|
ill_climber
Mar 27, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #1 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 13
|
I am looking for a good camera to take outdoor/climbing pictures around 200$ and cant decide between digital or film camera. I care more about the quality of the pic than the simplicity of the camera. What are some views and suggestions that you guys have on this topic?
|
|
|
|
|
capcom1701
Mar 27, 2005, 7:20 AM
Post #2 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 79
|
The quality of film and digital is equivalent, at least as far as far as the price range you're are looking in is concerned. Film is going to be less expensive up-front, but you may end up spending quite a bit on processing and film stock. The economy of digital allows you to shoot away when you're climbing, and discard the shots you don't like - blowing through rolls of film gets expensive quickly. A lot of amateurs remark that digital gives instant feedback, allowing you to learn a lot more about composition, light measurement, etc. Going digital also lets you know if you've got the shot you want. If you're out on a road trip, you know right away if you've gotten that perfect capture, if you're shooting film, you'll have to hope and wait for your prints.
The price you mentioned seems to indicate you're thinking about a point-and-shoot camera. Simple, but usually doesn't give you as much control over the image as an SLR would. Than again, with digital point-and-shoots, you can actually get quite a bit of control over aperture and shutter speed that generally isn't avaliable on p-a-s film cameras. Canon and Nikon have very nice digitals that you might want to check out. Both company's are well known for quality cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
ill_climber
Mar 27, 2005, 7:31 AM
Post #3 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 13
|
let me revise my first post. I was actually looking at SLR cameras such as the Nikon N65 (about 200$) are these good cameras or can they not even compare with the 500$ ones?
|
|
|
|
|
kpb
Mar 27, 2005, 1:59 PM
Post #4 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 55
|
Avoid the one wheel control SLR's like the plague.
IMHO, for $200 you'd be better off with a point and shoot digital or, for film, an Olympus Stylus Epic. The Epic that has a fixed (non-zoom) lens is a great point and shoot 35mm camera for around 100 bucks. Lots of film photogs use one as a back-up. Cannon makes some nice, inexpensive digital point and shoots.
If your heart is set on an SLR, I dont think there is much in the Digital relm in your price range. The Pentax ZX-M is a fine 35mm SLR, but you'll have to find a used lens to stay in your price range. Look at keh.com and B&H photo video, two very reputable online retailers. They both sell used gear, and I've never heard of anyone getting a raw deal from either of them.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 27, 2005, 2:50 PM
Post #5 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
If the camera is to be used climbing, it's misguided to think SLR when the $200 price range is your target. Too heavy and bulky without the compensation of "much" better pictures.
Buy a $200 point and shoot digital. You won't run up big film costs, it will be light enough that you'll always carry it, and you'll still have all the manual features.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Mar 27, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #6 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
I currently carry a Canon Eos 2000 (just got it a couple of months ago) It's not brand new, so I picked it up for around $300. It's actually really light-weight and takes great pictures with it's auto settings, and you can do a LOT with the different manual modes. In the winter and on longer trips, this camera doesn't burn through the batteries like a digital...
That being said, I will ditto what has been posted above in that film is expensive -- especially when you're an amateur like me. It is frustrating to come back from a trip thinking that you have some really awesome shots, only to find out that many were over/underexposed, etc...
Of course, taking a class is a great way to deal with that problem!
Good luck,
A.W.
|
|
|
|
|
capcom1701
Mar 28, 2005, 3:41 AM
Post #7 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 79
|
If you're looking at SLR's you should probably go Nikon or Canon. When I was picking out an SLR the advice from serious amateurs and pros I talked with was to go Nikon or Canon. The reasoning is pretty simple. Nikon and Canon make the best lenses. If there's even an outside chance you may become serious about photography, then you want one of those two brands.
When you're talking about film SLR's the more expensive models offer faster max shutter speeds, the ability to expose more frames per second, and some bells and whistles. The general thinking is, save your money on the camera body, blow it on lenses. All the camera body does is expose the film, the magic occurs in the lens. For what it's worth, you can probably do fine with a $200-300 Nikon body, but you'll probably drop quite a bit more on a lens. If you plan on just getting a single lens, and shooting a lot of climbing, go for a zoom, something like a 28-200 mm. If you can find one that zooms from 30mm to 300mm that would be ideal. Otherwise you could buy a 28-70 zoom, and a 100-300 or thereabouts. Check out the prices on B and H. You'll be dropping $200-$300 on a camera, and then anywhere from $200 - $1000 on glass. Then plan on spending a couple hundred each year on film and processing.
