Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 2/2/99 3:24:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, owner-leica- users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us writes: << Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: digital vs film ...help ... I followed your argument with interest and agree with a lot of your comments regarding the shortcomings of digital today compared to film for shooting images. Nevertheless, I find you widely exagerate the gap. The different sensor technologies have evolved extremely fast in the last 10 years, both in quality and in granularity. If it is not possible today to bring the imaging qualities of digital up to those of film in all areas of photography, we are already today at a stage where digital does compete and win for quite a few strategic imaging applications. >> Only applications that rely more on documenting or recording, not on applications such as say landscape photography which require image quality. I would suspect that modern under $1000 digitals probably would be doing good to get you a fair 5x7. There are better digitals, but they're pricy. Even when they arrive, unlike a conventional camera, they will be likely to have only 1 color palate (film) or at best a few. Also they, like all digital artifacts, will be obsolete within a year and probably never used again. A Leica A still can take good pictures, better than when it was new because of new films. Try that with a digital. << ... There are still quite a few issues that have to be solved, on the sensor side but also on the storage side and on the energy management side, not mentionning the price/quality ratio, before I will even think to make the jump. This is probably the case as well for most dedicated photo amateurs and for those professionals who are not submitted to too much pressure for instant delivery of images. But it will certainly not take 50 years to get there. >> It might not take 50 years to get to the point where a digital image has the resolution of modern films (which incidentally is a moving target), but achieving the universality, size, weight, and general handiness of 35mm just might. Unless there is a standard for "digital film" amounting to a standard storage device, I think digital will remain a limited phenomenon. It WILL I'm sure replace formats like 110, 126, 127,disc, and APS as the snapshot camera of choice assuming decent resolution and cheap memory/film cartridges, but that's not the same thing as saying that say nature photographers will be greatly affected. << I have made two multibrand reviews and tests within 12 months, in 1997 then in 1998, and found tremendous evolutions in quality, useability and prices for products actually being sold. I had concluded the 1st review by stating that digital is far from being an alternative to film. And concluded my 2nd review in a much more careful way... My crystal ball says sometime between 2005 and 2010, 90 pct of the market covered today by 35mm SLRs (and RFs) will be digital and will be using high quality glass and hardware as competitive arguments. ... >> I think we have to make a distinction between serious amateurs and professionals and joe public with his instant use camera to snap the kids. I'll bet instant use cameras and point and shoots take up the lions share right now. I don't think by 2010 there will be that different a mix than today, only a lot of the former uses for film in family snapshots will be digital ... maybe. << A provocative question as a conclusion (not aimed at you specifically, Jim): why are some of us so defensive on the input side of things at shooting stage and, at the same time, so relaxed on the usage of crummy scanners and consumer grade inkjet printers to produce the output from our precious Leica APO-ASPH-f1 whatevers ? >> Well it's simple really. Look what happened to all those film types that lost popularity. We who consider ourselves avid amateur photographers or professional photographers don't tend to use the same films and cameras that are used for family snaps, but we benefit from them substantially. Widespread availability of developing and printing, a huge variety of films, easy access to repair places, etc. If what you're saying is true (and I don't think it is), then film might be marginalized so much that film cameras would end up crippled. Imagine the result if Kodak and Fuji decided to give up producing film because there wasn't enough of a market to support it.