By photovision/Emile (391) 
on February 4, 2006 4:28:23 PM CST
So what are the announcements and what do they add up to?
What does this mean?
What to do?
What just happened in the photo world?
By: Emile Kfouri
Date: January 2006
Contact: emile@humanscape.com
Web: www.humanscape.com
Some very interesting and significant announcements have
happened in the past month or so. Individually, they are not that significant
but when added together they show a tectonic shift in the photo industry. They
are significant because they give us a window into the future of photography.
These announcements are similar to what happened to the railroads. In the 1800s
they were the best form of transportation. During the 1900s the world started
to shift from rail to cars and airplanes. I don’t know when the tipping
point was for the demise of the rail as the dominant form of transportation.
But I do know when it was for the photography industry. It just happened. Rail
is still around today and still plays a part in our lives. But it does not
dominate our world. In photography we have always said that film will be there
because it is so ubiquities and it has strengths that are not matched by
digital. Well if you believe that now I suggest you write it down on paper and
save it for a good laugh in a decade. It will be as significant a mistake as when
Western Union passed up investing in the
telephone because they were dominating the world of telegraphs.
So what are the announcements and what do they add up to?
1. Nikon
announced the D200
in December to replace the D100 which was an aging so-so digital camera. My theory is that the original D70 was
supposed to be the D200 but when Canon announced the Digital Rebel, Nikon
renamed the D200 as the D70 at a lower price point so it could stay in the
game. Now it has a great camera at a great price point. What it is missing is
an offering in the $3000 price point.
2. Apple
and Adobe both announce digital photography editing software (Aperture
and Lightroom) that work natively with RAW files without
conversion. This is clearly in anticipation of a mass market for people working
in RAW formats. They are looking into the future and seeing an exponential
growth in the number of photographers using digital RAW files. They also have
realized that old software and workflows can not support that.
3. Nikon
announced that it will stop manufacturing and selling nearly all film based
cameras. This is huge and says just as much about Nikon as it does about film.
The way I read it, Nikon is saying: “We can not stay competitive if we
spend virtually any resources on film. We need to commit a 100% to digital if
we are to survive.” It also says film has reached the tipping point of no
return. Do not resuscitate! Nikon has been slow in the DSLR
market and they need to catch up fast with offerings across a full DSLR price range.
4. Konica Minolta
sold its DSLR camera business to Sony. Remember
that Sony is a major manufacturer of the image capture chip that is used in many
digital cameras. They have also been selling digital point and shoot as well as
ZLRs for many years. Now they are a player in the DSLR. They have some of the best DSLR
technology on the market with the Minolta DSLRs and
they have the money to out market and outsell Nikon and Canon put together.
Unfortunately Sony is prone to self inflicted wounds so they need to execute
their strategy well. Will pros shoot with a Sony? Give them the quality that
they want and I think they will.
5. Carl Zeiss will be developing and selling lenses for Nikon F
mount film/digital cameras. Remember that Nikon like Zeiss
has built their reputation on amazing lenses. I think Canon makes lenses that are just as good but that puts me in the
minority. So good old Carl has figured out that they need to ride the coat
tails of someone who will be around for a while because most of the other
cameras that they make lenses for are going the way of the dinosaur. Now that
Sony took over Minolta they will probably not want the Zeiss
lenses on their ZLRs for much longer. So why not make
lenses for Canon? They are a bigger company, they do not have as good a
reputation for their lenses and they have a 2 year technology advantage over
Nikon in the DSLR market. Enquiring minds what to
know! (Is it planed for the future?)
6. And
last but not least is the fact that Canon has not made any announcements. No
replacement for the aging 20D so they can counter the Nikon D200. Usually Canon
camera announcements happen days after Nikon and the cameras usually leapfrog
Nikons offering. Also no announcement about Canon film cameras or change in
company strategy. Are they too busy
doing something else?
What does this mean?
