Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital SLR's - expensive hobby

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 19, 2005 2:42:06 PM

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

I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
technology from those who do have them.

Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses as
and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the body
to be upgraded.

Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We have
seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate of
what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.

What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
quickly?
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:07 PM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
>(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
>technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses
> as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the
> body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see
> 32 megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?

We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology (the glass
can only resolve so much detail until they become the barrier to resolution,
rather than pixel count), so going much higher than 16MP is going to being
increasingly problematic. I think we're actually nearing the *beginning of
the end* of MP wars for the small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).

To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up with
better lens solutions.

Mark
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:07 PM

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

When film SLRs first came out they were pretty pricey too. I can
remember watching prices drop until we finally could afford one. We
used what was the equivalent then of a point and shoot and my cheapo
double lens reflex (spartaflex) until we could afford our first SLR.


Beck wrote:
> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
> (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
> technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses as
> and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the body
> to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We have
> seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate of
> what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
> megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:07 PM

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

> Beck writes ...
>
>I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
>rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
>body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology ...
>What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
>photography?

Twice I've bought dSLR's only to see them replaced by better models a
few months later, once the new model was actually cheaper (D30 replaced
by D60) with double the pixel count.

I think I've learned three lessons ... 1) buy early in the cycle, not
late. That is, most of these bodies (at least from Canon and Nikon)
are on an 18 month upgrade cycle (some 12 months, some 24 months, but
18 months is typical) so buy as soon as it comes out, not a year or so
later, to get full value. The new model announcements are typically
made prior to the big shows in September and February so don't buy
anything in say August or January unless you're prepared to see your
new purchase replaced soon after.

2) One of my pro friends, faced with upgrading again to keep up with
her competition, said wisely "I used to buy film for $12/roll but now I
buy digital bodies instead" ... so the more images you shoot the more
this equation works in your favor. So divide the cost of the digital
body by your cost per roll of film (film + processing) and see how many
shots you need to take to break even. Anything after that means you're
saving money (useful argument if you have to justify the purchase to a
spouse :)  In other words, digital makes sense financially if you shoot
a lot of film and makes less sense financially if you don't shoot it
often. If you don't shoot many photos in a year you'll save money
keeping the film camera.

3) Try to make do with keeping your gear thru two or even three
upgrade cycles instead of just one, this should give you 3-5 years of
use for your purchase, assuming it will do what you need. As others
are pointing out, with 8 Mpixels (for some, even 6 Mpix) you are able
to print beautifully at most popular print sizes up to 11x14" or maybe
a bit larger, so do you really need 11 or 13 or 16 Mpixels right away?

Bill
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:07 PM

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

At a certain point, continuing technology advance is not a 'necessity',
but a 'frill'. At that point there is no reason to buy newer. In the
case of computers, if your needs are only office automation, the
computers of 7 years ago are plenty! If you're a gamer, faster is
always better. Same for cameras.
I think that we have arrived at the point where what is on the market
for DSLR is all you really need (not true prior to a year or two ago)
and newer technology is 'frills'...8megapixels for photo enthusiasts.
I think that the P&S market hit that point a couple of years ago, in
terms of size vs. cost vs. performance...how many P&S pictures get
enlarged enough to need more than 5megapixels??? For pros, "gimme
more" megapixels. I have shot professionally using 35mm SLR, medium
format SLR, and large format monorail..each has all that I need, and I
had no reason to want 'more features'. I didn't buy DSLR until just a
couple months ago, because prior to then it cost too much money for the
features and performance I wanted...so I waited. Now I have all I
need, and something really radically better would need to come along
(smaller size, less weight) would need to come along to tempt me
enough...I think the DSLR of today is at the same point all my film
stuff reached...plenty good enough. The early adopters of digital paid
princely amounts for performance that is not even on par with entry
level P&S today. We're past that point now.
Megapixel rating...at a point, more megapixel only matters for
supersized photos or dinky sections of photos enlarged to final size
you want. Did film photographers beat on manufacturers to make
Kodachrome or Velvia more fine grained? I think megapixel rating is
like film granularity...at a certain point no one needs more (other
than a very small minority for special purposes).
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:08 PM