Otherwise, go with a digital point and shoot. They're pack a lot of punch for what they cost.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Mar 28, 2005, 3:49 AM
Post #8 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: The quality of film and digital is equivalent, at least as far as far as the price range you're are looking in is concerned. ......
Actually there is a huge difference in picture quality between a $200 digital camera, a $200 slr film camera, and a $1500 digital slr.
I'm on my second digital camera, a cannon powershot g3 (retail around $500?). My $120 film slr still beats it out in raw image quality, but I would rather give up some quality in exchange for not requiring developing, having the same controls over the apature, iso, etc and being able to take video.
A friend of mine has a digital cannon eos rebel (around $900?). Now that camera beats both my digital and film in terms of image quality.
Basicly you get what you pay for, and in the $200 price range, digital and film are nowhere close.
|
|
|
|
|
cgranite
Mar 28, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #9 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2003
Posts: 366
|
It's all about the lenses. The lens is what's important. If you want quality pictures for that price range, you must go SLR. I am currently a photo student, so I'm quite familiar to the topic between digital and SLR.
The camera is just a box for exposing the film to the light. Yes, better camera bodies have special/more professional attributes like eye-control, 21-point focusing, durability, speed of the camera, and options.
I would rather buy a Cannon Rebel than buy the digital Rebel at 6.2 MP, which is around $1,000.
Since you want clarity and quality for a low price, you must go SLR.
And I'm not going to say IMO because given what you want and what you will give, there is no other way.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 28, 2005, 4:49 AM
Post #10 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: I am looking for a good camera to take outdoor/climbing pictures around 200$ and cant decide between digital or film camera. I care more about the quality of the pic than the simplicity of the camera. What are some views and suggestions that you guys have on this topic?
The idea that digital and film are = at that price range is absurd. Actually the truth is you don't trully surpass film till about $4000. And actually, IMO only the new full frame Canon truly surpasses it in 35mm format digital. However, surpass is a odd word as you still can't take 8 hour exposures on digital. Higer ISO's are typically noisy compared to film. And there are other limitations. And of course there are many advantages. No changing film at the end of rolls, change on the fly ISO's, change color balance on the fly, no scanning.
So digital is equal to film in many ways but it really only surpasses it at the higher end of pure resolution. RESOLUTION IS NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR. Exposure latitude, color reproduction, NOISE, ect. are all factors.
It's really gotten terribly sad how disillusioned people are with MP size. There was a great article in last months Outdoor Photographer. If I can scan it I will post a link to it.
Image sensors are like film emulsions. there is more than just MP resolution involved in image quality but because of the early days of low resolution digicams people remain fixated.
Even deeper into the matter not all 8MP resolution cameras are equal. A full frame DSLR will offer less noise than a APS-C DSLR. Likewise, the 5x7mm sensor on digital compacts offers terrible noise levels.
Smaller sensors are more prone to noise and have a MP ceiling. So the theory that the APS-C sensor is all we will ever need is nonsense. We will eventually all own (or be able to own) full frame 35mm sensors like the $4000 Kodak or the $8000 Canon.
Digital still has a long way to go. To get the quality and features of a $500-2000 film SLR you need to spend $1500-8000. For under $4000 you lose the wide angle lenses you own since the APS-C has a 1.5X crop factor. So for all that money all that gets you is what you could have already had for a fraction of the cost and the added headache of knowing your nice new camera is less an investment than a very expensive disposable till the next new camera comes along next year.
Now what was the question? The N65? I'd highly recommend either going with a N80 or N90 (used). Actually, i'd buy either used. They are both great cameras (the 90 has no built in flash but the RTF flash is fairly useless beyond 25 feet and with lenses wider than 28mm anyway). With the money you save you can add a Nikon SB-24 speedlight or a Sigma EF-500 Super.
I think the N80 goes for under $300 new so it's fairly cheap. the N90 is around $250 used and it's a bonafide pro camera.
As far as Nikon and Canon. Blah, Blah, Blah. The reason why pros use nikon and canon is because those companies cater to the pros. Minolta is really the only other pro 35mm company. It's that simple. For joe snapshooter with his N65 or rebel 2000, he goes through the same pain in the ass repair/warranty as everyone else does. Sure the high end Canon L lenses are mechanically awesome but an honest Canon user will tell you that they'd love to see a Nikon or Pentax coating on their glass (and just for the record, Nikon purchased part of Pentax patented coating process). And the consumer Canon glass is truly CRAP. Plastic lens mounts, cheap contruction. You'd swear you were holding a kids toy. That said the high end lenses of almost every brand are excellent. Canon doesn't have some magic elf sitting in a room designing lenses :twisted: . Neither does Nikon. And actually if going on the logic of the best lenses You'd be best off buying a Leica. FWIW, Tamron was founded by former Nikon engineers. Perhaps the magic elf works for Tamron now :wink: .
Whatever you choose, don't be influenced by what the pros use. Buy what feels good to you and suits you're needs. For me Pentax has worked well because I like small light cameras (which pentax sometimes takes to extremes). However, after I aquire 2 more lenses, I will be building a second system starting with a Nikon F4 (a big heavy tank of a camera, superior durability, with 100% view finder accuracy, true mirror lockup and full backwards compatibility with mostly all Nikon lenses).
If your looking at Pentax it's a good brand, especially for fast and light adventure photography. Despite the fact that most Nikon/Canon snobs don't realize it Pentax doesn't just produce a few consumer and prosumer SLRS. They are heavily vested in medium format where they do battle on a second front, an area which Canon and Nikon don't seem to be at all. Pentax is an excellent company, they just chose not to battle the 35mm Pro market since the Pentax LX (great camera BTW). i've owned 5 Pentax now plus my dads K1000. Never had one fail on me. Like Nikon and Canon the higher end Pentax lenses are top notch optically.
Well thats my .02 and my rant on Nikon/Canon snobbery (and I like Nikon but I still can't stand the snobery)
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Mar 28, 2005, 5:26 AM
Post #11 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
would anyone mind pm'ing me or responding to the same question with an upper limit of say... 1200$ ??
is the previous poster correct about having to drop k's to get better quality photos thank regular cameras?
i have watched a friend go through a photography class and i have to say i am very interested in getting into the hobby.
i am the type of person who doesn't mind spending money on good gear.
i wouldnt ever consider being a professional photographer, nonetheless. i look forward to responses.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
atarinaper
Mar 28, 2005, 7:44 AM
Post #12 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Posts: 86
|
In reply to: It's all about the lenses. The lens is what's important. If you want quality pictures for that price range, you must go SLR. I am currently a photo student, so I'm quite familiar to the topic between digital and SLR. The camera is just a box for exposing the film to the light. Yes, better camera bodies have special/more professional attributes like eye-control, 21-point focusing, durability, speed of the camera, and options. I would rather buy a Cannon Rebel than buy the digital Rebel at 6.2 MP, which is around $1,000. Since you want clarity and quality for a low price, you must go SLR. And I'm not going to say IMO because given what you want and what you will give, there is no other way.
For being a photo student I am really confused on your point. Why must this person go SLR for quality? There are plenty of cameras out there that are rangefinders, especially the Olympus Stylus Epic that produce amazing images. And the fact that you state you would buy a canon rebel over the digital version really has no valid point.
Personally, i would stick with an SLR, you can pick up some really good used cameras for the price you are looking for. Canon or Nikon you can still pick something with decent quality, i picked up an Elan II for 150 bucks with a lense, that i still use to this day.
I'd go with looking used or with a rangefinder.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 28, 2005, 8:21 AM
Post #13 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
There are so many issues to consider besides pure, technical image quality.
If you buy a SLR, will you put it in your pack and carry it on lead? or will the second have to carry it when you lead? Are you sure? If you don't bring the camera when you do epic climbs, you wont get the epic shots.
If you buy a film camera, how many pictures can you afford to take out on a day climbing? Since you only want to spend $200 on a camera, film and processing costs are a real issue.
And of course, how many images you can take can affect how many good shots you get. When I shot film, I'd take far fewer shots when I was climbing cause I couldn't afford to buy piles of film and development. Naturally, sometimes the climber subjects eyes were closed, head down, or something else was wrong.
With digital, you can take piles of images and afford to experiment, Your chances of getting a good shot are therefore greater. Also, you get feedback from the LCD so you know if you got the shot or not. You know that the guys head was down or that the rock got overexposed.