In my opinion film like the railroads is dead. Sure it will
be around but it will have little impact on photography moving forward. When
the dust settles we may find Sony as the Nikon or Canon of the last century. (I
still think Sony SLRs with Zeiss
lenses would be an incredible combination.) Nikon could be doomed because it
will not able to innovate as fast as its major rivals but they still have time.
If Nikon provided a full size CCD DSLR
and/or vibration reduction built into the DSLR then
it has a chance. But unlike Minolta (oops Sony) who has it built into the
camera, Nikon will not do it because Canon and Nikon want to sell the
technology in the lens where they can make more money today.
What to do?
Take your film camera, shrink wrap it and put it in the
closet. It is going the way of the Big Boy train engine and you want to make
sure that there is at least one remaining example to show the world.
Then go out and get a Canon or a Minolta (oops Sony) DSLR. They will be the winners when all is settled. Nikon
still has a good chance but they need to innovate not simply improve. All the
other camera companies including Olympus, Pentax and Sigma are going to be in a lot of trouble. This DSLR business is very expensive to get into and stay in.
They don’t have the resources or the know-how to survive.
Emile Kfouri
References:
See my links page
Return to Articles Page
Return to Humanscape.com
Read 7,982 times
Reply
|
From dogothunder/Tim (6,886)
on February 12, 2006 10:48:02 AM CST
Then go out and get a Canon or a Minolta (oops Sony) DSLR. They will be the winners when all is settled.
Not recommending a Nikon? You're completely off your rocker and have lost all credibility (if you ever had any).
Reply
|
|
|
From buddhacan/David (1,463)
on February 13, 2006 5:51:36 PM CST
Spoken like a true Nikon zealot. You missed the part when the author spoke of techtonic shifts in the industry
Same thing is happening in the North American automobile industry. Those who do not adapt will fail. Nikon, for all its technical excellence, may fail. Zeiss and Leica had unsurpassed glass, and Leica made the best cameras in the world. It can, and may, happen to anyone who had their beginnings in the film world.
Reply
|
|
|
From cvargas/Cesar (2,757)
on February 17, 2006 9:16:12 AM CST
You are talking like you do not know anything about business. Businesses, Nikon is a business, have life cycles. Like Canon 10 years ago, Nikon is re-tooling to counter act the desperate marketing strategy of Canon. Just having a full frame chip does not make it an instant winner. D50, D70s, and D200 are too hot to keep them in stock.
Nikon losing! It will be something to behold. Maybe merged with another company but never dead. I know you like Canon, I even have one, but just because you like one brand over the other does not make it better 15 years from now. We might not even use cameras the way we know it now. Think in business terms not in feelings terms.
Reply
|
|
|
From photovision/Emile (391)
on February 19, 2006 10:32:08 AM CST
Thank you for providing your comments. I am happy to see that this article has caused us to think about where the camera business is going.
I own a Nikon and have found it to be a great camera. Nikon is in a time of great transition. You probably know as well as I do that when companies go through transition they become vulnerable. Nikon is known for great quality but they are not known for being the innovators of much new technology. Things are changing very fast and Nikon needs to be fast without sacrificing quality. My admiration for what Nikon is today does not blind me from its weaknesses. Many companies throughout history have lost during these times of transition. For example PanAm and TWA airlines and computer companies like Wang computers. In Nikons history their camera business has never had to make such a transition and so their ability to execute on the plan is questionable.
The other reality of the SLR business is that most people who buy DLSRs are finding that their old SLR lenses are not really the best thing to use for non-full frame DSLRs. The old lenses are heavier than digital specific lenses and their wide angles are no longer wide angles. So if one needs to buy new lenses as well as a new camera then they are no longer bound by the existing SLR that you own. In that case a buyer will look for the best package. The only way to really keep photographers investment in their existing lenses is to provide them with a full framed DSLR chip and vibration control. With those two technologies all the existing lenses that they own will be useable.