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

Mind you, Mark, that existing CMOS might change also...
Marcel


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:g_hNe.3211$ct5.1024@fed1read04...
>
> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
> >I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
skills
> >(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
> >technology from those who do have them.
> >
> > Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
lenses
> > as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the
> > body to be upgraded.
> >
> > Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> > rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the
camera
> > body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> > have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> > of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we
see
> > 32 megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
> >
> > What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> > photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving
too
> > quickly?
>
> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology (the
glass
> can only resolve so much detail until they become the barrier to
resolution,
> rather than pixel count), so going much higher than 16MP is going to being
> increasingly problematic. I think we're actually nearing the *beginning
of
> the end* of MP wars for the small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).
>
> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up with
> better lens solutions.
>
> Mark
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:42:08 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up with
> better lens solutions.
>
> Mark
>
>
There are some really good lenses out there now, if you are willing to
foregoe infinite zoom ratio and f/0.5 speed :-)
August 19, 2005 3:11:16 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
>> skills (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on
>> digital technology from those who do have them.
>>
>> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
>> lenses as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and
>> never need the body to be upgraded.
>>
>> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the
>> megapixel rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to
>> change the camera body every couple of years to keep up with the
>> current technology. We have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel
>> up to 16 megapixel in a rate of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably
>> be only a year before we see 32 megapixel cameras and
>> people will want to upgrade again. What do you all think about the
>> quickly changing technology in
>> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
>> is moving too quickly?
>
> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology
> (the glass can only resolve so much detail until they become the
> barrier to resolution, rather than pixel count), so going much higher
> than 16MP is going to being increasingly problematic. I think we're
> actually nearing the *beginning of the end* of MP wars for the
> small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).
> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up
> with better lens solutions.

Oh right I did not know that. I thought it would be like memory where it
would become never ending. I suppose that is good news it means people can
finally settle down to a level and not be bothered by what is round the
corner.
I am sure not many people need that many pixels anyway. The average home
user is only going to want to print off maximum 8x6 prints anyway and not
poster size or more.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:11:17 PM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlpidF177tqpU1@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>>> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
>>> skills (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on
>>> digital technology from those who do have them.
>>>
>>> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
>>> lenses as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and
>>> never need the body to be upgraded.
>>>
>>> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the
>>> megapixel rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to
>>> change the camera body every couple of years to keep up with the
>>> current technology. We have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel
>>> up to 16 megapixel in a rate of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably
>>> be only a year before we see 32 megapixel cameras and
>>> people will want to upgrade again. What do you all think about the
>>> quickly changing technology in
>>> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
>>> is moving too quickly?
>>
>> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology
>> (the glass can only resolve so much detail until they become the
>> barrier to resolution, rather than pixel count), so going much higher
>> than 16MP is going to being increasingly problematic. I think we're
>> actually nearing the *beginning of the end* of MP wars for the
>> small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).
>> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up
>> with better lens solutions.
>
> Oh right I did not know that. I thought it would be like memory where it
> would become never ending. I suppose that is good news it means people
> can finally settle down to a level and not be bothered by what is round
> the corner.
> I am sure not many people need that many pixels anyway. The average home
> user is only going to want to print off maximum 8x6 prints anyway and not
> poster size or more.

I should add...
....More MPs DO mean you can crop images and still have enough resolution to
do larger prints.
Also... In spite of the lens resolution limitations, don't think the
technology will stay stagnant.
:)  Canon, Nikon, and the rest have other ways of making things
attractive...like noise levels, sensitivity (ISO), frame-rate, and on and
on.

Your basic question, though, I think DOES have a fairly happy answer, in
that DSLRs are reaching a point where they remain worthy for long
periods--so long as the user can resist the upgrade itch.
A 4x6 print originally shot on the 16.7MP 1Ds Mark II isn't going to look
any better than the same shot taken with a Canon Digital Rebel. Once you
get into HUGE prints, though, the high-dollar units start to show their
stuff...
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:11:38 PM

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

I disagree with the 'we have all we need' comment. I would agree if
full frame was the norm. All those wide angle lenses are being
'cheated'. Also, I don't want to buy a 35mm lens to 'replace' my 50mm
lens (which is now like a 80mm) etc. etc. etc.
There has been 40+ years of lens development which is being somewhat
shortchanged
by the sensor factor.
August 19, 2005 3:36:26 PM

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

Mark² wrote:

> I should add...
> ...More MPs DO mean you can crop images and still have enough
> resolution to do larger prints.
> Also... In spite of the lens resolution limitations, don't think the
> technology will stay stagnant.
> :)  Canon, Nikon, and the rest have other ways of making things
> attractive...like noise levels, sensitivity (ISO), frame-rate, and on
> and on.
>
> Your basic question, though, I think DOES have a fairly happy answer,
> in that DSLRs are reaching a point where they remain worthy for long
> periods--so long as the user can resist the upgrade itch.
> A 4x6 print originally shot on the 16.7MP 1Ds Mark II isn't going to
> look any better than the same shot taken with a Canon Digital Rebel. Once
> you get into HUGE prints, though, the high-dollar units start to
> show their stuff...

