Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
lenses if the lens is very expensive?

I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

- Siddhartha

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage very
soon. ;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
> >
> > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
very
> soon. ;-)
>
>
May I be your garbage man?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
> >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
>

Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).


Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to even a
blip on the statistical radar.

Many pro photographers are using digital, but FEW of them are shooting
digital only.

Going digital only before the technology matures would be stupid for a Pro.
There are still many things that work well on film that either aren't as easy
with digital or simply dont work well (yet).

Film wont die until you cant get it at the camera store, or order it from
your supplier, and that time is a while off.

Personally, I dont shoot much film myself any more, but I dont consider it
dead, not by a long shot.

I wouldn't buy a "digital only" lens, unless there was something REALLY
SPECIAL and LUCRATIVE about the camera.

IOW not unless I was going to make some money with it (enough money to cover
the cost of the lens and then some). OTOH I would no longer buy a lens that
is for "film only".

I had considered the OLY E-volt (which uses a lens that ONLY fits digital
4/3) because it has the ultra-sonic cleaner, and I probably could make up the
cost of the camera and a good lens in 2 weekends shooting with it. Then I
tried the camera... NO THANKS... I dont care how clean the sensor stays, it
doesn't have the capabilities of other, less restrictive hardware.. Like the
new DRebel (or even the OLD DRebel for that matter).

Some of the film lenses I have cant be used on Digital cameras that I can
afford, and some CAN.

I havent yet bought a good DSLR, but that hasn't stopped me from giving the
lens issue a LONG HARD THINK...

I have some very nice fully manual lenses for Yashica cameras circa 1970..
and I no longer own a working Yashica or Contax body.. That hasn't caused me
to throw away the lenses.

Someone that I forgot to thank posted a URL where I could get adapter mounts
for those lenses, so I may use them digital yet!

I was given a suitcase of Canon lenses that probably represents 15 to 20
thousand dollars when they were new (I havent even gone through them yet).

If I sell those lenses, I'll sell them to someone who is shooting film, and
there are a lot of those people around.

Joe sixpack may well have gone "pocket digital" but the whole world hasn't
done it yet.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
Your ef-s wont work on full frame sensors :+(

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

How big prints are you talking about?

Film is DEAD, Agfa and Ilford are both in the equivalent of Chapter 11,
Kodak is dropping a lot of different films. Medium Format is dead, look at
Bronica. Mamiya and Hasselblad are building digital product. I work in a
large busy camera shop in Ottawa, I haven't shown or sold a 35mm SLR since
September 2004.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c84f01496674a409896e6@news.individual.NET...
> In article <gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> > In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> > Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
> >
> > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
> >
>
> Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).
>
>
> Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
> digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to
even a
> blip on the statistical radar.
>
Well our store hasn't sold a 35mm film SLR since September 2004, effectively
Ilford and Agfa are gone, Kodak discontinues various films at will. Hate to
say it but film is dead, about half our lab business is digital files.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series

....though not all of them are limited to small-sensor DLSRs.

This is a bloody fine lens:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

In a word, no. Part of the "digital" or "APS-C" only attraction is that
they are cheaper.

That being said, I *did* pop for the 10-22, which is around $800USD. It
was completely unique at the time, though, and I don't really regret it,
as the lens has turned out to be an unexpectedly good performer.

We're never really going to have a choice of full-frame on the very short
end, it looks like. The shortest full-frame zoom lens so far is Sigma's
Popeye, at 12mm. The difference between it and the APS-C 10MMs is
amazing.

Hopefully the newly-announced Sigma 10-20 will be in the inexspensive
range and of the same quality as the Canon offering. Allegedly, it *will*
work on bigger-sensor or film bodies, though with terrible vignetting.
Cheaper plus at least works on your other cameras means less pain in
deciding to buy.

> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

I'm not sure why you'd be worried about this. Canon is probably going to
get their brains beaten out trying to compete with Sigma and Tamron at
the low and medium end. I'm hoping Canon marketing will realize this and
we'll see the return of super-premiums such as f/1.0 primes and f/1.2
zooms in the near future.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

Please correct me if I am wrong but one of the advantages of using a
sub-35mm sensor, as I understand, was that the lenses would be smaller,
lighter and most importantly - faster in terms of aperture. The newer
P&S cameras often have fixed aperture or f2.8-3.5/4 throughout the zoom
range (3x - upto 12x). But the EF-S series doesn't seem to be any
faster than the EF series, for the same price.

- Siddhartha

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> But the EF mount lenses work on the larger sensored digital bodies,
the 1D
> mkII and 1Ds mkII, and the EF-S lenses don't, so film isn't the issue
here.

Right. My bad. I mixed up 35mm sensor/film vs sub-35mm with film vs
digital. That wasn't the intention.

- Siddhartha

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tell that to us who have a large number of Canon FD mount lens..... Lens do
come and go and I don't think that there will be full size sensors. I think
camera makers are thinking smaller, lighter, and cheaper and none of those
fit with "full frame" sensors. I think the sensors will stay about the same
size and just get better. There is no magic in full frame sensors except
that it get away from the "crop" with the smaller sensors and lens designed
to cover a 35mm film frame. When they have us weaned from 35mm film, the
lens will be redesigned to cover the smaller sensor and they will be
smaller, faster and better than what we have now.


--
John Passaneau W3JXP
State College Pa
jxp16@psu.edu
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.

"Andy Blanchard" <andyb@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:tlam11tac5qc6nhnam6236n5ov2cnuburs@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
> <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> >and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> >these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> >lenses if the lens is very expensive?
> >
> >I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> >in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> >the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> >current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> Apart from the fact that my EOS 10D doesn't support the EF-S mount and
> I'm limited to the small form factor lenses from Sigma and Tamron, no,
> I wouldn't buy a lens designed for a small format sensor. My view is
> that bodies come and go, but lenses are (hopefully) forever. When I
> bought my 10D it was done with the intention of it being replaced with
> either a 1D series body (or a 3D if Canon release one), which is
> almost certainly going to mean a 1.3x crop at the very least. It
> would have to be a *very* interesting small form factor lens to
> pursuade me to by a lens knowing I'd probably be unable to use it on
> my primary camera in a couple of years time.
>
> Even so, I can see the value in vendors having a range of smaller and
> cheaper lenses for those people who just want a cheap, compact DSLR
> for a little more control over their photography. For this class of
> consumer an APS-C sized sensor and lenses designed specifically for it
> make a lot of sense, so I expect the form factor to stick around for a
> while. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that as technology
> moves forward, sensor sizes will get bigger and we'll all end up using
> full frame sensors.
>
> On a related note, I might however buy a lens optimised for digital
> use such as Sigma's DG range, which are the full 35mm but with a
> coating better designed to cut down the image abberations specific to
> digital. Assuming that is, that Sigma can convince me that it's not
> just a marketing exercise when I visit their stand at the Focus on
> Imaging show in the UK next week, anyway...
>
> Andy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:

> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
>>dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

Artists are getting badly squeezed here, because they don't generally
have the volumes to really benefit financially from digital. For a
commercial studio, even the high-end medium format backs pay for
themselves in saved lab charges fairly quickly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>

I am not. Unless there was a moderately priced APS-C specific lens that I
just "had to have", I'm buying only 35MM lenses. It's only a matter of time
before full-frame sensor SLRs are available in the $1-$1.5K range. I'd be
surprised if it's more than 3 years.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For my 20D I've done both.

Getting the EF-S 18-85 IS on it and will buy a EF-S 10-22mm in the
summer. I'm also getting Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens
and EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus with the camera.

I'm looking at lenses I need now and at least two will move to other
sensors in the future.