Reply
|
|
|
From dalemarsh/Dale (1,089)
on February 20, 2006 5:09:21 AM CST
There is a difference in owning a Nikon and using a Nikon. I carried a Nikon with me from high school shooting sports events to Vet Nam and still today in crime scene collection. I was told then that other cameras were as good as Nikon. Well today Nikon is about the only one thats still in the market with any real camera's. Canon is like you say a flash in the pan. Nikon will continue to grow. The D200 is just an example of the camera's Nikon can and will produce. I don't just own a Nikon I use a Nikon film and digital. They can't be beat.
Reply
|
|
|
From psalzman/Phillip (184)
on February 27, 2006 10:45:24 PM CST
I'm a mostly Nikon user (minus the RB67 & Canon AE-1P's I have laying around) but I do believe that Nikon has a huge challenge ahead of it. Sony, who provides the sensors, is now a direct competitor on the DSLR market. Maybe Kodak will be the producer of the D3 sensors, time shall tell...
Reply
|
|
|
From wajolu/Jose L (196)
on March 5, 2006 4:59:07 AM CST
People, you are lazy or blind. Film will live forever. A real photographer knows that film is the best medium for an excellent photograh. I'm not a pro or amateur, but I read and see the best work ever, and all of them are on film. Mr Ansel Adams will course you if he was alive. Digital? Thats for business and lazy photographers who let the camera do the work, not their mind and sense of real art. Photography started with film and will stay with film. REAL PHOTOGRAPHY ART.
Reply
|
|
|
From allarson/Al (11)
on March 8, 2006 1:40:06 PM CST
If you research Ansel Adams or know anything about him, you will find that he embraced the 35mm format(something other photographers thought was discusting and unprofessional) and Polaroid (another nontraditional innovation) when they were on the cutting edge and when they were unpopoular with traditionalists. I have thought alot about Ansel Adams and what he would think about digital and I think he would grab one in a minute and figure it out and use it and create digital photographs that rival anything we do right now. You see, for Adams, the camera was just the medium. You can give the best camera in the world to one with no vision and guess what...you get crap. However, I have seen some wonderful work from someone with vision from a disposable camera, and it is recognized by many as high art. It's not the camera, it is the photographer. Also, film has an expiration date, it is complex to manufacture, and we are in a supply demand world. If there is no mass appeal for film...inconvenient, messy, no control for the masses, no one will make film anymore, and voila! if you only shoot film you won't have a choice. It will be like pushing on a rope. I love film, but the masses love control and convenience, and that means film is probably dead.
Reply
|
|
|
From leflaneur/Don (1,525)
on March 11, 2006 5:09:36 AM CST
In fact, Ansel's last interests, before his death, were on the then-brand new digital technologies. Those who worked with him, and knew him, have almost uniformly reported that they believed he would have embraced digital technology and it is too bad that were not the case--he would have legitimized it with Luddites like you, and have pushed the art.
Reply
|
|
|
From marshall/Marshall (11,997) 
on April 9, 2006 6:50:20 PM CDT
Tripe. I think you're missing the point. I love film, but by no means is it the only means to a great photograph. Of course most of the best photographs in history are on film: we've been shooting digitally for the last 10 years and on film for the 100 before that! Give it time, man; give it time.
Reply
|
|
|
From davich/Yvan (108)
on April 26, 2006 3:51:44 PM CDT
To wajolu/Jose: Where did you buy your bong? I agree with you that film will continue to be used by purists and artists who want the advantage of a different medium, perhaps because it is physical, meaning all those intangibles that affect artistic results: the process, happy accidents in that process, darkroom printing, direct manipulation, the jewel-like experience of color transparencies, snobbish elitism (heh heh).
But those people will be the exception, a very tiny minority. Aside from the raw force of habit of those photographers who still have darkroom skills, what possible practical advantage will film have for most photographers once digital has matured? The flaw in your argument is that you are looking backwards in time. Time moves in the other direction. So, sure, film will live on as everything in photography does, in some limited way, but the other 99.9% of the photography world will be using digital.
