|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Mar 31, 2003, 2:53 AM
Post #1 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
I've read just about everything I can get my hands on about digital photography, and done a fair ammount of shooting with earlier model digital cameras.
I just cant begin to enjoy shooting pictures with them.
I learned how to take pictures with a 70's manual Pentax camera. Hell, today, I've got a pretty deep investment into the Cannon EOS system line, and I prefer shooting with the old "tough as nails" Pentax and my 50mm prime lens.
There's just something about the KaChunk when I push the shutter that I dont get with Digital which sounds more like "Vwirr...tick. tick. tick. click. click. beep. BEEP. ba-BEEP".
I like being in control. And I'll miss my buddies at he local camera shop criticising my slides, and prints with me when I come to pick them up.
Anyone else feel the same way? Or am I just hanging on to a dying medium. I'm too young to be old fasioned, but give me a pocket full of film over a bookbag full of batteries any day.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
gbjr78
Mar 31, 2003, 3:17 AM
Post #2 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2002
Posts: 11
|
I was in the same boat until the newer cameras came out with more settings. My first Digi cam was a point and click camera had no feel what-so-ever. AGP, focal points, and the whole having to print out my pictures were all big hindrances for me. Then my new camera came along and now I can do anything my little heat desires. Oh and new printer technology allows me to print out standard shots. Oh and I started off with a Nikon FE.
Regards
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
cyberclimber
Mar 31, 2003, 5:59 PM
Post #3 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 243
|
I have to agree with Gary, the early digital cameras left me pretty flat, the Nikon D1 showed some possibilities but accurate colors (especially skin tones) left something to be desired. Now I use a Nikon D1x alot, especially for sports and the quality is comparable to film. It looks and feels and handles like a 35mm SLR and a couple 512mg compact flash cards don't take up near the space the comparable 15 rolls of film would. Digital still doesn't hold detail in the highlights well and long term archivability is a definate problem, but digital has come a long way just in the past couple of years, maybe you should check it out again.
J.C.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 31, 2003, 6:19 PM
Post #4 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
One problem with the digitals is.... err... any useful one WILL cost a lot. You can get a dirt cheap second hand SLR camera and a decent lens and you are good to go. Cheap plastic case cameras are maybe not durable but still pretty decent.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 31, 2003, 6:22 PM
Post #5 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
on the other hand I saw people shooting amazing pictures with toy cameras.... I guess digital or slr or cheap or expensive, it all boils down to the person shooting...
|
|
|
|
|
snowman
Apr 21, 2003, 2:35 PM
Post #6 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 3
|
I'm with you teen_dawg, I love the sound and feel of my old Nikon FE and even the newer 80. It just doesn't feel right to me any other way.
I wouldn't worry about hanging on to a dying medium though as I have yet to meet a pro or even read of one (outside of advertisments) that has gone digital.
Sure the day will come but not as soon as some think and it'll be even longer before it's as affordable as film.
|
|
|
|
|
doughboy
Apr 22, 2003, 12:16 PM
Post #7 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 17
|
I'm with all of you ... personally I hate where digital photos have obviously been recoloured or stitched ... just a bugbear of mine
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Apr 24, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #8 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
While I use digital SLR at times for assignments but I am true to my film camera for personal use because of logistics. A digi needs to be recharged and downloaded on a regular basis. This is not good on road trips, or El Cap. Plus since climbing photography is so wide-angle dependent, the 1.5 conversion factor of DSLRs does not help. Film it is.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Apr 24, 2003, 5:08 AM
Post #9 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
While I use digital SLR at times for assignments but I am true to my film camera for personal use because of logistics. A digi needs to be recharged and downloaded on a regular basis. This is not good on road trips, or El Cap. Plus since climbing photography is so wide-angle dependent, the 1.5 conversion factor of DSLRs does not help. Film it is.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 24, 2003, 5:14 AM
Post #10 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
Film is definately a dying medium. In five years it'll be a lot more expensive to shoot. In ten years, only "old school" photographers will be shooting it. I fifteen, i doubt it'll be around any more.
|
|
|
|
|
sheldonjr
Apr 24, 2003, 5:22 AM
Post #11 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 191
|
I agree totally with you. I just love the feel of my old Pentax. (It's an ME Super.) Manually focusing, metering, et cetera. Then squeezing the trigger and hearing that great "cha-click." Ooo... *Drools.* But for me it's not so much about the destination, I'm in it for the journey. :D
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 24, 2003, 6:02 AM
Post #12 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I like the instant gratification of digital, but I don't like the cost. I simply cannot afford anything that offers the same image quality of even my little Nikon point n shoot film camera, nor the printer required to make the pics tangible, which of course I'd want to do too.
I am not a great photographer, and I can't photoshop my scanned prints worth a damn, but I love to take and share pictures. Prints and albums are all over my house. It's a happy mess :D
In fact, after a lifetime of fun little low-middle end point n shoots, I have just inherited an old-skool, fully-manual Pentax K1000. I am going to have a blast teaching myself all the tricks of the trade. So no digi for me 8)
|
|
|
|
|
psych
Apr 24, 2003, 6:42 AM
Post #13 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
I love the sound and feel of my Minolta XD-5, it's just so satisfying when you depress the shutter fully.