I think it is good to know they will eventually level out though. We are
only just seeing the release of 16megapixel cameras. In fact I think there
is only one model at the moment?
If 16 megapixel is the peak, then people can start to settle down and not
continue to upgrade their bodies.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:03:13 PM

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

Beck wrote:
>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
> skills (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on
> digital technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
> lenses as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and
> never need the body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the
> megapixel rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to
> change the camera body every couple of years to keep up with the
> current technology. We have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel
> up to 16 megapixel in a rate of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably
> be only a year before we see 32 megapixel cameras and people
> will want to upgrade again.
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving
> too quickly?

The equipment today has gone far enough that it will fulfill the needs
of most people for a long time. I would not have said that long ago. You
do not need to go beyond your needs and future cameras will be only minor
improvements for most user's needs. Of course we all need to remember that
most of the readers here are not most users; they are a bit more advanced.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:21:09 PM

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

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:m2mNe.17$C92.4611@news.uswest.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up with
>> better lens solutions.
>>
>> Mark
> There are some really good lenses out there now, if you are willing to
> foregoe infinite zoom ratio and f/0.5 speed :-)

I'm already using nearly all L lenses...and those that aren't are as sharp
as Ls (50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro).
I'm not saying that all DSLRs are approaching the limit...but the 16.7MP 1Ds
Mark II clearly is getting close to a point where it becomes an optical
limitation that is lens based.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:49:22 PM

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

In article <3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net>,
"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
> (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
> technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses as
> and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the body
> to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We have
> seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate of
> what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
> megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?

The problem is not just that the technology is moving too quickly. The
problem is that people are thinking too quickly. Keeping up with the
Jones's. etc. Many are just looking for digital perfection and ignoring
artistic perfection. It is just like the horsepower race that is going
on with automobiles right now.

Regarding SLR's, there is an artistic difference to the medium which
will not make them obsolete.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:01:35 PM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
>(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
>technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses
> as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the
> body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see
> 32 megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?
>


Don't catch Upgrade Disease! That's the really expensive bit.

In the years to come whatever you buy now will continue to produce the
results you're (presumably) perfectly happy with - whatever else develops
in the meantime.

So relax and enjoy...

RM
August 19, 2005 6:27:58 PM

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

Per Beck:
>Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
>rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
>body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology.

I'm not a photo expert, but I've been around PC's since day one.

Company I worked for when they first started coming out made a major mistake in
classifying PC's along with generators and air conditioning systems as durable
goods - i.e. something that can be upgraded economically instead of being
replaced.

The correct model, of course, turned out to be more like a consumable - along
with paper clips and pencils because new software and operating systems demanded
intrinsic performance that just couldn't be economically upgraded into existing
PCs - it was much cheaper to just junk the old ones and buy new.

I'd say that my new D70s camera body is something in between those extremes.

It's not so much a consumable as a PC since you can keep taking the pictures
with it until the mechanics wear out, the CCD fails, the battery becomes
irreplaceable, or you drop it.... but OTOH, cheaper, faster, better-featured,
higher-megapixel cameras will keep on coming out every 18 months of so.
--
PeteCresswell
August 19, 2005 7:47:12 PM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
>(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
>technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses
> as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the
> body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see
> 32 megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?
>
What is going on now closely resembles what happened to film cameras in the
50s and 60s. I suppose you don't remember when Canon had yet another
version of a Leica clone almost every year.
You don't remember that Canon introduced the Canonflex line about 1960 and
replaced all of them with the Canon FL line by 1967.
You don't remeber that Nikon introduced yet another finder for the Nikon F
with more elaborate metering every couple of years or so. They finally got
it right with the AI cameras in 1977.

My point is that this is the very early stages of the so called digital
revolution. Cameras will be replaced with new and improved models every
year or so.

But, you don't have to get on this bandwagon. Just buy the current camera
that meets your needs, and only replace it when it dies. Until that time,
the camera will continue taking as good an image as it ever did.

Jim
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:59:48 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:42:06 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
>(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
>technology from those who do have them.
>
>Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses as
>and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the body
>to be upgraded.
>
>Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
>rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
>body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We have
>seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate of
>what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
>megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
>What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
>photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
>quickly?
>

No, I'm not concerned and it's apparent you've never had restoring
classic Jaguars for a hobby.