Reply
|
|
|
From scottkernaghan/Scott (1,384)
on August 30, 2006 6:06:58 AM CDT
Oh dear... film v's Digial storm brewing here! Batton down the hatches! This arguement is going to be the most significant arguement of the photographic art-form for the next 10 years. It is also the most irrelevent and pointless. Photography was scorned by painters, every step of the way with development of film, was scored by practicers of the superceded system. The reality is, it doesn't make a lick of difference. Any arguement about which is better is truely pointless as when it comes down to it, its the person taking the photo that it matters to, and its the creative drive behind the camera that makes the most difference. Masterpieces have been made with $20 35mm Cameras, while I've seen some truely bad work taken with 35mm SLR's costing thousands. Get a grip, tomorrows canvus will be, whatever anyone wants it to be. The audience will appreciate whatever they find matches their taste and thats just the reality of the world. Do you think cave-men would have complained if someone made a digial cave wall to paint on?
Reply
|
|
|
From fprefect/Ford (117)
on March 11, 2006 10:36:24 PM CST
You make some good points but I don't agree with your statement about Sony. I knew they bought Konica-Minolta for the DSLR market but they have a few things to change IF they are to be true contenders. They need to dump their MemoryStick/Duo format. SD and CF cards are way too established and better than MS/Duo cards. Sony has kept running into problems with that format, hence 3 or 4 versions that DON"T all work interchangably. Thay have been shooting themselves in the foot with it. CF/SD are faster, cheaper, and have larger capacity. Why would you want to use that format? Also, Sony is so tight on licensing of their technology that peripherals are a pain to find. None to very few third party manufacturers of their peripherals. i.e.,Want a flash? Only the Sony flash will work, etc. That will keep them in the same kind of boat as Pentax.
Another thing for consumers to consider is that Sony's warrantees don't cover labor beyond 90 days. What does that tell you about Sony's confidence in the quality of their products? Ah, there's the key, quality. Yes, Nikon has not been the most innovative manufacturer. They never really were before. They built themselves on their quality, and that hasn't changed. That factor is what will carry them on into the future. There are LOTS of consumers out there who aren't nearly as concerned with innovation as they are about quality. Noone can really predict with any sort of accuracy the future of any high tech industry anymore. Too many things happening simultaneously.
You are absolutley correct about seeing the end of film. I am SO SICK of the film vs. digital argument. Convenience will ALWAYS outweigh performance. Look at records vs. CD's. Technically, record albums give much warmer tonal output. When properly cared for, a new LP on a high quality record player can beat the sound quality of a CD. But what a pain they are to deal with compared to CD's. When was the last time you bought a record. Well, if it was last week I don't doubt you will be using film for many more years. I just wish film users would realize that they are today's record buyers, and quit whining about the dominance of digital. It's here. Get over it.
No matter if you shoot digital or film, just keep shooting! :)
Reply
|
|
|
From edwardpiercy/Edward (1,341)
on March 13, 2006 5:32:40 PM CST
Interesting group of subjects for discussion. The only thing I really have to take exception to is your comment in passing that "film like the railroads is dead", not because of the film comment (let's not beat that old horse) but because of the railroad part. If you lived a block from a raairoad junction like I do, with the freight trains constantly rattling your windows and even unscrewing your lightbulbs, you wouldn' think that the railroads are dead. In fact, the rails still carry the majority of the shipping in the US. Without the railroads we'd have to spend 10x as much on road repair to keep up with the increased traffic of trucks. And air shipping isn't even close to what is carried on the railroads. Film might be dead, but our old and rather shakey railroad system will be with us for a good time to come. As for film, I just hope that at least Ilford stays in business for a while.
Reply
|
|
|
From krnjbifo/Zoran (489)
on March 16, 2006 6:28:30 AM CST
Emile, you really have a sense of humor, if somehow strange...
YOU take YOUR film camera, shrink it wrap and put it in the closet.
I'm going to use my good old (non-pro) Nikon, make 24 mpix scans from my Provia transparencies (uncomparable to anything high-end-pro-35mm-digital by now), and wait for a future Nikon Dxxxx with full 35mm format sensor at 25mpix, and at a price of about/under $1000... or for Fuji to stop making Provia's.