*******************************************************

"Les livres font les époques et les nations,
commes les époques et les nations font les livres."

_Mélanges littéraires_
Jean-Jacques Ampère
(1800-1864)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


I would definitely consider a cropped frame specific lens because it
would be smaller, lighter, less expensive and better performance. I
dread the idea of a huge log sized lens and I'm having trouble
justifying the expense of additional lenses of sufficient quality. It
seems there are lots of cropped frame DSLRs out there and will continue
to be a market for re-selling those lenses.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Personally, I'd stick with EF lenses on the same premise as yourself - i.e.
being able to get the equivalent of the something like the EOS1Ds MkII in a
couple of years time (without having to get a second mortgage!).

Regards

DM

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:31:02 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
>digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to even a
>blip on the statistical radar.

I seriously doubt that.
I read recently that digital cameras outsold film cameras in the US
last year (2004). That's a fair-sized blip on anyone's radar.
Canon announced that the 350D's *starting* production will be the same
as the 300D's current run, which is about 50% higher than the starting
run. IOW, even low-end DSLRs are selling like the proverbial hotcakes.

Obviously, film isn't anywhere near dead. But it's fast losing its
crown, if it hasn't already.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>

> Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
very
> soon. ;-)

wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
film is film and digital is digital.
do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?

they are just different and have different stregnths and weaknesses.
personally, i use both film and digital and plan to do so as long as
possible.

in the end though, i believe that film photography and traditional
wet-darkroom printing is a craft that deserves to be kept alive.

i guess i'm just a dinosaur though.

-c.


>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news91n11h9ov2cj3bo3obhn4edsr6um5liph@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:30:12 GMT, Chris Brown
> <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Please! Let's make at least an attempt at comparing apples with
> apples.
> My Expedition will carry more passengers than someone else's Corvette;
> that doesn't mean the Corvette somehow is inferior. The two are simply
> not in the same class. Just because they both use roads and go from
> point A to point B doesn't make them comparable.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

thank you bill.
-c.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <NULSd.31212$911.29938@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
cfalisenospam@austin.rr.com says...
>
> "Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
> news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> > On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> > Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
> Only
> > dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
> >
> > While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
> very
> > soon. ;-)
>
> wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
> film is film and digital is digital.
> do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
> do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?
>
> they are just different and have different stregnths and weaknesses.
> personally, i use both film and digital and plan to do so as long as
> possible.
>
> in the end though, i believe that film photography and traditional
> wet-darkroom printing is a craft that deserves to be kept alive.
>
> i guess i'm just a dinosaur though.
>
> -c.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

You aren't the only one!!!

(just wanted you to know)


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You will see many dealers trying to send back unsold 35mm film SLR cameras
before they are discontinued. I certainly don't need any covered with dust
on my shelf. Film is dead, get over it!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:1ZidnVwzEpNoqYbfRVn-ug@rogers.com...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c84f01496674a409896e6@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> > cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> > > In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> > > Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
> Only
> > > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
> > >
> > > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done
using
> > > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
> > >
> >
> > Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).
> >
> >
> > Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
> > digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to
> even a
> > blip on the statistical radar.
> >
> Well our store hasn't sold a 35mm film SLR since September 2004,
effectively
> Ilford and Agfa are gone, Kodak discontinues various films at will. Hate
to
> say it but film is dead, about half our lab business is digital files.
>
>
>
For the record, what type of store do you work in?
Some choices that would be helpful: professional photographic supply,
full-service camera, mall camera (Ritz, Wolf, Kits, etc), electronic
products/appliances (Best Buy), department store (Macy, Marshall Field) or
some other category I may have missed. If you work in one of the first two
that I mentioned, that would be telling but I suspect you are probably in
the third or forth types of stores and we already knew that the low end had
gone completely digital.

