Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Film vs. Digital [was Re: [Leica] Re:Leica D200]
From: r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard S. Taylor)
Date: Wed Nov 2 07:06:46 2005
References: <25229337.1130876375153.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20051101222836.85761.qmail@web34013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9b678e0511011817t5259faafh22546ead6ce19f6f@mail.gmail.com> <22c93b290511011820w4d858415y5e29adb71240c186@mail.gmail.com> <4dccee3d0511011821l57442bdel966db4cbdcc3af9f@mail.gmail.com> <22c93b290511011955y25e7248dh558a7623e3450d29@mail.gmail.com> <003301c5df71$fca3aa10$1ae76c18@ted>

Ted wrote:

>Well like I said, build the camera and lenses will come.... "if the 
>demand is large enough for prime lenses." And of course there's a 
>decent profit margin to be made. :-) If not? Well I suppose one has 
>a choice..... go back to film! :-)
>ted

There's another reason to go back to or stay with film.  Digital 
cameras today are where computers were ten years ago.  They're in a 
horsepower (MegaPixel, noise level)/Feature (e.g., LCD size) race. 
Buy one today and it's obsolete in a year or year and a half at most.

My Digilux 2 was obsolete within months of purchase.  Any of the 
newer DSLRs outshine it in speed of response and low noise 
performance.

I was seriously thinking of getting a Canon 20D, but then the 5D 
(full-frame, 2.5" LCD screen) was announced, so I waited.  I saw the 
same thing happen when the Pentax *istDS was replaced by the *istDL. 
The product cycle on both was about 15 months. 

So now I'm waiting until either the market settles down or a camera 
comes along that I know I'll be happy with for at least five years. 
I *really* don't want to put big bucks into a new camera only to see 
it superceded within a year.  Once burned, twice shy probably applies 
here.

In the meantime I'm shooting 2-3 rolls of Fuji 400 every week with my 
M7 (and sometimes with my Olympus Stylus Epic) and having the film 
scanned to 6MP JPG files when it's processed.   My processor moans 
every time I go in about how no one orders prints anymore (I sure 
don't) but he seems to be surviving on his commercial business and 
making some prints from digital cameras.

His scans are more than good enough for most of my purposes and I've 
bought a good film scanner for when they're not.  I also have the 
best archival backups in existence, my negatives.

None of the above applies to pros, of course.  Digital has to be the 
hands down winner when you have to produce results NOW! and it 
doesn't matter if you have to replace your cameras every couple of 
years.
-- 
Regards,

Dick
Boston MA

Replies: Reply from jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier) (Film vs. Digital [was Re: [Leica] Re:Leica D200])
Reply from nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman) (Film vs. Digital [was Re: [Leica] Re:Leica D200])
In reply to: Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (feli) ([Leica] OT: Nikon D200)
Message from zoeica1 at yahoo.com (Chris Williams) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from wooderson at gmail.com (Matt Powell) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from dcm at pobox.com (David C. Mason) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from wooderson at gmail.com (Matt Powell) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Re:Leica D200)