Besides bodies aren't the cost of a photography hobby. The lenses
are. Bodies come and go but good lenses last forever. Which is why I
went with Canon and Don't buy EF-S lenses and stick to "L" glass.




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

"A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

_Introductions to History of the Reformation_
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:03:35 PM

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

In article <g_hNe.3211$ct5.1024@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...

> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology (the glass
> can only resolve so much detail until they become the barrier to resolution,
> rather than pixel count

Is there a physical law which limits lens resolution or is it a
manufacturing issue, such as costs exploding when you increase the lens
resolving power beyond a certain limit ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:03:36 PM

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

>"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.1d702f3adfa6699898ace1@news.supernews.com...
>In article <g_hNe.3211$ct5.1024@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
>even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology (the
>> glass
>> can only resolve so much detail until they become the barrier to
>> resolution,
>> rather than pixel count
>
>Is there a physical law which limits lens resolution or is it a
>manufacturing issue, such as costs exploding when you increase the lens
>resolving power beyond a certain limit ?

Others here cas address that better than I can, but yes...there are "laws"
which limit lens resolution.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:31:54 PM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> writes:
> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
> skills (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on
> digital technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
> lenses as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and
> never need the body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the
> megapixel rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to
> change the camera body every couple of years to keep up with the
> current technology. We have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel
> up to 16 megapixel in a rate of what...5-7 years? is that all?
> Probably be only a year before we see 32 megapixel cameras and
> people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in
> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
> is moving too quickly?

Digital photography is still in its infancy, so rapid technical
change is to be expected and applauded. The idea that progress
can move «too quickly» is ludicrous.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to upgrade.
I still regularly use a ten year old 6 Mpx digital camera - and it
works just as well today and takes just as good photographs today as
it did way back in 1995.

I enjoy the technical progress that is being made, knowning that when
I eventually take the plunge and buy a newer model I will get all
the benefits of the progress that currently is being made.

I think the current megapixel race is somewhat silly - but if that is
what the market research tells companies about public craves, so be
it. I think six megapixels is all you need to make great looking A4
(20 x 30 cm) print. Most consumers never print larger that postcard
size. Some extra pixels may still nice because they allow you to crop,
but megapixel progress is already giving dimishing returns.
Therefore, I don't think that we ever will see a market for the
consumer grade 32 Mpx camera you predict. We may eventually see
32 Mpx and even more for professionals and mad amateurs that want to
makesuper high resolution mural sized posters - but for most
consumers - anything beyond 12 Mpx is probably overkill.)

But there are still a lot of things to improve beyond megapixels.
I think (and also hope) that the droids eventually will allocate more
of the the R&D money into inproving areas than Mpxs (e.g. noise,
frame rate, AF, and maybe evem DSLR-grade sensors capable of live
preview/histogram)

At one point, like always, the rate of progess will slow down. The
technology will simply be good enough for most intents and purposes,
and we will get a market where further improvements will be driven
by a small segment of professionals and mad amateurs, while most
consumers will no longer care about new features beacuse the product
they already own has a lot more features than they need or use.

That point is still some time in the future. In the meantime, I
shall just should sit back and enjoy the ride.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:31:55 PM

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

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q5iry1rfxx.fsf@kahdeksan.ifi.uio.no...
> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> writes:
>> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my
>> skills (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on
>> digital technology from those who do have them.
>>
>> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the
>> lenses as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and
>> never need the body to be upgraded.
>>
>> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the
>> megapixel rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to
>> change the camera body every couple of years to keep up with the
>> current technology. We have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel
>> up to 16 megapixel in a rate of what...5-7 years? is that all?
>> Probably be only a year before we see 32 megapixel cameras and
>> people will want to upgrade again.
>>
>> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in
>> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
>> is moving too quickly?
>
> Digital photography is still in its infancy, so rapid technical
> change is to be expected and applauded. The idea that progress
> can move «too quickly» is ludicrous.

Infancy?
I wouldn't describe it that way, as I think we are well past infancy. I'd
say that digital is "coming of age" (as one does in their late teens). We
are now at a point where professional-level needs are clearly being met by
digital, as it is well beyond the experimental, stop-gap stages. Technology
advances in digital is now about making fairly minor tweaks for greater
quality, but the essential quality is already there.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:42:06 PM

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

I just replaced a perfectly working analog slr with a digital slr
of the same brand. Had to invest in a 17-70 lens as wel to
get a good wide angle coverage.

Although the camera was 'expensive', because of not having
to pay for film and developing, this investment will earn itself
back in 5 years if I take the same amount of pictures.

But now I am taking more pictures and am using the camera
where I wouldn't use the analog slr before. (Partly because
of the price per picture, partly because of new possibilities).

So the investment is larger, but I estimate the total cost of
ownership to be equal or less. And I do have more fun with
it than with the analog.

ben brugman




"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> schreef in bericht news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
> I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
> (and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
> technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses as
> and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the body
> to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We have
> seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate of
> what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
> megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:46:48 PM

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

> Justin Thyme writes ...
>
>Some of these digital guys have in the past been good photographers
>with film who would have come out with near 100% keepers on film,
>but it seems that the shoot-and-delete of digital causes a mind-set
>that stops them from thinking before clicking.

My experiences and observations of other photographers has been exactly
the opposite of this. The guys who were good film photographers are
better photographers using digital.

I think there are several reasons for this ... one is that you can
switch ISO on the fly and so get shots you would otherwise miss.
Another is the value of the quick feedback, whether from the LCD or,
better, from looking at the images on a computer shortly after shooting
them. Several times I've noticed ways I could improve on a scene and
gone back after reviewing digital shots on the laptop, something I
couldn't do on the road with film. Also, since there is essentially no
additional cost for shooting most of us are more apt to experiment and
try something new than we were with film.

Finally with the digital editing tools like Photoshop you basically
have your own advanced darkroom that's much easier to learn than a wet
darkroom, so guys are more involved in the process up to the final
print. This is especially true if you're shooting RAW files and learn
how to use one of the best converters.

YMMV but I've never known a photographer who didn't bring back better
images with digital than with film, assuming similar gear like a dSLR
compared to a film SLR.

Bill
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:18:12 AM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>
> Digital photography is still in its infancy,

I would say it's more of a teenager now. It is actually functional.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:33:29 AM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in
>> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
>> is moving too quickly?
>
> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology
> (the glass can only resolve so much detail until they become the
> barrier to resolution, rather than pixel count), so going much higher
> than 16MP is going to being increasingly problematic. I think we're
> actually nearing the *beginning of the end* of MP wars for the
> small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).
> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up
> with better lens solutions.

I suspect we will see the megapixel race go quite a bit further
before it settles. It's pretty much gone too far already on the
P&S models. Very few people will ever blow up their P&S
above 8x12 and a lot won't even go past 6x4. The problem
manufacturers face is what *single* thing differentiates the better
camera. Consumers know to look for that 1 magical number
which reveals all. ;-)

We are seeing it happen with processor speeds now.
Manufacturers are having to come up with a new "feature" that
allows lazy consumers to judge which is the best.

-Mike
August 20, 2005 12:33:30 AM

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

Mike Warren wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>>> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in
>>> digital photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it
>>> is moving too quickly?
>>
>> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology
>> (the glass can only resolve so much detail until they become the
>> barrier to resolution, rather than pixel count), so going much higher
>> than 16MP is going to being increasingly problematic. I think we're
>> actually nearing the *beginning of the end* of MP wars for the
>> small-ish 35mm DSLR format (at 16.7MP).
>> To go much higher and have it pay off, they'll soon have to come up
>> with better lens solutions.
>
> I suspect we will see the megapixel race go quite a bit further
> before it settles. It's pretty much gone too far already on the
> P&S models. Very few people will ever blow up their P&S
> above 8x12 and a lot won't even go past 6x4. The problem
> manufacturers face is what *single* thing differentiates the better
> camera. Consumers know to look for that 1 magical number
> which reveals all. ;-)

But its not the megapixel count which is most important is it? I would say
the lens is most important. There is no point in having say an 8mp camera
that has a shitty lens as you might as well have a 2mp one.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:48 AM

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

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlns1F17lf7qU1@individual.net...
>I have never owned an SLR, always seemed to much of a camera for my skills
>(and too pricey). But I am wondering about the thoughts on digital
>technology from those who do have them.
>
> Someone could own a film SLR for 10, 20 years and just upgrade the lenses
> as and when necessary. They would be good workhorses and never need the
> body to be upgraded.
>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> of what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see
> 32 megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.
>
> What do you all think about the quickly changing technology in digital
> photography? Are you concerned that financially for you it is moving too
> quickly?
On the one hand, if today's 6MP DSLR's are taking a good enough photo for
you today, why does it suddenly become obsolete because an 8MP or higher is
released? On the other hand, I doubt todays DSLR's are built with anything
like the longevity of some of the older film cameras. There are plenty of
40yo or older film cameras still in everyday service - I doubt many 300D's
will still be going in 5 years.
Another big difference is that those 40yo film cameras are taking far better
photos today than they did 40 years ago, due to advances in film technology.
When recording technologies advanced, all that was required was to load the
camera with the new film. In the digital world, to take advantage of
improvements in recording technology requires replacing the entire camera.
>
>
August 20, 2005 12:39:49 AM

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

Justin Thyme wrote:

> On the one hand, if today's 6MP DSLR's are taking a good enough photo
> for you today, why does it suddenly become obsolete because an 8MP or
> higher is released?