And I'm sure it will took me many more years in film hapyness.
Reply
|
|
|
From jgoeden/Justin (154)
on March 19, 2006 5:03:49 PM CST
Lol you are too funny. I noticed you only mentioned articles of pro-digital, or how Nikon is dropping it's film line. Wow how biased. Anyways you didn't mention Fuji's new Provia 400X. They just released in the last year or so the new Velvia 100. Kodak has released some new tungsten balanced film...you forgot to mention fuji's commitment to silver hallide photography. Wait I'll mention it. here is a quote straight from their site.
"Silver halide photography, which is fundamental to photography, has advantages over digital in such areas as power of expression, long term storage capability, reasonable prices, easy handling and a highly established and convenient photo development and print infrastructure.
We intend to continue our silver halide photography business and to further cultivate the culture of photography, and in so doing, continue to support our customers and retailers and all those who enjoy photography."
Lol also you must not live near a train station or near an amtrack or any railroad for that matter. also i read somewhere that it's physically not possible to make a full frame sensor over 16.7MP considering the electrons are like 4nm wide. i'll look for the article.
i just find it funny that you forgot to mention the pro-film stuff so even out the arguement. learn how to debate and know all aspects of the subject.
Reply
|
|
|
From mjpcm70/Michael (769)
on March 23, 2006 6:14:33 PM CST
I am so tiried of this so called debate. First, it shouldnt be called digital vs film, but digital vs silver hallide photography. Why do I say this. Presently digital photography has made great strides. It is extremely practical in journalism, given cost savings from development and speed to get things to print. Also quality of sensors have improved a lot. Finaly digital camerias are to point, that I actualy pay attention to them and use them as a medium. Though there is one major flaw in the digital world. Its the print. Honestly I have yet seen a digital print that is better than conventional fiber based silver hallide print. Some digital prints from distance look good, but when you get only 2 to 3 feet away, you can easly see the difference. Also prints lack dynamic effect that prints have. The other problem is life span of digital prints. There are some that have metalic pigments in the inks and said to last more than 100 years, but this is based on labitory results, and real world conditions dont always reflect same thing. Any case for me its the prints that are major problem. Now I expect digital printing to improve in the future, but for now for me its not good enough for achival.
You also had made comments about Ansel Adams embrassing digital medium. I havent read anything about that, but same time I believe your statement. Though I think you fail to realize probably reason why he embrassed it. Any artist will take advantage of resources that are aviable and often will explorer different mediums. Also often artist will often incorperate some of the latest technological trends into their art. This doesnt mean that an artist will give up old ways. It simply means more mediums and resources available to express your ideas. When an artist abandons an older method, it in itself limits the artists ability to express himself.
Last, when there is no batteries, no power, I can still with my old fashion manual cameria take pictures. If film is no longer produced, I can still make my own film. Remember all it is, is chemistry. I can always make a van dyke print, or a platinum print. Something that digital has yet to duplicate.
Mike
PS. As far as me, I embrasse the old and the new. It shouldnt be war. I done digital imagery and conventional. I have combined CGI with van dyke printing. I think digital is exciting and can be a great tool for expression, but any artist shouldnt limit him or herself.
Reply
|
|
|
From matthughes/Matt (1,494)
on April 4, 2006 5:53:12 PM CDT
You Said; "Canon has not made any announcements. No replacement for the aging 20D so they can counter the Nikon D200"
I could be wrong on this but isn't the 30D & 5D the next step for Canon? Like I said I may be wrong because I am not really up on the technology part of DSLR's but I know these 2 cameras came out recently.
Reply
|
|
|
From marshall/Marshall (11,997)
on April 9, 2006 6:50:42 PM CDT
This article is now quite out of date and should be dropped or archived.
Reply
|
|
|
From davich/Yvan (108)
on April 26, 2006 4:19:21 PM CDT
Disagree. Most of the inaccuracies have been covered in the replies. It's a stimulating article and as relevant as anything else here.
