On 23 Dec 2000, at 17:03, sayeth Donald MacDonald <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CH Ling wrote:
>
> <snip>
> On the other hand a digital camera do give us the convenient, cost saving in
> film and in future equal or better than film in quality.
> <snip>
>
> I dunno about this, CH. I don't think it's the right word (because no-one
> likes to be conned, and they get defensive if you say they have been) but I
> think the general mass of the point-and-shoot public is being conned into
> going digital.
>
> Now 'wanting' digital and 'needing' it are completely different concepts,
> and differ from person to person. A lot of people on this list probably say
> they 'need' digital, but they need it like they need another OM1 body or
> (Zuiko!) 50mm lens. They're justifying it because they want it. And it is
> the job of the marketing departments to make us want digital cameras, and
> they are churning out 'good' reasons for us 'needing' to change. The
> prophecy is self-fulfilling.
True, companies always have to sell *new* stuff.
>
> Digital adverts push the 'get rid of the ones you don't want/need/like'
> mentality. Anyone who has ever gone through their back catalogue knows the
> pitfalls of that. Look at the size of the screen you are asked to make this
> decision on. They also push the fact that digital is fast replacing film. Is
> it? A plethora of manufacturers are tooling up production lines to produce
> modern cameras and retro-styled cameras. Suddenly there are a lot more
> medium format cameras using 35mm technology and handling. I'm sure they
> could abandon this investment overnight, but I don't detect any signs that
> they will.
But perhaps the 35mm technology is moving to medium format cameras
because digital will soon make 35mm obsolete. The camera companies
are seeing the writing on the thin screen.
>
> Many people 'need' digital. Those working against time deadlines remote from
> where the image will be used, for example. Those who need a quick shot to
> evaluate conditions etc (I can think of several scientific, technical and
> industrial applications). Mike Veglia and Ken Norton have postulated other
> valid schemes. In other words, professional users may 'need' digital.
Also fashion, news etc. where time is important.
>
> Better quality than film? I went to the Salgado exhibition in Luxembourg
> city a couple of years ago, and the Family of Man exhibition at Clervaux.
> Some of the prints were absolutely huge. You had to stand thirty feet away
> to view them. 35mm film has more than enough quality for most applications,
> the others are covered by 120 roll, large format, and good technique.
I saw it too. The big images were pretty grainy.
> A well exposed transparency has more than enough information on it
> for the vast, overwhelming majority of users. Any more is like a
> broken pencil. Pointless.
Not if you want to crop or manipulate it after. Snapshot users, not
much problem. Professionals, Amateurs: problem.
>
> One more thing about quality. I am blown away by the scans I get at 2700
> dpi. God knows what 4000 dpi is like, but I don't need it. Some of my scans
> are 50-odd megabytes. Yeah, sure, memory will soon be so cheap and small
> that you can get 300 of these on a card no bigger than a gnat's arse, but
> why?
Why have 36 exposure on 35mm? Why not use cut film in holders?
Convenience.
>
> I shove through family snaps and other print jobs in the local chemist. They
> offer a next day service, they do a roaring trade locally and the quality is
> fine. Most people seem to photograph family, holidays, nights out etc. This
> is not a particulary wealthy area, but a lot of people have cable or
> satellite TV, a lot have computers (I track this by the use made by my
> wife's primary school pupils of computers for homework).
>
> It seems to me that most of these people are served pretty well by film and
> fast developing. The one-hour service offered by another local chemists is
> not as well patronised (the quality is variable). Current p&s digitals
> affordable by families on modest income, say around 8-10 thousand UKP per
> annum, are poor value compared with a p&s film camera and a free film on
> processing. A lot of people around here probably never BUY film. And they
> will have six months' photographs on a roll. They want prints they can hand
> round. The marketing men say they can put the digital ones straight into
> their TV and see them there. Big deal.
So far, digital is pretty fiddly - some expertise is needed, prints
are expensive, wires need plugging, you need a computer & printer.
Quality is still near snapshot. You can't just drop off the memory
chip & pick up your prints an hour later. Yet.
As all this simplifies and gets cheaper, it will look more attractive
to the casual photographer, especially as bandwidth increases and you
can email pictures of the baby, or your trip, and not pay for any bad
images, or even much paper & ink.
>
> In short I don't think digital at the consumer level will be any more
> convenient or of any greater observable quality than film. An E-10 may be a
> fine instrument, well made, even 'desirable', but offers ME nothing over my
> iS3000. And useful as my iS3000 is, it offers me little over my OMs, and
> even then only in specific situations. I want a slide or a print. Lichfield
> is going completely digital, but that is no more reason for me to do it than
> for me to buy a Colnago C40 just because the Mapei team use them.
Yeah, your lock will weigh more than the bike. But what if the bike
cost $200 or 100 pounds? And the price decreased 20 0.000000e+00ach year? And
the Mapei team still used them?
Digital *will* be more convenient - you won't have wait 6 months for
a print. You'll know right away if you should take the picture over.
Send the pix to your relatives the same night. Print an 8.5x11 for
your cubicle wall. Distort your co-workers face and add a cartoon
bubble with some funny phrase.
Quality? No better, but the price will keep decreasing for the same
level.
Features? How about built-in infrared film. Pix in the dark.
Sequences: check your golf swing in .05 second increments. Who needs
tripods with image stabilisation? Nikon's 990 allows taking 10 shots
in a row, keeping the sharpest. Autostitch 360 degree panoramas.
So far, film is better along most parameters. But digital is moving
very fast, propelled by bunches of improvements. And *new* gadgets
are cool. Modern. Classy.
>
> As an interesting aside, 'family' photographs of kids with their siblings
> taken at the school and sent home on approval to parents have been scanned
> in, losing orders. Next year parents will have to come to the school to view
> them, and buy them.
The thin end of the wedge. And with a profit margin too small to
stamp PROOF in indelible ink across the face.
>
> Sorry for the length,
>
> Donald.
So, in short, digital is probably the photography of the future for
the new generation, unless film starts making more strides in
latitude, cost, or quality. And we old Zuikoholics will be slavering
for a digital body that will take all our lenses and allow
enlargements to wall size, so we can compare the 21/3.5 with the
Vivitar 17mm and laugh at the N*k*n and C*n*n owners.
In fact, I'm slavering already. I hope saliva doesn't affect lens
coatings...
Retro-ly, Tom
-----------------------------------(no spam please)
Tom Trottier <TomATrottier@xxxxxxxx> ICQ: 57647974
Abacurial Information Technology Consulting
400 Slater St. Suite 415, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7
__o +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 (877)247-8796
_ \ < Vote for your favourite Olympus camera at
(+)/'(+) http://www.freevote.com/booth/fav_camera
Mensa Ottawa: http://www.egroups.com/MensaOttawa
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|