View Full Version : It's all over but the shouting
First Kodak, now Nikon.
The SLR is on life support. Too bad.
NEW YORK - Nikon Corp., which helped popularize the 35 mm camera five decades ago, will stop making most of its film cameras to concentrate on digital models.
The Japanese company said it wants to focus on ``business categories that continue to demonstrate the strongest growth'' as sales of film cameras shrink.
Nikon will discontinue seven film-camera models, leaving in production only the top-line model, the F6, and a low-end manual-focus model, the FM10.
AP (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/business/13616738.htm)
Clarification: the film SLR is on life support. The digital SLR is alive and well if you've seen how much Nikon's advertising the D50.
No skinky
tis only a matter of thyme before the
silly optical method of pick-ture takin' on flim
goes the way of the buggy-whip...
yah CAN still get buggy-whips these daze can't ya?
Normally, if you start a post with "no" you would then follow it with something that disagrees with what I said.
I'm not the engrish major mah kid is
The digital SLR is alive and well if you've seen how much Nikon's advertising the D50..
besides what I'm sayin' is that the SLR is a goin' the way
of the 78 RPM record and the eight track!
Some will believe that the standard optical camera will always be with us
I'm not so sure
the posty merely sez they are gonna slack off makin' flim
but I'm a guessin' SLR's are headed the way of the Doo Doo bird
doncha think?
I can't necessarily speak for the amateur photog, but for professionals, being able to change lenses is key and only an SLR camera allows that.
I use a digital SLR at work every day. Those kind of cameras aren't going away; even if newspapers completely die out in favor of the internet SLR cameras will still be needed for zoom lenses and stuff.
Why change lenses when one only need to get into the menu & change settings? Film is going away, which means that when the HDD crashes, the shots are lost forever :(
Why change lenses when one only need to get into the menu & change settings? Film is going away, which means that when the HDD crashes, the shots are lost forever :(
Unless you print your digi-pics?? You can do that at Walmart and the like...just like with film...
What if you lose your prints? Nothing beats negatives.
I'm not averse to digital cameras. I just see more long term problems without film.
What if you lose your prints? Nothing beats negatives.
I'm not averse to digital cameras. I just see more long term problems without film.
Burn your images onto CD
They make these little handheld digital photo album thingies.
Why change lenses when one only need to get into the menu & change settings? Film is going away, which means that when the HDD crashes, the shots are lost forever :(
Interestingly, some silly folks do regular backups. :P
Unless you shoot & save in (I forget them damned format), you'll be forever limited by your choice (or in the case of jpg, limited to one backup before flaws begin appearing)
Are you thinking .png? I usually use .xcf (the default Gimp file) but I hear .sgi is pretty good too. I'm hardly an expert though.
Yeah right take a pic with flim
and then yer stuck having to digitize it?
Y Y Y?
fine I'll go look...
here it is, .raw
yeah so that's yer negative
and the 'developing' is kinda cheap
and reproduction (copies) isn't so tough
and sending it anywhere’s in the werld is
a click away and tell me again how regular cameras
and eight tracks are beeter?
Because, if ya ain't gots yer a computa handi & lectricity is out & the HDD crashed & da backups melteded on da dashboard...there's always a copy in the back of the FILM by FUJI or Remember KODACHROME package :p
Kodachrome is only good for slides and there has to be LOTS of light.
Kodachrome is a kick ass Paul Simon song.
Unless you shoot & save in (I forget them damned format), you'll be forever limited by your choice (or in the case of jpg, limited to one backup before flaws begin appearing)
You can only back up a JPG once or you get flaws? WTF?
just leave a copy of yer stuff on CD at someone elses house.
Why change lenses? Try shooting a game in a gym with no flash with the lens on a point-and-shoot and report back to me.
You can only back up a JPG once or you get flaws? WTF?
Yep...much like a tape, each progressive copy of a jpg lessens in quality
Yep...much like a tape, each progressive copy of a jpg lessens in quality
If you copy one CD to another...but if I made 10 CDs off of my HDD I'm good to go.
Now, I ask you, moving files around on ones computer doesn't count as "copies" does it?
an idea (http://www.cywarp.com/faq_jpg_degradation.htm) or just google. jpg, degradation
ekahs retsam
1/16/06, 12:05am
an idea (http://www.cywarp.com/faq_jpg_degradation.htm) or just google. jpg, degradation
Image degradation is a product of re-interpolation. The original sample datasets are redistributed with a certain amount of error. The error is proportional to the square of the distance between the data points used in the image. This form of sampling is normally expressed by a percentage in most programs. If the original file is not overwritten no image degradation should occur in afile.