That being said, I also love my Nikon Coolpix 4500...but for different reasons. Zero satisfaction before I actually see the shot, since what I see on the LCD and what's actually going to show up can sometimes be very different things. But the proof is in the pudding, it takes some great pictures...
The amount of money I've saved on film since I got it, it's outrageous. Or rather, I wouldn't have the 2400 pictures that I do now (since October 2002).
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
podunkclimber
Apr 28, 2003, 2:29 PM
Post #14 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2003
Posts: 56
|
For me the instant gratification part made me a digital fan, along with not having to develope, and messing around with film, but then again I'm a amature's amature. My best friend is a professional photographer, and loves both, and uses both extensively. He cuts cost and maximizez profits with his digital equipment, yet still loves the medium of film. We get some great shots either way, though we usually bring digital on climbing trips, it cuts weight over all because we don't have to worry about film.
|
|
|
|
|
womble
May 3, 2003, 1:29 AM
Post #15 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
The current crop of DLSRs feel exactly the same as the film based bodies, it should only be point and shoots that feel like the light, gimmickey... point and shoots (I've used the D30 and the D10 so far but am still EOS 5 based).
The upsides of 1 gig microdrives storing over 600 large JPEG files and not having to muck about with tiny slides will see me convert to digital when full size sensors become affordable.
|
|
|
|
|
wantaberockclimber
May 9, 2003, 9:16 PM
Post #16 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 9
|
I still do prefer my Nikon N90s over my Cool Pix 800. But I can see in ten years or so digital cameras will work just as well as a SLR and will be just as much money as your normal SLR camrea. I hope anyway.
The things I don't like most about digital camera's. They focus too slow, eat batters like there is no tomorrow, in .tif mode you can only put 6 or so pics on a disk. And I can't tell when I have taken a picture unless it is very quite.
I really do like digital cameras, but they just have a long way to go.
Things I like most about digital camera's; you don't have to worry about wasting film, you don't have to scan in 100s of pictures after a trip, they are easier to manipulate (they have more information to start with), and you can look at then right away.
I'm sure a D1 can do every thing a normal SLR can do, but they cost too much for us normal focs.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
May 11, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #17 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I refuse to buy anything over $400 thats not an SLR. Digital or not.
For the price of a low end digital SLR you can get a high end trad SLR.
I'm waiting a few years, electronics allways come down in price with time. Look at GPS's for example.
|
|
|
|
|
mtman
May 11, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #18 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 229
|
i prefer a SLR. i have my dads old early 70's olympus OM1 and i love it. digital cameras, if you want a really nice one that acts like a SLR is just too expensive.
also what i like to do is scan your slides in to the computer and mess around with it in photo shop, so you can still get the advantage of having the image digitally.
i also think color slides you get better color than with a digital image
|
|
|
|
|
tim
May 11, 2003, 6:32 PM
Post #19 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Agreed WRT color rendition (and metering, for all but the highest high-end DSLRs) but you have to balance that against the convenience of immediate output. I like Velvia but sometimes it's more important to knock out a hundred shots and edit them on the fly, than to have absolutely perfect color rendition. Besides, I have a copy of Photoshop
:-)
I shoot both, and I shoot SLRs in both formats. It negates 99% of the drawbacks of digital for me, and furthermore, I can shoot at ISO 3200 and 6400 with the D100 and still get serviceable images. That is basically impossible with a film camera, so I'm finding unexpected advantages to the digital rig, despite its 1.5x field-of-view crop and slower focussing (D100 relative to my F100). I'll be keeping both bodies for the foreseeable future, and using whichever seems most appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
May 11, 2003, 10:31 PM
Post #20 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Digital cameras are incredible. I love them. I don't know all the statistics on how they compare to film, but just the fact that I can have pics on my computer in only a few seconds makes them infinitely better than film to me, even if the pics are blurry or colorless.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanpfleger
May 13, 2003, 3:08 PM
Post #21 of 21
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 243
|
I know of lots of pro's that have gone digital, but not very many who do everything digitally. The most prevalent, and what makes the most sense to me is to shoot film and then scan it and print digitally. Thats what I would like to do, but I won't do it until I can afford a high end scanner. Until then its film for me. As for what was said about in 5 years it will be more expensive, in ten years only old school guys will use it... I think you're way off. I don't see traditional film photography losing out to digital in all areas anywhere in the near future. Certainly for some aspects digital is already the better choice, but film also blows digital away in a lot of places too. Have you seen any pro sports photographers who shoot digitally? I haven't seen ANY. Maybe there are some out there, but I don't know of them. What about wedding photographers who offer large enlargements? Digital photography still doesn't come close to the quality of medium format, let alone large format. Anyway, I think digital is a great thing, and I plan on using it extensively. However I don't really buy the notion that it will replace film in the next "X" years, no matter how big a number that "X" is. Its not as if film is a stagnant technology. There have been advances within 35mm SLR's, within traditional film, etc just as there have been digital advances. Anybody still shoot Kodachrome 25?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
