Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: You guys all into Digital SLR?

  1. #41

    Default

    Already pass the phase of shooting everything ... If I want P&S I can do 9fps
    No lah, just distrubing u guys. Enjoy what you have~!

  2. #42
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PandaOng
    Yup, agreed on Digital lifespan is not as long as a analog camera. But my rate of shooting, I am actually spending well over $2000 plus in a year (Just for film and developing).

    And the life of a Digital Camera is about 1.5 - 2 years. If by film, I could have got a 20D (Or so...).

    Imagine the benefit, instance result, ISO setting, no more 36exp limitation.

    but on the negative side, tends to be trigger-happy(something to be really beware of), Post-process (tedious but rewarding).

    Just my 2 cents.
    Can I know where the statistic or study done to support claim that digital camera ( DSLR or PS cameras ) only last 1.5 to 2 yrs before they start to wear and tear that they can't be use? Sorry...abit nosy maybe but this is news to me. I have my original Sony S70 digital 3megapixel that is already about 4 yrs old and still working fine and still giving me super colour and sharpness. ANd have never gone into the shop for servicing. It is well used for all my trips overseas and alot of product shot for session for my work. I know of relative and friend who bought older second DSLR direct from owners like the D1 and D1H that are also just as old but still working fine without any change of parts perviously to their owning them. Few of my friend who on my advice also went digital with PS cameras are still using them and are already more then 3yrs+.

    Even if the digital camera last just 1.5 to 2 yrs..with what I spend on film/slide and processing I could buy a new D70 every year to replace that one that broke. It is true that DSLR or PS camera can and will get worn out in time but I am certain you will retire it due to the technology having being overtaken as the main reason for it's demise but I doubt it will be becasue of wear and tear that made it stop working. Also digital technolology is still so "fresh" it is I think still too early to be survey the reliability of digital cameras as a whole. It is like mobile phones..you are not changing it because it stopped working or worn out but because someone is trying to sell you a newer on e with more function. BUt if the function basically for a camera is to capture images in very much the same way a film camera more or less does...I dont see why you need to change it unless you do need the newer features found in each newer succession of models. Just my two cents lah heheh...

  3. #43
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by binbeto
    Your calcualtion not accurate. For film, you "print" them but for digital you dun.

    Developing alone is only $3.

    3 x film = ~ $8
    Develop x 3 = $9
    total for 1 week = $17

    $17 x 4 weeks in a mth = ~$68

    Am I missing something here?

    I think you did...your $3.00 processing is just to develope the negative but you still have not factor in the cost to do the printing in at least 3R size to look at your pictures. But of course with some lab you could do a contact print which will cost a few dollar more but usually you have to print each 3R to look at your picture to look at then before you think of printing out larger ones to keep..etc. So when you take that into account you will see it can cost about average $15 per roll with 36 prints+ processing of negative. That is how he got his 3 roll developing at about $45.

    This is cheap...when I was sooting picture in the 80s and early 90s..it cost alot more. And if you want better processing and prints you pay abit more. ANd if you are into push processing and other special processing and prints in black and white or develope infra red production or enlargement..the cost really adds up.
    Last edited by sammy888; 22nd October 2004 at 02:33 PM. Reason: additional text

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PandaOng
    I shoot an average 3 rolls per weekend.
    that is about:

    3 x film = ~ $8
    Develop x 3 = ~$45
    total for 1 week = ~$53

    $53 x 4 weeks in a mth = ~$212

    And bear in mind...that is only 3 rolls per weekend!!!
    That is only about 3 x 36 = 108 exposure!!

    With my 1G CF card now, I can shoot as much as i want!! Got no heart pain when i hit the motordrive!! Agree?? chap chap chap
    Er, you forgot the computer, photoshop version whatever, printer, and spider to calibrate monitor and printer, and then to make sure the CD do not wear out after a couple of years, restore the images in another CD hopefully new technology did not force you to upgrade to another mode of storage, and on.... and on..... and on....... OF course changing att that hardware and software again!

    My trusty old enlarger (20 years old) still going strong!

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PandaOng
    Have you done your calculation yet?
    Yep, that is why I stick to film!

  6. #46

    Default

    Same here. Had a 10D. Sold it off and replaced it with an EOS 3. Why? Maybe it's because the feeling of not having a LCD preview screen is kinda challenging....more kick....coz u can't see what u take.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoned
    Not quite. I turned back to film Probably one of the rare few though.
    May go fully into DSLRs when the FF bodies become affordable to normal folks like myself.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888
    For me I have gone 100% digit for the past 5 years... I have spent 20 yrs shooting film & slides and I felt it was time to jump onto the new wave that is coming in. Even by today's standard digital quality might not be good enough to hold up against the purist's idea and proven quality of slides but it comes close enough. I use digital for all my design work too and it is good enough for most use. ...

    With digital, there are advantages in that I get to shoot without a care in the world. That does not mean I can start to get sloppy and not thinking about every shot I take. In fact, the reverse is true. .....

