Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don I think that you will be amazed at the progress in ease of use-actually making the cameras more like film cameras in use-that has been made in the latest dSLR's. I had a nikon D70 and though I enjoyed using it, I was always aware that I was taking pictures with a computer. I could never remember where all the settings were in the menus. I got a Nikon D200 in mid-December (I have a lot of MF lenses that I wanted to use with digital) and I now doubt that I will ever seriously use my F4 for anything other than nostalgia or very specific projects.The D200 works amazingly well with MF lenses.Though the changes in the interface( including the viewfinder and LCD) were small, they make a huge difference in use. It now feels like a camera, and I don't find myself trying to tweak the setup as much. I just make the settings and take the pictures, just like film. Since it is digital, though, I can immediately review what I have done and reshoot as needed. I have heard that Canon is also making progress on the interface as well, though I have not used their newest products. I hope that Leica will make the digital M as user-friendly as the dSLRs are becoming. As an aside, I , like Frank, seem to have less and less spare time for enjoying photography, and digital actually seems to free up a little more time for fun in photography. Allen >Frank, >You and I hardly qualify as the target amatuer snapper. I have repeatedly >said that for the professional especially in journalism digital capture is >almost as good as it gets, the only thing better would be extremely large >area Wi-Fi that would let them transmit from anywhere in the world to their >editors desk simultaneously. > >As to I wish I had different film in the camera, you and I both have more >than one body so film isn't the issue. As an aside, for the non purist, you >can make B&W from colour negative stock very easily and have had that >ability for the past five to eight years. > >Waiting for the end of the roll has never really been an issue at least for >me. Thirty six clicks doesn't take any time and I can always rewind after >six; film is really pretty cheap. > >All the best, digital for me will be between the 5D Canon, the dM, and the >D200 Nikon. I will own one of those cameras by the end of the year or >whatever Canon replaces the 20D with. > >Don >don.dory@gmail.com > > >On 1/13/06, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> Well Don the economics make sense for professionals where the cash is >> related to the business but for me, an amateur with almost no free >> time, digital is the best thing to have happened in the 45 years I >> have been taking pictures. No more having to wait for the end of the >> roll before seeing the pictures. No more wishing I had a different >> film in the camera than I had. Opportunity to re-shoot if I had got >> it wrong. No time in the darkroom - the only bit I miss is dish >> developing B&W prints and I haven't done that in years having gone >> over to colour exclusively. >> That's enough for me. >> Frank >> >> On 13 Jan, 2006, at 14:06, Don Dory wrote: >> >> > Luis, >> > No, the herd mentality has set in. Most camera purchasers want a >> > digital >> > camera and would not even consider a film camera. Consider that >> > you can get >> > a new film Rebel or N55 or Minolta 50 with a modest zoom lens for >> > under $200 >> > virtually anywhere. Digital SLR's start around $699 with >> > equivalent lens. >> > In the P&S market a 35-150 zoom model can be had for less than $100 >> > if a top >> > tier brand is not required or just over $100 if you want a Nikon, >> > Olympus, >> > Canon. The digital equivalent would start at $399 and be much >> > larger or >> > much more expensive if about the same size. >> > >> > I still hold with my argument of several years ago. For the person >> > who >> > shoots the typical 100 to 250 pictures a year, an analoge camera >> > would be >> > less expensive. $100 for the camera. $20 for 12 rolls of film, and > > > $90 to >> > process it. Rounded off to $200 the first year and about $100 each >> > year the >> > camera remains operational which would probably be about five years. >> > Contrast that to $300 for a good 5MP camera, $20 for a reasonable >> > memory >> > card, and say an average of $1 for four prints. After the first >> > year it is >> > $200 for the analogue and $345 for the digital. After the second >> > year it is >> > $300 for the analogue and $365 for the digital. So, after three >> > years of >> > ownership assuming the analogue user shoots and has 240 prints and the >> > digital shooter shoots thousands but has 100 prints a year, the >> > digital >> > photographer has finally spent less money assuming that the camera >> > still >> > works. >> > >> > For the heavy shooter obviously the economics change pretty quickly. >> > >> > Don >> > don.dory@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > On 1/13/06, Luis Miguel Casta?eda <lmc@interlink.es> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 13/01/2006, at 0:01, mehrdad wrote: >> >> >> >>> i think the trend is to be done with film cameras >> >> >> >> sure, profit is higher if they can convince you to change everything >> >> every few years :) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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