Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have a D70 as well, and still shoot alot of film. For me, the D70 excels for family gatherings, flash pics and futzing with my studio lighting experimentation. The studio strobe futzing is for learning, and then it's a cutover to B&W film. The only complaints I have for the D70 are the viewfinder and sensor dust (with some trepidation I'm starting to explore cleaning kits). I've been glued to a computer since I was 19 or so back in the 1980's. Hobbyist, software engineer, tech business guy, etc. I print digitally, so even my B&W film gets a scan and a digital working over. Alot of the fun of photography for me is the souping of negatives and the "digital darkroom" work after exposure (I don't have space for a real darkroom). Shooting is only part of the fun for me. I'm a hobbyist, so I *want* photography to eat up some of my time and provide an ongoing learning experience. But the article rightly points out that alot of folks don't understand or don't like computers, and that the majority of shooters aren't serious hobbyists. Duh. If you're going to take a CF card to Ritz Camera, why pay so much for the digital body in the first place? Chimping, I guess? In any case, it's a rare segment of the population. It's quite a bit of coin. Add in the expense of something like PhotoShop and a beefy computer to run it and the learning curve and we're talking about an even smaller segment of the picture taking population. Digital photography "done right" is pretty complicated and expensive. The article also points out that most folks simply don't/won't make enlargements beyond good old 4x6 prints. My family and friends at work typically use whatever digi camera they could get pretty cheap. No dpreview and mailing list research - just best buy and word of mouth and spec sheet comparisons (longer zoom seems popular). They just don't care. They certainly don't backup their images to CD's or USB hard drives religiously. They just don't care. Photography has a low profile in their attention span. Anyway, I can easily see digital topping out in a few years. Why shouldn't it? My father was a mainframe programmer his whole career, and he uses an older PC that his friend gave him. Blowing $2K for some beefy computer every few years isn't part of his mindset. Same for cameras. My brother has a MS in computer science, but uses an older Kodak P&S and isn't likely to upgrade until it breaks. People just don't care all that much and aren't interested in parting with lots of coin every few years just to take snapshots. What I wonder is the impact on the camera industry, which to me just means what kind of cameras and lenses we'll be able to buy moving forward. Digital has obviously had a big impact on the industry. I read that the P&S market is thin in profits. I read that Canon loses money on their high end full frame bodies. So where are the profits to come from to support R&D? It's one thing for a hobbyist to buy an F100 for $1K, and another to blow $5K or so for a D2X. And what will happen to the used market that has given hobbyists funds for new gear and provided other hobbyists with a source of less expensive gear? I hope the film part of the industry can "right size" and stabilize and live alongside whatever the digital part of the industry will become. Scott Bob Haight wrote: >I bought a digital camera and it really is convenient >to use (Nikon D70). I just take the memory card to my >developer and haven't read any of the instructions and >could not imagine trying to work through photoshop. >But, I think a lot of people do like the digital >process. What I miss are the negatives, especially for >family stuff, so I can make copies in the future. I >doubt people will ever give up the instant feedback of >digital to return to film. Bob > >--- "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>Absolutely, Bob - Digital is undoubtedly proving far >>too complicated for the >>average snapshooter, as it is for the time-pressed >>pro, and will undoubtedly >>pass from the scene in the same way that glass >>plates and the Instamatic >>did. Why I'm sure that within the next five years or >>so we will see film >>once again dominating photography, and we'll all be >>laughing up our sleeves >>- if we can only get those damn garters off - at the >>idiots who believed >>that digital with its cards, deleting files, battery >>woes, and CD transfers >>- (and some day you'll have to explain what those >>things are - has died on >>the scrap heap of photo history. :-0 >> >> >>On 5/27/05 2:40 PM, "Afterswift@aol.com" >><Afterswift@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Here's a different perspective on the future of >>> >>> >>digital cameras: >> >> >>>http://startribune.com/stories/535/5426001.html >>> >>>The trouble with digital cameras is not only their >>> >>> >>complexity but their >> >> >>>afterbirth -- cards, deleting files, battery woes, >>> >>> >>kiosk protocol, CD >> >> >>>transfer, >>>etc. Film retains its simplicity, but then so does >>> >>> >>the horse and sulky. The >> >> >>>difference, if we're still horsing around, is that >>> >>> >>film evolves and the horse >> >> >>>species doesn't. >>>However, horses win horse races. And film might >>> >>> >>win photographic races. I'm >> >> >>>not being negative here. >>> >>>Bob >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug >>> >>> >>for more information >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for >>more information >> >> >> > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail Mobile >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >