Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why digital cameras are no good

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 10:00:43 PM

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

I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no
good.

The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting
better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what
was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to
a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As
an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of
money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many
photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that
time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras,
but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards,
this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to
think that the number of shots you can take is not so important.
Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in
time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras
can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film
camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course
the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras
like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has
shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could
keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there
was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now
at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can
from my film camera.

One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital
camera shines.

There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital
cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems
brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and
so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a
digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the
grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and
make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good
digital camera have gotten.

Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras
to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos
with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the
most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen
using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but
to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the
resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly.

The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit
cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will
manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in
5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.

Scott

More about : digital cameras good

Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:34:16 AM

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

I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. With a mass manufactured
product, no one model will usually suit everyone's tastes. There will
be people who nitpick about this feature vs that feature and wish that
it had x, y and z.

As technology improves, people's expectations grow higher as well. A
couple of years back, when 2-3 megapixels was the standard for CCDs,
people were wishing for 4, 5, 6 or even 8. Now consumer models are
hitting the 8 megapixel zone, people want 12 and beyond.

I think film cameras were also limited very much by physical factors -
mainly the film and the process of exposing frames. Because
manufacturers did not have control over the film, there weren't many
factors to play with - apart from shutter and aperture. Maybe they
could improve the AF and exposure control electronics, but that was
largely "intangible" to users.

With digital and the use of CCD / CMOS sensors, and digital processors
we're in a whole new ball game. There are so many more variables now
and much of the factors can be tweaked - i.e. how large CCDs are, how
many photosites/pixels go into the CCD, and everything else that goes
in to the processory and firmware such as speed of operation, buffer
memory, image processing algorithms etc.

Digital is progressing, but I think there is plenty of scope for
improvement.


Cheers,
Julian
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net!
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:25:08 PM

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

Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!



"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112835643.342219.183240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I feel qualified to speak to this because over the years I have had so
> many people who were anxious to tell me why digital cameras were no
> good.
>
> The part that amuses me is that as digital cameras have been getting
> better the reasons given as to why they are no good change, often what
> was considered as a large issue when the digital camera was inferior to
> a film camera is now dismissed when the digital camera is better. As
> an example, when I bought my first digital camera memory cost LOTS of
> money and those of us shooting digital where very limited in how many
> photos we could shoot before needing to download our photos. At that
> time this was pointed out to be a large problem with digital cameras,
> but now I can shoot something like 1000 shots with just a few CF cards,
> this would be like 28 rolls of film, but the film people now seem to
> think that the number of shots you can take is not so important.
> Digital cameras needed more light then film camera at one point in
> time, this was seen as a large problem, but now that digital cameras
> can take good photos using about 1/8 th the amount of light that a film
> camera needs this is discounted as not all that important. Of course
> the one I have heard the most about is shutter lag, now that cameras
> like the 20D are here shutter lag seems not to be an issue, my 20D has
> shorter shutter lag then my film SLR and even if the film SLR could
> keep up it would use a full roll of film in about 1 second. Or there
> was the problem how will you get prints from your digital camera, now
> at Costco I can get prints cheaper from my digital camera then I can
> from my film camera.
>
> One by one what were problems for digital camera are now where digital
> camera shines.
>
> There is getting to be less and less now to complain about digital
> cameras, and so now I am beginning to see some rather amusing problems
> brought up, The cameras don't look good or they don't use film and
> so are not really doing photography or there is no craft in using a
> digital camera. I have even heard people complain that they miss the
> grain that film has. The fact that people find it necessary to try and
> make these kind of things into issue is an indication of just how good
> digital camera have gotten.
>
> Now there are people who find it necessary to compare digital cameras
> to 4 x 5 view cameras, right so just how many people are taken photos
> with view cameras? I live in Hawaii, this has got to be one of the
> most photographed areas in the world, so how many people have I seen
> using a view camera, zero, zip, none. I am sure they are out there but
> to try to find fault with digital cameras because they don't have the
> resolution of a 4 x 5 is just plain silly.
>
> The one thing I am certain of is that as the years go by and digit
> cameras continue to improve there will always be a few people who will
> manage to find fault with them. Just what they will find fault with in
> 5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.
>
> Scott
>
Related resources
April 8, 2005 4:54:44 AM

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

hotchkisstrio wrote:
> Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:35:33 PM

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

stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
: hotchkisstrio wrote:
: > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!

: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".

I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
and true Digital. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
April 8, 2005 5:34:32 PM

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : hotchkisstrio wrote:
> : > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
>
> : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly
mastered =
> : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital
cameras??
>
> The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There
will
> always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital
medium,
> no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be
those
> that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
> medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with
whatever
> works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that
works,
> to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter
if the
> medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio
recording. I
> even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of
their
> old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".

As to the original comment that some "audiophiles" insist that CDs
sound bad, that was often true originally. Thanks to "audiophiles"
current CDs are far superior. Digital alone doesn't produce good sound
(or pictures!).

As for analog vs digital, I agree Randy. We are often creatures of
habit and with film having been around for so long, it is difficult for
many to give up. And whether film or digital, they are both only tools
for producing an appealing photograph.

Personally, though owning a digital camera, I still prefer film at this
point. But I also can recognize that the improvements in digital have
been tremendous. The day when I buy a dSLR are probably not too far
off.

> I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is
perfect
> for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we
will
> have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just
wait
> one or two generations and there will be some new form of
photographic
> medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old
tried
> and true Digital. :) 

Yup, technology marches on. My only wish is for the lense mount to
remain the same. :) 
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 8:59:50 PM

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:35:33 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
<rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:

>stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: hotchkisstrio wrote:
>: > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
>
>: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
>: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??
>
>The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
>always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
>no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
>that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
>medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
>works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
>to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
>medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
>even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
>old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".
>
>I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
>for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
>have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
>one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
>medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
>and true Digital. :) 
>
>Randy
>
>==========
>Randy Berbaum
>Champaign, IL

Many people have a hard time adjusting to change, especially
at the rate technology is changing almost everything we do both
directly & indirectly. As a general rule the older we get the harder
it seems to be for us to learn something new. This is not intended to
be an age discrimination statement but we tend to be creatures of
habit & often take comfort in the familiar.

Rather than face that we now need to learn something new
because it's better, we might find it easier to berate something new
in order to justify the old, thus we can remain in our comfort zone.
As I remember back, I learned about computers on a Digital PDP-8 & my
1st home computer was an Apple IIe back when every part in it could be
purchased @ Radio Shack! Yes I now have a nice P4 PC so I have kept
up.

However this tendency to stick with what we know or reluctance
to accept something new is far more common than most people think.
Look at medical Doctors as an example. Many if not most still don't
believe in acupuncture even though the newest MRI machines have been
able to confirm the accuracy of the 2000+ year old practice. Did you
know that Surgeons are not "required" to use any new procedure even if
it has been "proven" to save XX% more lives than an older method?
It's up to the Doctors & Hospital to make those choices & many Doctors
stay with what they know best, even if it's not now the best thing for
the patient.

Strayed a bit too far off topic but change does not come easy
to many & that has both a good & a bad side to it. Digital
photography & I are good friends, it allows me to do so much more than
I was able to afford to do with film alone. Each still has it's place
depending on the situation but here is something to consider.

A strong ElectoMagnetic Pulse (EMP) will disable almost every
automobile on the road today because they have several microprocessors
in them that they need to run but many older automobiles (pre-1980)
would likely be unaffected & still functional. So as already stated
by the previous post, older technology still has it's place where it
actually may be better but like it or not, technology is & will
continue to impact us with little regard as to our individual
acceptance of it or not.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:07:14 AM

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : hotchkisstrio wrote:
> : > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
>
> : Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
> : lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??
>
> The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
> always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
> no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
> that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
> medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
> works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
> to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
> medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
> even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
> old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".
>
> I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
> for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
> have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
> one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
> medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
> and true Digital. :) 
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
I have to agree with you, Randy. On the other hand, anyone who doesn't
see the advantages of a computer for text input over a typewriter is
MANY bricks short of a full load!
Just ONE key, 'backspace' tells me everything I need to know to abandon
typewriters forever!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:09:06 AM