It doesn't for me. MP numbers to me are not that important.

On the other hand, I doubt todays DSLR's are
> built with anything like the longevity of some of the older film
> cameras. There are plenty of 40yo or older film cameras still in
> everyday service - I doubt many 300D's will still be going in 5 years.
> Another big difference is that those 40yo film cameras are taking far
> better photos today than they did 40 years ago, due to advances in
> film technology. When recording technologies advanced, all that was
> required was to load the camera with the new film. In the digital
> world, to take advantage of improvements in recording technology
> requires replacing the entire camera.

Is this build quality of todays cameras really that bad?
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:49 AM

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

Justin Thyme <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Another big difference is that those 40yo film cameras are taking far better
> photos today than they did 40 years ago, due to advances in film technology.
> When recording technologies advanced, all that was required was to load the
> camera with the new film. In the digital world, to take advantage of
> improvements in recording technology requires replacing the entire camera.

And we are still waiting on a solution for sensor dust problems. This
is a non-issue with film ... even the oldest of old film cameras.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:50 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:44:26 +0000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> And we are still waiting on a solution for sensor dust problems. This
> is a non-issue with film ... even the oldest of old film cameras.
Dust has always been a problem.
In the camera it could be the cause of tramlines and spots on the
negatives/transparencies.
On prints it could cause myriads of white spots especially on large prints
- could cause a great deal of time to be spent 'spotting'.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:50 AM

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

In article <4305d42a$0$63619$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And we are still waiting on a solution for sensor dust problems. This
>is a non-issue with film ... even the oldest of old film cameras.

Not used sheet film, have you?
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:51 AM

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

Neil Ellwood <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Dust has always been a problem.
> In the camera it could be the cause of tramlines and spots on the
> negatives/transparencies.
> On prints it could cause myriads of white spots especially on large prints
> - could cause a great deal of time to be spent 'spotting'.
>

I was referring to "sensor dust", not just "any old dust".

Sensor dust is what stops many digital SLR photographers from changing
lenses, in fear of allowing dust into the camera and onto the sensor.
Once on the sensor, it requires an action by the owner to get the sensor
cleaned, and very few options are actually cheap [unless a little air is
enough].

With film, if you happen to get dust on the "sensor", or rather, on the
film, you take the next picture and the dust problem is gone for all
subsequent pictures. No action was required to clear the dust.

In short, it is MUCH easier, cheaper and safer to clean dust out of a
film camera and certainly there is no such hassle as cleaning the sensor
as there is with digital cameras.

For the record, I use both a Nikon N80 and a Nikon D70.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:39:51 AM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
> Not used sheet film, have you?

No, but even with sheet film, the problem is transient; it doesn't
require a special sensor cleaning to fix the problem.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
August 20, 2005 12:39:55 AM

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

kz8rt3 wrote:

> The problem is not just that the technology is moving too quickly. The
> problem is that people are thinking too quickly. Keeping up with the
> Jones's. etc. Many are just looking for digital perfection and
> ignoring artistic perfection. It is just like the horsepower race
> that is going on with automobiles right now.
>
> Regarding SLR's, there is an artistic difference to the medium which
> will not make them obsolete.

Indeed that is a problem. You could give me the best camera in the world
but it would not make me a good photographer. Its not the camera that makes
the pictures but the person using it.
August 20, 2005 12:43:27 AM

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

Jim wrote:
>
> But, you don't have to get on this bandwagon. Just buy the current
> camera that meets your needs, and only replace it when it dies. Until that
> time, the camera will continue taking as good an image as
> it ever did.