Reply
|
|
|
From albertdebruijn/Albert (3,637)
on May 8, 2006 6:13:51 PM CDT
Round about the date of this last post, Mamiya announced it is transferring its camera division to the Cosmo Digital Imaging Company. IMHO another significant milestone in the film vs Digital momentum. Cosmo, of course, will be focussing on Digital technologies.
Read the press release here
Having pointed this out, I have a slightly different perspective on the this debate. I prefer to use the betacam/VHS analogy rather the the aforementioned CD/vinyl one. For years and years VHS was the format for everyone while Betacam was used by film studios and the like. I believe this is how the digital vs film will unfold. Film will be used by less and less people and will eventually become the tool for a small number of spcialists, while digital will be the mainstream technology for consumer and professionals alike. Along with this will be a pricing change where film gear will become more and more expensive, simply because less and less companies will manufacture it for a smaller and smaller group of users.
Reply
|
|
|
From yardbird/John (210)
on July 23, 2006 4:41:22 AM CDT
Hi.
I guess that we could go round and round in this debate, but for me anyway, I like to look at both film and digital and look at the strength of both of them, and see if I can use them to my advantage depending on what I am shooting.
1. I am mostly a film shooter, owning a few 35mm Pentax cameras, a Bronica ETR, and an old Mamiya press 23 camera. As for image quality, like one person has said, a 35mm print made on 100 speed film has 23-24megs of information on it.
I think that the best digital ones so far are about 16megs or so, and have you seen the prices on one of those? Digital is gaining fast, but it is still a long way from matching that at a reasonable price, much less matching the amount of information from a print or slide from my 6.45 Bronica or my 6x7 mamiya. On the other hand, I have seen many outstanding large prints made from digital, even from early digital cameras with the more modern imaging software. And if you look at good examples of both kinds of media printed at the sizes most people use, 4x6, 5x7, 6x8 or so, it is hard to tell much difference between them, if at all. I have shot a friend's wedding on film and they had a pro shooting digital. when they got the film back we compared shots. On my film shots, I had a little more shadow detail than he did. His prints looked great, but they seemed to have what I can only describe as a slight flatness to them.
But that may have been the paper he had printed on for all I know, mine were glossy photos and his were flat matt. So while mine had a little more pop to them, he was able to correct some things that I could not, like taking the green hue from the flourescent lamps in the background, I had frogotten a filter for it. So in the end there, no one had advantage, just different problems.
2. I have had an olympus camedia c-5060 5.1meg camera to play with for a time, and I like it. It has many of the things my pentax Z-1 film camera has. It is neat to put in a high volume card into it and see that taking pictures in the high quality mode you can shoot a little over 200 shots on it.( it will also shoot in super high quality, Tiff, and Raw.) I sure wish I hade that kind of capacity on my Pentax! The downside to that camera is that while it has many of the same features it has some shortcommings, like aperture selection of only f3 to f8. I know that on a modern DSLR that should be a bit better, but I believe that the selection is still limited when compared to a film camera, and the digital cost much more. But on that camera's side you can go into a mode that can turn the photo from a color shot to a sephia shot, to a black and white shot. Neat! Then one other thing I like to do with my film cameras is to take time laps shots, like lightning, fireworks, and startrails at night. I have done some of he first two with digital and have had some good shots, but the fact is that you just can't lock the shutter open for too long with a digital camera like you can with film. You can do it to a degree, but for things like star trails you have to have the shutter open for as long as a few hours, and that just can't be done on digital, or a film camera that depends on a battery to keep the shutter open, to be fair.