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

DHB wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:35:33 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
> <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>
>>stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>: hotchkisstrio wrote:
>>: > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
>>
>>: Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
>>: lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??
>>
>>The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both. There will
>>always be those who mistrust or will find a fault with a digital medium,
>>no matter what field is being digitized. And there will always be those
>>that will hear no bad words about their favorite "new and improved"
>>medium. In the middle are the majority of us who are happy with whatever
>>works best for our particular need, and rarely find anything that works,
>>to be bad. This same point of disagreement will continue, no matter if the
>>medium is film vs digital, or CD vs vinyl (or even MP3) audio recording. I
>>even know someone who refuses to use a word processor in favor of their
>>old manual typewriter because "I know how to use this one".
>>
>>I am one who recognizes that no one recording/storage method is perfect
>>for everyone or every situation. For each person and situation we will
>>have to make our own judgement of what is best for that moment. Just wait
>>one or two generations and there will be some new form of photographic
>>medium that will be discussed as being better/worse than the old tried
>>and true Digital. :) 
>>
>>Randy
>>
>>==========
>>Randy Berbaum
>>Champaign, IL
>
>
> Many people have a hard time adjusting to change, especially
> at the rate technology is changing almost everything we do both
> directly & indirectly. As a general rule the older we get the harder
> it seems to be for us to learn something new. This is not intended to
> be an age discrimination statement but we tend to be creatures of
> habit & often take comfort in the familiar.
>
> Rather than face that we now need to learn something new
> because it's better, we might find it easier to berate something new
> in order to justify the old, thus we can remain in our comfort zone.
> As I remember back, I learned about computers on a Digital PDP-8 & my
> 1st home computer was an Apple IIe back when every part in it could be
> purchased @ Radio Shack! Yes I now have a nice P4 PC so I have kept
> up.
>
> However this tendency to stick with what we know or reluctance
> to accept something new is far more common than most people think.
> Look at medical Doctors as an example. Many if not most still don't
> believe in acupuncture even though the newest MRI machines have been
> able to confirm the accuracy of the 2000+ year old practice. Did you
> know that Surgeons are not "required" to use any new procedure even if
> it has been "proven" to save XX% more lives than an older method?
> It's up to the Doctors & Hospital to make those choices & many Doctors
> stay with what they know best, even if it's not now the best thing for
> the patient.
>
> Strayed a bit too far off topic but change does not come easy
> to many & that has both a good & a bad side to it. Digital
> photography & I are good friends, it allows me to do so much more than
> I was able to afford to do with film alone. Each still has it's place
> depending on the situation but here is something to consider.
>
> A strong ElectoMagnetic Pulse (EMP) will disable almost every
> automobile on the road today because they have several microprocessors
> in them that they need to run but many older automobiles (pre-1980)
> would likely be unaffected & still functional. So as already stated
> by the previous post, older technology still has it's place where it
> actually may be better but like it or not, technology is & will
> continue to impact us with little regard as to our individual
> acceptance of it or not.
>
> Respectfully, DHB
>
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I am thankful that even though I have reached retirement age, I still
LOVE to learn, and embrace change, as long as it can be shown to be
better, for my purposes. If that ever changes, I hope someone will
throw dirt on me so I don't decompose in sight....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 9, 2005 5:05:19 AM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> I am thankful that even though I have reached retirement age, I still

> LOVE to learn, and embrace change, as long as it can be shown to be
> better, for my purposes. If that ever changes, I hope someone will
> throw dirt on me so I don't decompose in sight....

I am nowhere near retirement age but the last few years I have found
myself becoming unconsciously resistant to change. I DON'T want a
cellphone with a camera. I DON'T drool over the newest computer and I
DON'T want a plasma TV.

Should I be concerned? :) 

As I slip into digital, I imagine I will keep most of my old Pentax
system since I have many fond memories with it. I also have a 1952
vintage Rolleicord TLR, which although I only use several times a year,
am still amazed at what a beautiful image it can produce. Beautiful
camera in it's simplicity.

I imagine that when I do purchase a dSLR, I will come to treasure it
also. Though only a hobbyist, I love the equipment as much as the
pictures.

Geez, now I'm getting sentimental.
April 9, 2005 6:36:46 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112835643.342219.183240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
.. Just what they will find fault with in
> 5 or 10 years from now I am not sure, but it should be interesting.
>
> Scott
>

How about "It's so easy to lose a CF card in the fridge, film boxes are so
much easier to find."
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:27:25 PM

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

>>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

Ron> I have to agree with you, Randy. On the other hand, anyone
Ron> who doesn't see the advantages of a computer for text input
Ron> over a typewriter is MANY bricks short of a full load! Just
Ron> ONE key, 'backspace' tells me everything I need to know to
Ron> abandon typewriters forever!

Not true. Before it was a verbal interface to your secretary
(depending on your job of course). "I don't like this word. Please
retype the entire page". The lack of the back space button didn't
matter to you.