I certainly won't be getting on that bandwagon, I can't afford it for
starters :-)
I had an Olympus 720 and recently made an upgrade to a Fuji S5500. The main
reason I upgraded was the shutter lag on the Olympus was pretty bad and was
useless for action shots. This Fuji is pretty quick on the shutter so I am
happy.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:20:53 AM

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

Beck wrote:
>> I suspect we will see the megapixel race go quite a bit further
>> before it settles. It's pretty much gone too far already on the
>> P&S models. Very few people will ever blow up their P&S
>> above 8x12 and a lot won't even go past 6x4. The problem
>> manufacturers face is what *single* thing differentiates the better
>> camera. Consumers know to look for that 1 magical number
>> which reveals all. ;-)
>
> But its not the megapixel count which is most important is it? I
> would say the lens is most important. There is no point in having
> say an 8mp camera that has a shitty lens as you might as well have a
> 2mp one.

Sorry. Should have enclosed that in <sarcasm> tags :-)

My point is that most consumers don't want to spend time
researching their potential purchase and would rather have
one feature that tells them which is best.

-Mike
August 20, 2005 1:20:54 AM

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

Mike Warren wrote:

>
> Sorry. Should have enclosed that in <sarcasm> tags :-)
>
> My point is that most consumers don't want to spend time
> researching their potential purchase and would rather have
> one feature that tells them which is best.

And the average person probably goes for the pixel count and not the other
features ;-)
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:20:55 AM

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

There's yet another way to consider this. If the camera and accessories
that you own suit your needs and produce photographs that please you, then
that should be the criterion for staying with what you have. Excellent
photographs are made every day using equipment that has long-since been
outmoded. The urge to replace what you already have with something more
recent can quickly become competitive as you see another photographer's
equipment and get that sudden flush to keep yourself current.

Remember too that camera manufacturers are in business to sell you cameras,
lenses and accessories. Their advertising campaigns constantly highlight
the "superior" qualities of the latest equipment hoping to instill in you
the idea that what you currently own is now inferior. It's up to you to
decide how pleased you are with what you have.






"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mlu55F178up2U1@individual.net...
> Mike Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry. Should have enclosed that in <sarcasm> tags :-)
>>
>> My point is that most consumers don't want to spend time
>> researching their potential purchase and would rather have
>> one feature that tells them which is best.
>
> And the average person probably goes for the pixel count and not the other
> features ;-)
>
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:20:56 AM

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

Bernard Saper wrote:
Excellent
> photographs are made every day using equipment that has long-since been
> outmoded. The urge to replace what you already have with something more
> recent can quickly become competitive as you see another photographer's
> equipment and get that sudden flush to keep yourself current.
>
The first photography course my wife took, at a junior college, the
instructor required all students to be a real cheap, plastic 120 format
box camera, and shoot, process, and print 10 roles of film per week.
Some really nice stuff came from that class.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:31:43 AM

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

Beck wrote:
> Justin Thyme wrote:
>
>> On the one hand, if today's 6MP DSLR's are taking a good enough photo
>> for you today, why does it suddenly become obsolete because an 8MP or
>> higher is released?
>
> It doesn't for me. MP numbers to me are not that important.
>
> On the other hand, I doubt todays DSLR's are
>> built with anything like the longevity of some of the older film
>> cameras. There are plenty of 40yo or older film cameras still in
>> everyday service - I doubt many 300D's will still be going in 5
>> years. Another big difference is that those 40yo film cameras are
>> taking far better photos today than they did 40 years ago, due to
>> advances in film technology. When recording technologies advanced,
>> all that was required was to load the camera with the new film. In
>> the digital world, to take advantage of improvements in recording
>> technology requires replacing the entire camera.
>
> Is this build quality of todays cameras really that bad?

They are actually built better. However, they are unlikely to last
anywhere near as long. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, manufacturers are able to better predict the life of individual
components compared to 40 years ago. This means there are less
product failures in the short term but they wear out quicker.

The other thing with dSLRs compared to film SLRs is that because
the "film" is so cheap, people take *many* more pictures. This causes
mechanical parts to wear out in a shorter time.

-Mike
August 20, 2005 3:00:08 AM

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

Beck wrote:

>
> Now I see a financial problem with digital in that because the megapixel
> rate is forever increasing, SLR owners are more like to change the camera
> body every couple of years to keep up with the current technology. We
> have seen cameras go from measly 1megapixel up to 16 megapixel in a rate
> of
> what...5-7 years? is that all? Probably be only a year before we see 32
> megapixel cameras and people will want to upgrade again.


The early adopters where the ones who got hosed. They bought the 1MP then
the 4MP then the 6-8MP and finally got something that would make a nice
print. At this point many people are very happy with the output of their
cameras and might not be lured into "upgrading" just for the sake of
upgrading. I waited till the better 6-8MP models hit before purchasing so
avoided this "Look how much better this one is!" stuff.

