How about rangefinder???Originally Posted by Fluorite
Quality is not good enough
Presence of Focal Length Multiplier
Can't do video
Relatively low continuous shooting speed
Don't want the hassle of postprocessing
Storage media issues
How about rangefinder???Originally Posted by Fluorite
Why do I not want a DSLR?
I want one, but for price - I'm looking at Canon EOS 1DMk2, full frame CMOS (it just happens to have full frame and takes Leica lenses via adapter). At my rate of slide shooting, it will take 4.5 years to breakeven. So I'll wait.
I'm more keen to spend on things that add value - lighting equipment, reflectors, photography courses, etc, and considering 6x6 for image size and more focused attention to shooting detail.
Most of all, why I don't want a DSLR - I have bigger user problems which a DSLR cant solve - like composition, lighting, and the other stuff that mess up photos...
Cam makers know it is harvest season for the long years they paid and suffered in R&D.
They now have a "cash cow" (whew, no Latin phrase) and they want to milk it dry while the going is good. That means they want to earn Billions$$$$$.
The digi SLR need not be so expensive.
I really think production costs are much lower.
But if the public is willing to pay and the demand is strong, the Cam makers say amongst themselves, let's cut their (consumers') throats.
It is very costly to buy a good digi SLR.
Product model life is about 2 years (optimistic).
So how many times do you want to shell out $8,000 for the "new" improved model?
But I must say, with digi cams, there are great savings in film costs, film developing costs, and printing costs.
The 1DS Mark2 is a great product with a huge price. Pros who can justify the price and who need it can buy.
About storage -- film is "as is" physical image store.
Digital images ? Well, good luck if you stored them in the hard disk and it crashes!
Saved on DVD RW? OK. Maybe.
Hope you don't damage the DVD in any way later on.
Do you know Singapore Archives store their important documents on TAPE and MICROFILM ? Not on memory cards or DVD or CD or Hard disks.
Enlightening reason given by archive specialist:
Because if a small part of the tape is damaged, it can be repaired or spliced and the rest is not affected. If a part of DVD disc is damaged, the WHOLE LOT of data is gone.
Do you know that MICROFILM has a much longer life expectancy than CDs?
Once kept in optimal conditions ( clean, RH% and temperature) it lasts.
hey, nobody's in their 40's or 50's in this thread??!!!???
while u younger guys have the luxury of staying on the sidelines on the DSLR bandwagon issue because of price, maturity of technology and waiting for the time to be 'ripe' etc etc etc
older folks like me infected with the DSLR itch have little choice but to accept the state of current technology and pricings and get whatever the manufacturers throw our way.
If I wait any longer for the market to really 'mature', I'd most likely be too senile then to even go to the toilet on my own .....or worse ...... sitting in an urn at some temple or scattered all over the sea! heh heh heh!
someone uses a pencil to draw a picture is never the same from another who print the identical picture from a printer.
we are talking about skills in handling, understanding film photography and when do serious project.
Originally Posted by ed9119
ok la... join u la... me in my 50s....
Though i work with dslrs everyday, i wouldn't want to splurge big money or my savings on dslrs with the latest functions/gadgets, etc etc...
well... not because i've a bias against them, but the output even by the 1ds can't be compared to anything beyond a 35mm slide.
I do HOWEVER enjoy the convenience and rapid workflow DSLRS have provided for me and my job, with rapid wireless uploads to the press van, hq, in less than 1 minute FLAT!!! VS wrapping the Tri-x role, sending it via mail/thumbee to the press room for development.
At this point, i'm still apprehensive about the usage of dslrs for anything requiring detail and tremendous blow ups. Tweaking with PS, and other techniques which allow u compensate for the hues and saturation of digital exposures can never (imho) be compared to the detail and chemical based colour of a velvia,reala exposure.
we're taking a look at the latest Imacon and leaf backs here at the company i work with, and sadly, even the 22mp, 33mp fullframe 6x7 (yes they exist) backs attached to the rz67 d can't be compared to a humble 645 done with kodak's potra. (when printed out 30x50)
Oh well.. in the end i guess it boils down to what u wanna shoot, the functionality you require from your equipment, and hopefully, not the fact of being "seen" with the latest and biggest dslrs at CS outings/Peninsular plaza.