George

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wouldn't say film is dead even in 35mm. I would say it's terminally
ill. I bought a Canon 10D in October and a 20D at Christmas. Since then
I've taken over 3000 images and sold both of my Canon 1N's. I'll never
shoot film again not because I didn't like film but because I have so
many more options with the DSLR's. I can also take tons of pictures
with no cost once I have the equipment. I took 1200 images alone in
Costa Rica and would hate to think what my processing bill would have
been with film just to look at what I took. With digital I only had
prints made from the keepers and 8x10's from the ones I really liked.
That plus the ability to change film speed (ISO) whenever I need too
(frame by frame) is just frosting on the cake. My images and prints are
every bit as good as with the 1N's and I have a lot more options.

Art

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike,

Thanks for one of the more thought provoking threads here.

You're so right as to how digital has changed the way we do stuff. The
things we can now salvage, enhance & create afresh would have been
unbelievable even a few years ago. But for all that, the hours now spent in
front of monitor & keyboard (whilst having their own creativity &
satisfaction) just don't have that special 'magic' that was there with the
old chemical darkroom. The brilliance of seeing your first black & white
print emerging under the safelight; having to mix up your own chemicals have
an olfactory & tactility that make one's memory of doing it so much more
3-dimensional & (therefore) vivid.

I can't ever think I'll look back on how I managed to combine 2 completely
differently exposed shots of an image (I'd only shot one) using Rob
Galbraith's wonderful DRI Pro to create an image I could never have managed
with the latitude of any print, or slide, film available - with anything
like the same fondness (nostalgia?) of memory.

But, the wonderful thing is, either way, it the images themselves that last
& stand out.

I must have spent countless hours of toil in the old chemical darkroom
producing images now I can't even remember. It's the outstanding shots -
where you finally realise, "I took that!" that you remember creating. So
maybe, years from now I'll feel nostalgic about creating the stuff in
Photoshop also.

Thing is, my lad whose now 15, is an absolute natural in Photoshop - spends
countless hours creating images than never existed in real life cannot
imagine why I can spend so long 'redoing' an image just to get it 'more like
I saw it when I shot it'...

Kids, eh?

Regards

DM

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote
in message news:EEQSd.8438$Pz7.3361@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
>> film is film and digital is digital.
>> do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
>> do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?
>
> I don't know about painters, but writers certainly did (and some probably
> still do). The big change wasn't so much from longhand as it was from
> typewriter to PC. All of a sudden you had carte blanche ability to easily
> edit, without having to re-type whole pages. Anybody who was a student
> during the transition can attest to the fact that writing term papers is a
> vastly different experience (for those who can type well) on a PC vs
> Typewriter. In my own case, I would write and re-write the first page
> several times, and the next 15-20 would go through on the first draft.
> When I got my first PC with a word processor (don't recall the exact name,
> but did it have "magic" somewhere in the title?), I found myself spending
> a lot more time going over things that I previously would have left as-is.
>
> The result? My typewritter-written stuff tended to have a better flow to
> it, but more errors and sometimes some pretty obtuse stuff (especially
> what was written past 2am). My PC-written material tended to be a bit more
> sterile. But that's just me.
>
> I'm sure parallels exist with digital... things you do differently because
> *you* are the darkroom, and there's a certain real-time aspect that
> doesn't exist with film. A shorter feedback loop, as it were. Plus the
> fact that, with digital, the marginal cost of taking more pictures
> (provided you don't print them) is measured primarily in time & workflow
> issues, not large numbers of dollars. Of course, time *is* money if you're
> not doing photography as a hobby but rather a profession, so I suspect the
> professionals are more picky about the shots they take.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Art,

I know we've exchanged posts in other threads here but you make some great
points here.

Personally, I felt the writing was on the wall for the likes of Kodak &
Ilford years ago and, for the life of me, couldn't understand their ostrich
mentality to what was looming on the horizon.