Another issue with film is that you need to scan it to work it in a computer imaging program. That makes the image second generation. Good scanners cost money, Bad scanners even cost something and your quality suffers too. Having a "digital darkroom" is a significant advantage.
I just ordered an Olympus C-7000 for use when I don't feel like taking a larger camera. I'll be selling my year old 6 megapixel Olympus C-60 for about $200 (might have a buyer already, might not) I've sold pictures from that camera and had them published several times as well. Nobody grips about the image quality.
Don't let geek-think cloud the big picture. Think realistically about what you want to do and what tool will get you there.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 29, 2005, 4:16 AM
Post #14 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: would anyone mind pm'ing me or responding to the same question with an upper limit of say... 1200$ ?? is the previous poster correct about having to drop k's to get better quality photos thank regular cameras? i have watched a friend go through a photography class and i have to say i am very interested in getting into the hobby. i am the type of person who doesn't mind spending money on good gear. i wouldnt ever consider being a professional photographer, nonetheless. i look forward to responses. thanks
for $1200 you can get the D70 which is a great camera. The Canon 20D has once again trumped it BUT I'm sure if you hang on a bit Nikon will match the 20D. Remember when the sub $1000 Digital Rebel came out and everyone was so amazed by canon. Nikon put the D-Rebel to shame with the D70. Those two cameras don't even compare. So Canon had to slash the price with massive rebates.
What I said in the previous post is verifiably true. However, I by no means advocate using film if you don't want to use film. Digital is excellent. Karls post summed it up pretty damn well. Someone above summed it up well. "A camera is just a box that captures light." The problem with digital is that unlike film cameras you can't replace the medium that the light is captured on. If you by a Nikon F6 you can constantly upgrade your film as long as better emulsions are made. So $2000 gives you an unlimited life span. With digital when the CCD is antiquated and the processor is starting to look slow compared to the newer models you are stuck with shelling out the money for a brand new "Digital box that captures light."
The reasons I refuse to make the switch is:
1) I process film for free or very low cost. (sometimes as little as .50 a roll). slide film runs me under $2.00 a roll.
2) i either frontier scan @ 8MP or scan at home at 6MP so I already have 3 full featured digital SLR's, they just take film and don't eat batteries :wink:
3) I refuse to buy into emerging technologies. Some people call this opportunity cost/lost. I call it a waste of money. Think about the guy that dropped $2000 on the Nikon 2.75MP D1. To me, you are better off investing in the best glass you can afford till digital sort of platueas. I realize, it will never be a set technology but it will reach a point where they can't do much to improve the cameras drastically enough to justify you dropping $1500 every 2 years on a new body.
4) Film is far from dead. Fuji is commited to producing new/improved emulisions, and even kodak has produced some new films in the last few years. Ilford got out of shaky waters and is now stable and will continue to produce excellent B&W films for years.
5) Electronics make me queasy. I love gadgets. I own a laptop, PDA, cell phone, MP3 player, GPS, ect. But I rarely take them outdoors (sans the GPS and cheapo MP3 that I take running). I don't like batteries or the delicacy of eletronics. A battery hogging D-cam is dead weight once the batts are dead. It's tough enough taking care of my photo gear on a backpacking/paddling/climbing/mountaineering trip without having to worry even more about even more delicate structures. If I drop a fully featured $400 SLR like a Nikon N90, F4, Pentax PZ-1, MZ-S, or other similar cameras I'm out $400. If I drop a relatively bottom of the line Nikon D70 i'm out $1000. I can eat $400 once but $1000 would be really tough to swallow.
5) Startup times are diminishing but batteries are still an issue. Solar chargers work but only if you have a base camp, sun, and time to charge. A full auto modern SLR can shoot 50+ rolls on 2 lithiums and a older manual body can shoot for a a few months on a few button cells.
6) I hate menus and tiny buttons. I don't even like these on film SLRs. I find a full manual camera like a Pentax LX or Super Program with a fixed MF wide angle lens work great. I zone focus hyperfocal (5.6 or f8) and leave the camera on at all times. I can get a shot in a split second.
7) The LCD is nice for instant review. But I really dont have time or inclination to review every picture I take. So for me, I use my digicam like a film camera. I shoot and put it away.