Go talk to the people who upgraded from those 12MP models to the 16MP
models. Many say they don't see much if any difference. I think for most
people making normal size prints (8X10 and smaller) they aren't going to
see much if any improvement so this constant upgrade will slow down, just
like it has with computer hardware. At 8X10 size, the 8MP cameras already
create files that print at 300DPI which is all that most output devices can
deal with.

If you want to make poster size prints that are sharp up close, you might
need to "upgrade" but I doubt this what most people need.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 3:00:09 AM

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

I heard a line today that pertains to this discussion, although out of
context, "If Columbus had waited, he could have flown."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 20, 2005 3:03:15 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <g_hNe.3211$ct5.1024@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> We're already pushing the limits of existing 35mm lens technology (the
>> glass can only resolve so much detail until they become the barrier to
>> resolution, rather than pixel count
>
> Is there a physical law which limits lens resolution or is it a
> manufacturing issue, such as costs exploding when you increase the lens
> resolving power beyond a certain limit ?


It's more that the film most people use has a limited resolution so there
was no need to make a lens that resolved more than the film could record.
Most dSLR's are using film lens technology and these systems are starting
to show this limitation. To go past this limit, new lenses will be
required.
--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 3:04:14 AM

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

Beck wrote:


>
> Is this build quality of todays cameras really that bad?

On some of the low end models, yes it is.

--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 3:07:36 AM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not used sheet film, have you?
>
> No, but even with sheet film, the problem is transient;


This REALLY shows you've never shot with sheet film! Dust is a MAJOR problem
shooting with 4X5 and larger formats.

--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 3:08:01 AM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>
> And we are still waiting on a solution for sensor dust problems.

We are? My camera already has this solved.
--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 3:09:14 AM

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

Roger Moss wrote:

>
>
> Don't catch Upgrade Disease! That's the really expensive bit.
>

I leaned with computers, don't "upgrade" until the newest stuff is old
enough to be discounted as they are selling it off to put the latest stuff
on the shelf.

--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 3:36:45 AM

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

Beck wrote:
> Justin Thyme wrote:
>
>
>>On the one hand, if today's 6MP DSLR's are taking a good enough photo
>>for you today, why does it suddenly become obsolete because an 8MP or
>>higher is released?
>
>
> It doesn't for me. MP numbers to me are not that important.
>
> On the other hand, I doubt todays DSLR's are
>
>>built with anything like the longevity of some of the older film
>>cameras. There are plenty of 40yo or older film cameras still in
>>everyday service - I doubt many 300D's will still be going in 5 years.
>>Another big difference is that those 40yo film cameras are taking far
>>better photos today than they did 40 years ago, due to advances in
>>film technology. When recording technologies advanced, all that was
>>required was to load the camera with the new film. In the digital
>>world, to take advantage of improvements in recording technology
>>requires replacing the entire camera.
>
>
> Is this build quality of todays cameras really that bad?
>
>
No, but dslr owners might shoot 50 frames a day instead of 50 per month.
If the shutter or mirror mechanism of a dlsr lasts 50,000 shots, then
you got good value - equivalent to about 50 cents per 36 shot roll of
film - a fraction of the cost even excluding processing. Chuck it out,
get a new one, and remember the old days. The way things are going, you
can be fairly sure that the next 50,000 shots of digital film you buy
will be better and probably cheaper than the 50,000 you just used.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 3:36:46 AM

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

"frederick" <lost@sea.co.zn> wrote in message
news:1124451320.457491@ftpsrv1...
> Beck wrote:

>> Is this build quality of todays cameras really that bad?
> No, but dslr owners might shoot 50 frames a day instead of 50 per month.
> If the shutter or mirror mechanism of a dlsr lasts 50,000 shots,

The real issue is that we don't actually know if the componentry of today's
digital bodies is the equal or better than that of the current generation of
film bodies.

Essentially we are the Beta group for the these cameras. No one will really
know anything about the effective duration of these bodies until a large
group of users has had them in hand and been using them for 15 to 20 years.
In that sense even cameras like the F5 are still being "field tested" for
reliable longevity.

My suspicion is that we will not see digital bodies with active 20 year
lifespans. I think the processing and computing component requirements will
fail long before dslr's reach the level of reliability previous film cameras
have proven to provide. They still can't, or won't, build a laptop that will
last 15 years over a wide group of users and within that realm they have
more room and more ability to manage heat and surge and other things that
slowly damage processors and boards.
!