So you see, both film and digital have things to offer, it is just a matter of what you are looking for. Will I make the leap to purly digital? Perhaps one day, when the prices come down and the features come up, and that day may come sooner than anyone thinks. But the important thing here is that as a photographer, you should look to your cameras, or the media that they use, as tools, not toys. And just as you might use different hammers to do different jobs, you may run into situations when you may need a different camera to do a different kind of photography. So digital users should not be snobbish, and film users should not look at digital as a threat, depending on the kind of photography that you do there will still be uses for film for some time to come. Perhaps not forever, but for a long time. At any rate, it is a great time to be a photographer with all the choices that we have to do the most important part of our trade or hobby: to capture the images that we and others will love and enjoy. Just my two Cents! :)
Reply
|
|
|
From sisco1/Simon (236)
on September 7, 2006 4:07:47 PM CDT
All I can say is that I have yet to own a Digital camera - I still shoot 35mm, Medium Format and 4x5 LF with a Crown Graphic. I have no intention of not shooting transparency film and working with neg film in the darkroom process for fine art etc. I have no fears about film dissapearing, there will always be a demand for it among the professionals and fine art crowd; and it will remain available. Digital is a medium that works well for the mass market since thoughtless convenience is always at the forefront of the consumer mentality/requirement.
It will also be used by various professionals in the press or sports world and ofcourse within commercial and advertising and art scene also. There seems to be some kind of winner take all mentality with many of the Dig vs Film debates that people become polarized by. I don't see it that way at all, rather I believe it's a question of both continuing to co-exist not an either/or paradigm. Personally I'll continue to buy and support film and those manufacturing it, I could care less what's going on with Digital and what companies are doing in their personal marketing strategies - someone will always make film available.
A hilarious blunder in marketing for Digital ( but punters go for it ) from my perspective, is that digital is often sold on the basis of making life simpler, dispensing with film development. Ironically I still see people queueing up in shopping centres, at these machines working out how to get prints from their digital cameras ... and waiting, and waiting, and waiting! There is an illusion that the workflow with digital is more streamlined than the film workflow. The truth is it's just different, but hardly more simplistic. There are benefits to the man on the street to digital but there is also an extended workflow/expense that goes with it when you add software and time spent on the computer, buying new gear, upgrading, obselescence etc. I have no such problems with my Crown Graphic.
Reply
|
|
|
From jonperry/Jonathan (0)
on September 21, 2006 7:06:52 AM CDT
- From marshall/Marshall on April 9, 2006 6:50:42 PM EDT
- "This article is now quite out of date and should be dropped or archived."
I think this says it all. The article was posted in Jan 2006 and it's considered out of date by April 2006!
Digital is still an emerging technology.
My 'state of the art' Nikon D70 with its 6MP image capture, purchased early last year is now 'old technology'. Even if I replaced it with a Nikon D200 with 10MP image capture, it still wouldn't match the image quality produced from some of the SLR's I still own from the 80's/90's.
I wonder if I will still be using my 6MP Nikon D70 in 10 years time?
I doubt it very much. Even now, some stock image libraries are refusing to take anything less than 10MP. The D70 will end up being discarded like so many other out of date convenience electronics.
This year on year increase in digital image resolution is ridiculous. We are currently being used as the camera manufacturers R&D departments, and we are all paying for the privilage of doing it!
What's the generally excepted digital resolution equivalent of 35mm film?
Isn't it about 14MP?
Somebody wake me up when the camera manufacturers release a full frame sensor SLR with specifications equivalent to 35mm film, that costs less than a months wages.
Reply
|
|
|
From murmur/Murray (907)
on September 10, 2006 2:06:41 AM CDT
What an amusing and embarrassing article.
Reply
|
|
|
From thomasb/Thomas (162)
on September 17, 2006 2:33:18 PM CDT
The thing that amused me the most is the line 'bringing photography forward'. In that respect, does it really matter whether you shoot a Nikon/Canon/Sony 'fill in the blank' digital, a Speed Graphic, or even a Holga? Or are you talking about how the photography industry is going to bring forward the issue of making more money?
To bring photography forward takes a lot more than a fancy, expensive tool. The article is so incredibly short sighted, and narrow minded that it's laughable. I can't believe a good amount of research went into writing crap like that.
To bring photography forward includes being unique, having vision, character, and balls to photograph and show what you stand for. It has nothing to do with the camera in your hands.
- Thom
Reply
|
Return to articles
|