Eh.... if you consider a capacitor a battery, yes, it has a battery.Originally Posted by denizenx
sama samaOriginally Posted by Adam Goi
simple, i don't wanna spend 5K+ and few yrs afterwards, left me 500 bucks only.
2ndly, i do agree that slides can provide a better solution. you can have rap, ra, rvp and so many different kinds of slides film and everyone of these has its own character .
seldom do i be very keen to view the photos taken, i am not a reporter anyway. one roll of slides may reside in my camera for more than 2mths
i am not an artist. i am not going to store my photos for 5000yrs. i shoot for fun
OTHERS - hassle of getting dust onto the sensor.
Why do I not want a dSLR?
at 1st glance - too heavy to lug around, inconvenient for most outings
at 2nd glance - if lug around everywhere like i do with my P&S camera, worry a lot if damage it
at 3rd glance - if dSLR are damn cheap (like can use and dont mind replce every month) then i think i dont mind using a dSLR coz i wont worry about damaging it, and also no worry about dust or sensor issues, no worry about throwing it here and there (coz cheap) and so wont worry to carry it here and there, even on mountain biking and jungle trekking.
so the answer is - not worth the money wasted on repair, maintenance and replacement for a casual photographer like me.
NOTE: besides, my monitor can only display so much colours and bits, same for my photo printer... so the extra bits and pixels dont really carry much weight to constitute a move to the dSLR now...
Because everybody has not got one mah.Originally Posted by ckiang
I dowan a DSLR coz I am sure the day will come where we can get a pocket digital camera with full frame sensor at the cheaper price than the cheapest DSLR today.
if $$ no prob.. i
will not have 2nd thoughts about bringing a dslr to
say mt. ophir...
or to to any rough environment..
if not to camps i also have no 2nd thoughts if lens wet or sand in sensor..
or to say kayaking expeidition when we beach up i could take it out of a zip lock bag..
and happily snap away without worrying if later when i hit back to the sea if 3 zip locks is enought to protect it if i capsize..
$$ is my main issue I'm using a film for now to leanr the full feel of an SLR
i still think money is the problem...
Nice article to share about probable life of slide film: http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/v...icle.cfm?id=77
why? Because for the non-fulltime photogs, it has become a trend.
I hate trends.
Originally Posted by ricohflex
Film deteriorates with age. You try developing a 20 year old roll of film.
Your argument for implying that the Singapore Archives store on microfilm and tape because of the relative durability of archival compared to modern digital formats is flawed. Could it not be due to the cost of converting their archives? Again, if CD is kept in optimal conditions (clean, RH% and temperature), who is to say it does not last as long as microfilm? And if a part of DVD or CD disc is damaged, the data from other parts can be recovered, just that DVD/CD store a greater amount of information per unit area compared to film/tape, so a 50cent coin area of damage destroys more data for the DVD/CD compared to film/tape.
There are no manufacturers who sell their product on material and production cost alone, not even pirate companies. R&D is an often undervalued part of the cost of bringing a product to fruition from a customer's point of view. Customers feel shortchanged when manufacturers try to pass the cost of R&D to customers. If you can make a camera out of $50 worth of raw materials (magnesium, sand for silicon and glass, petroleum crude for plastics etc), then go ahead and do it. Else I won't mind paying my share of R&D funds to keep the technology improving. What I object to paying for is the share of overly high marketing costs, from the overpriced ads, to the hiring of scantily clad girls to give out glossy flyers, and the executives' overly high salaries. I don't mind paying my share for the salaries of the research engineers, technicians, designers, chemists and mathematicians.