, samsung, panasonic and many more tha never made a camera till the digital age. I would rather buy mine froma company that has made camera their main product for at least 30 years.

[herron]

Dan:
No arrows. I have nothing against digital. I have a very nice Canon 300-D DSLR, and enjoy it very much. I often purchase images in my job, and specifically request digital, for the speed and manipulation aspects. I recently managed an internal engineering documentation photographic team that was required to be all digital. And I do spend a lot of time on the computer, downloading my own digital images, or scanning my negatives, slides and prints.

Even my favorite Mamiya is heeding the call to digital. They still make excellent medium-format film cameras...but their pending acquistion by Cosmo Digital, and the renaming of the company to Mamiya Digital Imaging says it all....(sigh)

However, I'm not selling my film collection! And the original point of this forum was its dedication to collecting primarily film cameras.

I think Wayne, Rick and Gene said it very well, so I won't repeat it all again, but I don't think there is "a reluctance to try digital." Rather, I think this is a forum where the majority really like film, and wanted to discuss it.

[Just Plain Curt]

Had a conversation this afternoon with two photogs from our local paper on the merits of film vs. digital. Both said they have several film cameras at home but never use them. One recalls many hours spent developing in the dark room. Both deadset on digital. They called me the last of the diehard film buffs. Kinda sad since I went to high school with one of the ladies and they were talking like I was old. I told them I had hundreds of cameras and rolls of film at home. You could have heard a pin drop, then the inevitable, "That's weird".