8) I'm waiting for a full frame CCD to hit the market. Again, not everyone neeeds this. The camera companies right now are trying to convince you that you don't. But the reason they are is because they cant produce full frame 24x36mm sensors for a reasonable cost and thus they cannot reach a mass market price point. Trust me, in 5 years Canon/Nikon/Pentax et al. will be telling you that you need a full 35mm sensor, and once again you'll be pulling out the Visa to shell out $2000 on yet another camera. But the advantages are lower noise, higher MP capability and true wide angle coverage. The only company that seems to be locked into the small sensor for the long haul is Olympus with the 4:3 system. It's an interesting concept but eventually Olympus is going to lose out when Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta are making 20+MP cameras and marketing them as better than the 4:3. For now the 4:3 is a good system for climbers and adventure photogs because it is small and light.
8a) lack of true wide angle coverage. but for some the 1.5x crop factor is a bonus.
9) long exposure noise. take a look at most landscape photogs current work. Most is still shot on film. That is not to say those professionals aren't using a mix of digital and film.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Mar 29, 2005, 4:46 AM
Post #15 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: 9) long exposure noise. take a look at most landscape photogs current work. Most is still shot on film. That is not to say those professionals aren't using a mix of digital and film.
Noise is still my biggest factor with shooting digital. I've had slightly worse issues with Canon than Nikon and Phase One so far in this department, but all have had the same issue with long exposures, high "ISO"s, and multi-popping (which won't come up for climbing). It is true that there is reciprocity faliure with film, but there I can compensate with film selection and in B&W with exposure and development.
For the cost of my Nikon F3 (slr) I would not be able to afford a digital slr. In my case that's a big issue. I won an award in college for which Nikon gave me a Coolpix (our department head tried to get them to up it to a D70, but no luck). I feel like I've had a limb amputated trying to use it. I have nothing against the camera, but you won't learn much about photography using a digital point and shoot, and it doesn't handle adverse conditions all that well.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Mar 29, 2005, 2:04 PM
Post #16 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
if you look at my half dome cables pic that was taken with a Nikon 5200 dig camera. compare features and find prices on dpreview.com or cnet.com
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 29, 2005, 9:13 PM
Post #17 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
There certainly are a lot of strong points still going for film. Many of these arguments aren't particularly suited to the actual guy who wants to spend $200 for a camera to take climbing but what the hey, the Digital vs Film argument is what we all dig into.
Still, one more factor to consider is that the future is certainly digital. The tech only gets better and the fact that you can transmit the files instantly, and that their are no film costs, will very seriously influence the future of pro photo. If you are serious and you shoot film, better have a digital too so you don't get left behind the learning curve. (If you are scanning your film and using a digital darkroom, that's good enough experience)
Otherwise, some guys are going to be left behind cause they waited too long while secretly fearing the learning curve of something new
peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Mar 29, 2005, 9:49 PM
Post #18 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
Excellent digital vs film discussion here.
(As I sit here looking at my Canon Powershot S60, great camera.)
Some thoughts:
Digital files will not last. There isn't a chance in hell that any media digital photos are stored on today will be around in 30 years, or 50 or maybe even 20. Think loss, obsolesence, media deterioration, computer viruses, new operating systems, etc.
Digital cameras are sold by giant consumer electronics companies that are stock market driven entities that are primarily concerned with growth: Getting you to shell out for a new version of what you bought a few years ago by orphaning what you own now.
Digital prints seem like they'll last, but the only guarantee we have is from ink manufactures. ( I hope they do!)
Many used 35mm cameras from good manufacturers are available that will give fantastic pictures. You will have to pay for developing. But nowadays most drug stores run the film and give you a CD with pic files up to 3MB that will post really well and can be emailed etc.
For climbing, a big plus for simple film cameras is the lack of batteries.
Even if you lose your light meter battery, with a good mechanical camera you can keep on shooting by guesstimating the exposure.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
roshampo
Mar 29, 2005, 10:20 PM
Post #19 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 65
|
for $1200 the world opens up very widely for photography. I have a Nikon D70 with the kit lens that I bought for a bit over $1000 a few months ago and love it. I've only printed up to 8x12 so far, but that was crystal clear. I wouldn't worry too much about the quality between the nikon 6mp and the new 8MP Cannon. Just feeling the cannon will make you feel like you're playing iwth a kid's camera. So, as far as digital is concerned I think the D70 is the best buy in the market you're looking for.