Now, in the modern times, you have to do the typing and checking
yourself...
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:22:11 AM

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

Brian May wrote:
>>>>>>"Ron" == Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
> Ron> I have to agree with you, Randy. On the other hand, anyone
> Ron> who doesn't see the advantages of a computer for text input
> Ron> over a typewriter is MANY bricks short of a full load! Just
> Ron> ONE key, 'backspace' tells me everything I need to know to
> Ron> abandon typewriters forever!
>
> Not true. Before it was a verbal interface to your secretary
> (depending on your job of course). "I don't like this word. Please
> retype the entire page". The lack of the back space button didn't
> matter to you.
>
> Now, in the modern times, you have to do the typing and checking
> yourself...

Sorry, but I never had a secretary. Most companies find other uses for
their secretaries than computer nerds.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:11:42 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:27:25 +1000, Brian May
<bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>>>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
> Ron> I have to agree with you, Randy. On the other hand, anyone
> Ron> who doesn't see the advantages of a computer for text input
> Ron> over a typewriter is MANY bricks short of a full load! Just
> Ron> ONE key, 'backspace' tells me everything I need to know to
> Ron> abandon typewriters forever!
>
>Not true. Before it was a verbal interface to your secretary
>(depending on your job of course). "I don't like this word. Please
>retype the entire page". The lack of the back space button didn't
>matter to you.

That's like saying, "The lack of a motorcycle didn't bother Paul
Revere."
Of course it didn't; he didn't have a concept of a motorcycle.
>
>Now, in the modern times, you have to do the typing and checking
>yourself...

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:14:16 AM

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

Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
> Ron> I have to agree with you, Randy. On the other hand, anyone
> Ron> who doesn't see the advantages of a computer for text input
> Ron> over a typewriter is MANY bricks short of a full load! Just
> Ron> ONE key, 'backspace' tells me everything I need to know to
> Ron> abandon typewriters forever!
>
> Not true. Before it was a verbal interface to your secretary
> (depending on your job of course). "I don't like this word. Please
> retype the entire page". The lack of the back space button didn't
> matter to you.
>
> Now, in the modern times, you have to do the typing and checking
> yourself...

Hah! In the good, old days I did my own typing, as I do now. For a
professional writer, a computer is a godsend, period. There was no
secretary. Roll out a 375 page beautifully typed manuscript, and, lo
and behold, there's a paragraph on page 37 that has to be recast,
changing length. Big whoops. Pagination may change as well. There's
more than 300 pages of retyping if done acceptably. With a computer,
one paragraph and the machine does all the rest.

Believe me: the backspace key matters. But cut and paste and
repagination matter more.
April 12, 2005 10:33:59 AM

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

On 8 Apr 2005 00:54:44 -0700
In message <1112946884.022039.76950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Posted from http://groups.google.com
"stormwatcher" <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hey, there's some "audiophiles" who insist that CDs sound bad!
>
> Oh geez. Many CDs do sound bad. Digital recorded and poorly mastered =
> lousy CD. Besides, what does this have to with with digital cameras??

Oh gosh, some CDs sound fabulous... I use JBL studio reference
monitors for listening, When I picked up the 1st remastered Sly Stone
LP on CD I thought I had blown a speaker, until I realized it was
something I heard frequently sitting at the drums in the 60's next to
a Fender Bass cabinet with 15" speakers with a blown cone. :-()

With every medium, there is good, bad, and occasional greatness. So
it is with music, so it is with photography. (re digital
photography,,,I think it's called an analogy.)

Jeff
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:40:26 AM

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

This is the root of all kinds of tech advances. I'm a pilot and the current
war there is GPS vs. VOR navigation and how you're not really navigating
with a GPS.

Resistance to progress is hard wired into some people.

mike

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:D 35fol$qd7$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>
> The same analog vs digital disagreement is the root of both.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:47:50 AM

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

I just bought a DSLR and now my kids are using the Powershot. I'm showing
them how to use it and I can't believe how I put up with that camera for all
this time. It's nice for portability, but that's about it. And I loved that
camera! DSLR brought back all the things I missed about film and more.

BTW, I think I've created a couple of photo monsters. Another advantage of
digital. Let the kids shoot all they want as long as they understand that
I'm not printing every shot-like the dirty sock on the rug.

mike

"stormwatcher" <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112992471.990769.126720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Randy Berbaum wrote:
>> stormwatcher <pgcs@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The day when I buy a dSLR are probably not too far
> off.
>
!