I would love to have 'gone digital' earlier but was never happy with what I
saw until the advent of the EOS-1D. Then I knew I wanted to switch - just
couldn't afford to ;o(

It was brilliant when my mate first bought his 10D & brought a few sample
images round for me to look at. Blown away would have been an
understatement! I knew I never wanted to shoot any more memories onto
chemical stock of any variety.

Have you ever gone back to negs (carefully stored in index files, kept in
dark & controlled environments) some 15-20 years later & realised how little
one can salvage from them (even with the latest scanners, ICE, et. al.)?

You cannot imagine my disbelief when my wife suggested I should trade in all
my gear & start afresh!!!

Knowing I'd got a large trip to the US & Canada looming I bit the bullet -
hell she said I could ;o) - and got the 10D last spring. Now I always stood
by the motto 'films cheap' (compared to making a second trip to re-shoot)
and have shot as many as 35 rolls of film on a 2 week. It was starting to
get VERY expensive - even just to get back the initial 6x4's.

On the 2 week trip to the States & Canada I shot 2,324 shots (equivalent to
~ 65 rolls of 36's). Hell, it would have cost me ~£900 getting back the
initial 6x4's & having them transferred to CD at Jessops - made the £880 I
paid B&H Photos for the 10D body GREAT value. It truly paid for itself! (OK
not if you count all the other stuff I got as well - I know - but I could
have kept my old lenses & the body would have been truly an essential
purchase).

For the travel stuff the 10D was perfect & captured some stunning shots.
However, once I got back to the UK I was less happy, as, being a sports
teacher and badminton coach, much of what I shoot is stuff in motion and the
10D's autofocus was just pants compared to the EOS-1's I'd had previously. I
shot some further 2,400 over the next 6 months and was utterly frustrated
with shot after shot where the 10D had just 'missed' the point of focus the
EOS-1 would have grabbed without blinking.

I was so relieved when they announced the 20D (and it seemed to address
these very issues) I ordered one and kept the 10D as backup. Since the 20D
has arrived the 10D has never seen the light of day (except to do
'comparison shoots'). In the 2 months since acquiring the 20D I've shot some
4,851 images and it's brilliant. It's just so much quicker. It'll capture
anything moving that my previous OES-1's would have. Now I know if I miss a
shot it's my fault - not the camera! It makes such a massive difference
having confidence that you'll get what you shoot. (To be fair to the 10D -
my mate with his original 10D is still more than happy. He shoots a lot of
macro & landscape stuff and doesn't, therefore, experience the same problems
I did with the action type stuff.)

However, not to drift off the point too much, totalled up that makes the
equivalent of 9,575 images over the last 10 months (= 266 films!).
That would have been some £3,724 down at Jessops! OK - there's no way I
would have shot, and paid for that with the old chemical film. The reality
is that, whilst there's more dross (particularly with the 10D) there's also
proportionally more gems.

Additionally, it's completely rekindled my interest in photography. I love
the immediacy of being able to come home & right-away see what I've got!
(How much would one's own photolab cost? As that's effectively what we now
have with this type of set-up).

Believe me - film might not 'be dead' but it's certainly in the nursing home
(and not looking too promising at that).

Regards

DM

"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1109113694.176731.120920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I wouldn't say film is dead even in 35mm. I would say it's terminally
> ill. I bought a Canon 10D in October and a 20D at Christmas. Since then
> I've taken over 3000 images and sold both of my Canon 1N's. I'll never
> shoot film again not because I didn't like film but because I have so
> many more options with the DSLR's. I can also take tons of pictures
> with no cost once I have the equipment. I took 1200 images alone in
> Costa Rica and would hate to think what my processing bill would have
> been with film just to look at what I took. With digital I only had
> prints made from the keepers and 8x10's from the ones I really liked.
> That plus the ability to change film speed (ISO) whenever I need too
> (frame by frame) is just frosting on the cake. My images and prints are
> every bit as good as with the 1N's and I have a lot more options.
>
> Art
>