The big question is what kind of budget is $1200 dollars. That was my supposed budget, but within 4 months i've spent over a grand in addition to what i orignially intended. You'll soon find that you'll get glass envy, within a month you'll want a macro, a 20 mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4, and a zoom to 200mm or so(but the good VR's are well over a grand so that'll wait). You'll see how much versatile your camera would be with flash, so you'll drop another couple of hundred. Luckily i switched from an N-80, so i already had a few lenses.
So, if your entire limit is $1200 I'd recommend picking up a used N80 or N90 or a couple hundred and buying a variety of lenses. That'll give you more options than just a DSLR and a basic 17-80mm zoom. The quality of slide film is phantastic. People make far too big of a deal about the developing cost. Also, most magazines unfortunatly still require slide film.
any nice camera will work, but just remember the price of the extra lenses, flashes, memory cards, camera cases, a good tripod, etc. and easily double the price of a DSLR and can make the price of a film SLR seem insignificant. But don't let that discourage you, it'll soon become a drug, a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
roshampo
Mar 29, 2005, 10:26 PM
Post #20 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 65
|
oh yeah, don't listen to eastvillage, your digital images will not be obsolete. You will be able to keep upgrading them. If you want them to last, get them printed at a good lab instead of Walmart. Some respectable labs don't use injets, but use the same chemicals that they use for film. I use whcc.com and have had excellent results.
He also has a powershot, which is far off from a DSLR. That's why he has had battery problems. A DSLR's battery can work weeks without charging, especially if you don't flip through pics on the LCD for hours at the end of each night.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 29, 2005, 10:41 PM
Post #21 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
I also call BS on EastVillage. It's true that there are questions about how long hard drives, CDs, Dvds and other storage options last, but you can make periodic copies that are exact copys to stay ahead of time until a more permanent medium can be found. The same can't be said for film unless you scan it cause it's not eternal either and any reproduction loses generational quality.
There willl also be software to convert todays popular file formats to the future standards as well.
As for digital prints. I'm laughing. Sure lots of inkjet printers use ink that will fade but better inks are often used now that can last like a photograph. And you certainly don't have to use an inkjet printer. All my photos are printed digitally on Fuji Crystal Archive paper which will last as long as any traditional photograph. In fact, the vast, overwhelming majority of big time landscape photographer's prints hanging in places like Ansel Adams gallery and Galen Rowell's mountain light are digital prints made with scans of film slides or negatives. That bridge has already been crossed.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Mar 29, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #22 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
I love this. The idea that a digital file can be endlessly copied without loss or degredation is the real BS statement. We all have computers, how many corrupted files have you ended up with?
There's no such thing as perpetual motion or endless perfect copies of a digital file. All digital files will die way before a good print (photo or digital) or negative in a drawer. Even NASA suffers from this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
livingtheedge
Mar 29, 2005, 11:11 PM
Post #23 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 239
|
To say that digital photos will never be obsolete is a complete falsity. Computer programs are forever changing and will continue to improve and if you don’t keep vigilant steps to upgrade and continuously reformat them you might find your files useless. I have programs that i bought several years ago that can no longer be run. You also have to be constantly on top of how you store the information. A simple glitch/electrical storm/virus can wipe out your entire digital album if your not careful. Also think in the long term. Cds and Dvds are the way to store info today but a few years back it was the floppy disk (the big ass ones) then 3.5 inch floppy. My laptop doesn’t even have 3.5 drive. How long will it be till your Cds are usless. It is true that digital cameras are a great convenience but the ease might bite you in the ass.
On the other hand my Negatives will retain their quality and will sit safely on my self in their nice safebox (fire proof, water tight) and they will always be able to be available if I need them.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 30, 2005, 12:22 AM
Post #24 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
It's true that you have to stay on top of digital files. You have to make back-ups of your backups and convert formats when they go obsolete.
But on the plus side, it's possible to verify that you have good copies of your files, and it's easy if you care enough to store multiple copies in different locations. I'd like to see what the negatives in your fileproof box look like if the building burned around them. You don't need fire to melt film.
I just scanned a bunch of 35 mm SLR slides taken in 1986. Used a new 4000 dpi scanner. I doubt I could print many bigger than 8x10 and some were questionable at that size. Maybe more modern film doesn't fade but the real problem is that time swallows everything.
and worst of all, our human butts will be dead before our images.
Plus, let's assume that we're all printing our very best shots which would seem to put some archival issues on equal footing.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
roshampo
Mar 30, 2005, 12:27 AM
Post #25 of 28
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 65
|
oops, posted twice
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
