If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Listening to the radio this morning, one of stories was about how for the first time, more people (USA) are buying digital cameras than traditional film cameras.
I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about this, or any experience they would like to share/discuss.
I am guessing that eventually the digital/traditional photography subject will become similar to the vinyl record/compact disc subject.
I am not big into photography myself and use a middle of the road digital camera and am satisifed with the results.
Eastman Kodak also announced global lay-offs in their workforce due to the increase in 'consumer' digital cameras.
I think that top end commercial photographers will still stick with the large format Hasselblads and such.
The prices of the top end cameras are still in the thousands. That wasn't the real blocker. It was non-interchangeable lenses that was the problem. It may change as digital cameras are now available for use with existing bayonet fixed lenses, which cost a fortune in themselves.
The general snapper will move onto digital. Particularly as the specifications for a good general purpose camera increase and the prices keep falling to a couple of hundred pounds.
As the George Harrison sung, All things must pass.
Imo, people put too much emphasis on that "megapixel" thing. In fact: it only tells something about the size of the printable result.
What stops me from going digital is:
1/ I have a good camera (Olympus OM4Ti)
2/ No digital camera matches (yet!) the quality of slides
3/ Due to the fact that the sensitive surface that replaces the film is smaller, no wide-angle lenses that match a 20mm or less lens in traditional camera's are available for digital camera's. And what am I without at least a 24mm F:2 wide-angle lens?
4/ Apart from the camera body, I would need 20 GB and at least five battery sets to survive three weeks of trekking; the 20GB with its own battery pack, and the camera packs would need a reload every evening. Meaning I would be forced to set the tent on campings, and pay for electricity.
5/ I wonder whether the digital camera's will survive real nature photography (seasalt, humidity, high temperature, shocks,...like the traditionals can.
6/ at www.dpreviews.com , *the* site for good advice (imo) there is always something not yet perfect with the camera's.
I use a little Sony DSC-P8. I love it! I keep it in my pocket all day at work. I mostly use it to capture little moments so that I can pass them on to other engineers who would never believe me otherwise. Yes sir, it is possible to install that part upside down...see!.
I do find the lag between button and shutter a bit of a drag but you get used to it. I think that's pretty common amongst the digi's.
Vogonpoet...I also heard that radio segment. You may be in the Detroit area? I'm out on a limb here but does the VO stand for Vehicle Operations? hee hee
The majority of professional photographers shoot more digital than analog. I can back that up with facts if I could just find that article...
Both systems have their positive/negative points but as of today digital seems to be the clear winner.
People who don't have a digital camera don't understand this, but trust me, you will experience once you have a digital camera that there is more than comparing pixels with film
But hey, if you only shoot 100 shots a year... well, then I don't see a reason why you should go digital.
I shouldn't be posting here because my knowledge of photography is so limited and my Kodak megapix 3.1 delivers a so-so performance but the one thing I enjoy about this camera is its convenience for my web business \:]
IMHO there will be a market for both for many years. Digital has just become another option. I understand the increased above 3 mp for digital only helps make quick action shots but doesn't improve the quality of the picture. I don't really know if that is true or not.
It sounds reasonable.
Back in my high school days, I was well into photography, developing my own negs and prints (B/W) myself. Nowadays i'm just a casual user and own a Sony DSC-P71.
I'd like to echo Eric's commments and add, My model and from what I hear digital cameras in general are poor performers in low light situations. that's my main gripe with digital.
I think that top end commercial photographers will still stick with the large format Hasselblads and such.
Of course, Hassel announced a digital back for their cameras a year or two ago that will fit in the film housing backing. Even Leica has announced their digital line-up.
I worked in a digital photo studio for a while. Using digital SLR and a fuji thermalsetter to output.
The shooter would get a few hundred shots on a microdrive, download it onto a computer in the studio. Then the customer could choose shots right there, make an order (including touchups in Photoshop), and have their photos printed before they left (in most cases). It was a pretty cool operation. We even took the whole setup to some proms and such. I helped lug that damned 450 pound fuji thermal setter up to the 5th floor of a hotel for one... gack... have THAT run over your toes.. not fun. hehe. That was a cool night though. We shot prom photos, and downloaded to a powerbook. There were these custom frames that the prom committee had provided for each atendee. So we were taking photos and then printing out 5x7, framing them, and sending them home with each person. Pretty slick. Two shooters and one frantic night of photoshopping.
Right now digital cameras for most photography are comparable in price and functionality to traditional chemical film cameras. They provide a lot of functionionality that isn't available with traditional film if you are committed to a digital work flow like the one I described. That fuji was about 4 grand, they had a couple older G4 machines and some laCie monitors... couple grand there... and the cameras for a couple grand each. All told, they recouped that investment back in the first months of operation.
Yeah, there are lots of things that you can do with wide film and slides that are nice, but even shooters that are going out and doing location shooting will often bring a digital along for test shots and documentation since it's quick return on preview.
Digital 'vs' Traditional? 
Linear Mode