BlurOfSerenity
1/16/06, 05:56am
FILM WILL NEVER DIE!!!!
but it is not flawless. ever have, or talk to someone who's had, a roll of film shredded by a developing machine?
i have. then again, i worked in a photolab for 2 years. it's not infallible, just as digital is not infallible.
ever been looking for that one negative to reprint, only to find that it's all scratched? a regular photolab printing machine's not going to fix that.
i can see why people think digital is so much better. especially if people know how to get proper prints. none of this "i used my inkjet!" bullshit. a hearty laugh to those who honestly believe those pictures are going to hold up to anything. i even doubt kodak picture maker technology.
but i say film will never die, because i think that even if you can't buy it in the store or get it developed at a lab, people -- especially the enthusiasts -- will keep winding and developing their own film. it may become "obsolete", but i dont think it will die out alltogether any time in my lifespan.
So when digi cams can meet or exceed film will ya believe the death
of the invention introduced by Thomas Edison in 1889?
Digital versus Film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography#Digital_versus_Film)
Therefore film can resolve about 4000-6500 pixels per inch. (http://www.theimage.com/photography/photopg1.htm)
Even awful media like LP vinyl records still have their followers...Hello people: LPs sucked then, they still suck today (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm)
Digital offers several advantages to the photographers while working.
1) The ability to see the image right away. This is my favorite reason for using digital capture. It gives me a level of comfort because I can see if my lighting, expression, exposure, etc. are correct right away rather than wait to see the film back from the lab in a few days.
2) The ability to change the ISO ( or the equivalent of film speed) on the fly. This allows the photographer to go in and out of a myriad of lighting situations without having to suddenly change film to match the light levels from place to place at a wedding.
3) A virtually unlimited number of photographs can be captured at an event. This can be the boon and the bane of the photographers’ existence, though, because if you shoot them, you've got to edit them. But it frees the photographer from thinking “I can only shoot 10, 12 or whatever number of rolls of film at this event in order to keep it within budget.”
4) The ability to make black and white and sepia toned photographs from the digital capture. When one shoots digitally (unless they are capturied in a black and white only mode on the Fuji S2) every photograph can become a black and white and/or sepia image. Parents may want an image in color, the couple may want to have it in black and white.
5) Digital workflow. Many photographers now offer what is often called a magazine style (or flush mounted) album. Images shot on film would have to be scanned in order to produce this type of album. While it is totally doable, it adds time and another step in the process. Digital capture elimnates the scanning and often the time spent dust spotting the scan made from negatives. (Though I know of a very talented photographer -- George Weir, who is a WEDDING PHOTOJOURNALIST ASSOCIATION member -- who prefers film and has his images scanned to disk to allow him to still post images online and then create images for his lab. He has created a digital workflow without using digital capture and is very pleased with the results).
6) Freedom to experiment. This is a corollary to reason one. I will often shoot images that I would not even try with film because I know I will be able to erase it if it doesn’t work and modify it because I’ll be seeing the results immediately.
I was on a foreign trip last year and stuck in the bus on a rainy day. I literally pointed the camera out the window and just made some exposures just for the fun of it. And it was fun! Some of those images were totally unexpected and I would not have “wasted” film on it. But because I had the immediate feedback I could see what was working, modify it as I shot and make some different images. link (http://www.wpja.org/articles/film/film_vs_digital/index.shtml)
The 11+ megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1Ds Mark II, and EOS 5D clearly outperform 35mm.
I can make finer prints with the 8.3 megapixel EOS 20D (razor sharp at 13x19 inches) than I ever could with 35mm (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html)
So you no longer contend that Digital SLR cameras are going away along with film SLRs?
Gee what's the difference between a digital SLR
and a film SLR?!?
More importantly,
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Winky has stock in some digital photo company?
Gee what's the difference between a digital SLR
and a film SLR?!?
About $700.
BlurOfSerenity
1/17/06, 03:00am
So when digi cams can meet or exceed film will ya believe the death
of the invention introduced by Thomas Edison in 1889?
no, i won't.
film photography might be on life support, but it can be kept alive.
even if it's quality is surpassed by digital, i will always love film and i know i'm not alone in that!
About $700.
so what does the $700.00 buy ya?
A CCD inside the camera and a preview screen on the back.
ekahs retsam
1/17/06, 11:07am
I think the real difference in the two cameras, as far as quality, is the noticeable difference in the amount of noise especially in low light conditions.
BlurOfSerenity
1/18/06, 08:04pm
that' what 800 speed film is for ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.