    I still am betting on digital and though I do have a purist streak in me, I still have to be practical with my hobbies and I do have too many hobbies too.. Digital allows me to carry on with my love for photography at a more economical level. That would mean I dont have to give it up due to cost. That to me is a good thing.

    In any case I have already gotten over the buy-the-latest-and-best-equipment-itchy-bug-syndrome. Upgrading is important to some extend but I should be upgrading as a hobbist and not a professional simply because I am not working as one. heheh So that is even more saving for me.
    You have summed up excellently some good reasons for changing to digital

    1 You are already an experieced photographer when you made the switch. Your techniques are already adequate (perhaps very good, I do not know). Unlike you, many new photogs do not come to photography with such experience, and WHILE THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT THE FAULT, the temptation to be sloppy is too great.

    2 Your statement that digital images may not be good enough may be debatable. Michael Reichmann and Paul John Caponigro produce great digital images. But again, these are very experienced photographers. Nonetheless, I remember extremely well the superb images made by Mr Tan Lip Seng (color slides) when everything was "perfect" at the click of the shuuter. Galen Rowell also produce spectacular images with slides.Today, it appears to me that nothing (even for Michael Reichmann) can be printed with some form of PS manipulation.

    Gives me room to think why?

    3 There are a few reasons why I still do film. I do only black & white, and do everything myself. So the cost of development, printing are reduced tremendously. Of course if I do color, I would switch immediately to digital. Besides, for black & white, the inject is still not quite there yet.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bee Hedge
    Same here. Had a 10D. Sold it off and replaced it with an EOS 3. Why? Maybe it's because the feeling of not having a LCD preview screen is kinda challenging....more kick....coz u can't see what u take.
    You had made a good choice! Cheers!

  9. #49
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    1 You are already an experieced photographer when you made the switch. Your techniques are already adequate (perhaps very good, I do not know). Unlike you, many new photogs do not come to photography with such experience, and WHILE THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT THE FAULT, the temptation to be sloppy is too great.
    Yes....I have cut my teeth on the tradition of photography since I picked it up during my teens. I have my baptism of fire with negatives and slides.... from my first Nikon EM to my last F5 SLR etc. Hardcore Nikon buyer For me it is more like just a change of medium or change of technique now. I work with the strength of the tools I have before me and now I am changing over to a new medium set. Though fundamentally similar...camera is a camera to its end which is to capture images. What I have before me now is an evolved tool that is NOT like what it was before but it also represents new ideas and new approach to photography. The challenge is in finding out it's potential in its own limitation of use. To use this evolve medium but still try to retain all those old values of traditional film photography is doing injustice not just to the tool you just invested in but limiting your own potential to explore this new tool on its own merit. I am not sure how else to put it lah hehe..but as an artist, it is just like I have gone from using a brush to paint to using colour makers to do my illustration now. It is not the same ( like comparing apples to oranges) but it has beauty in its own way. For those who still love film or slides...good for them. It is about choice. It is a change born of new expression and exploration and not a change for the sake of change.

    Would I ever go back to slides ( will not go back to negative ) I migth. I love colours and especially colours in slides. But if I go back to it ...it is not because I think digital is not good at all. It is just a change of style and medium. As to how good I could shoot or not..well I think that is immaterial heheh...I am talking from a neutral point looking at it as an artisitc medium.



    2 Your statement that digital images may not be good enough may be debatable. Michael Reichmann and Paul John Caponigro produce great digital images. But again, these are very experienced photographers. Nonetheless, I remember extremely well the superb images made by Mr Tan Lip Seng (color slides) when everything was "perfect" at the click of the shuuter. Galen Rowell also produce spectacular images with slides.Today, it appears to me that nothing (even for Michael Reichmann) can be printed with some form of PS manipulation.
    Nah..I was playing devils advocate there. I am just sounding out what you normally hear in forums or articles of hard core views on either side of the photographic fence. Purist playing down on the bad stuff on digital and the digital shooters preaching the good of digital over traditional. Both side has good points but at the end, it is what you as the "carpenter" would do with those tools. As you have illustrated some really great photographers...both camps had generated great works using their medium heh. That is really the thing about it....with this people they are not fighting over which tool is better but they have explore and found the best way to use that medium to create something awesome for the world to see and appreciate.For now though slides do have an edge in terms of colour dynamic...but only "just" that was really waht I mean. Does not mean it is bad or slide wins hands down heheh..

    In these day and age...digital camera and arm with photoshop on a computer...the sky is almost the limit as to what you can do.
    Last edited by sammy888; 22nd October 2004 at 04:06 PM. Reason: additional text

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore & Hong Kong
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Thanks to digital & CS, I am back...

    300D was the 1st step....

    Quote Originally Posted by ST_sg
    However, I finally pick up my interest which lost 10 years back.
    And thanks to CS here

  11. #51

    Default

    I tried out a D70. Now I LOVE it. The N90S is now gathering dust, and the N6006 is sold.

    I use Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. A digital SLR, Photoshop, and a good photo printer (I use HP 7660 and Canon CP200)....well results are awesome, and it's a breeze to work with on the computer. No more film for me!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •