Death of film slr???

[reno77]

From the business point of view, it would make more sense for the companies to push for digital. Why sell someone a $500 film camera that lasts 10-20 years when you can sell him a $2000 digital one that would become obselete in 5 years time.

 

[mervlam]

Originally posted by Prismatic
You compare this to the chemical emulsion on a 35mm slide, each molecule on the surface reacts to different levels of photon activation to create the image.
Which effectively means each molecule forms a point in the image on the slide. In chemistry terms, this means at least 3 times more points to form an image, so how can there be a lack of grains?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but using knowledge from Material Science, the emulsion is basically a very thin film of semi-crystalline silver halide (looking from the B&W film, makes things easier to explain, hee). Semi-crystalline materials can be fine grain (what u find in Velvia eg.) and coarse grain (what u find in relatively very high speed films).

 

[MoriMori]

People might want to consider the 'philosophy' behind digital before committing fully to it. This article on vividlight talks about the some of the pitfalls of digital, like storage media becoming obsolete.

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm

And when you think about it, I can see shades of it in Canon constantly refreshing their digital and analog product lineup. [runs to put on flameproof nomex underwear]:rbounce:

 

[suhaimig]

Originally posted by MoriMori
People might want to consider the 'philosophy' behind digital before committing fully to it. This article on vividlight talks about the some of the pitfalls of digital, like storage media becoming obsolete.

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm

And when you think about it, I can see shades of it in Canon constantly refreshing their digital and analog product lineup. [runs to put on flameproof nomex underwear]:rbounce:

Very nice article you got here. Very constructive comments on digital camera. Yes, it is right, we have been slave to the PC technology. I remember, my first connection to the internet in early 1995, where internet existance is no close to public eyes. I found that it was so cool as the technology is new to me at that time. I constantly upgrade my PC inorder to gat the latest speed without realising it would never stop. Always frustrated with the digital storage that always get erased when something goes wrong. I think when come to photography images, I still want them to stick with conventional film as always can be seen without thinking being the software is outdated.

cheers.

 

[sulhan]

Hi there....


Here are my thoughts......maybe death...or even extinction of film slr..or camera in total...from shops....Maybe in Sim lim....Far East...Lucky Plaza..........camera shops i mean.
However, cameras already in photographers hands will never die....as long as photography exist.........LONG LIVE PHOTOGRAPHY!!!!!!


Come on....juz like a analog wrist watch and and digital watch......... its up to individual......what ever they choose.....
Well......one main reason why THESE manufacturers turn to digital
so as to make more profit out of consumer like us......... make as much functionality into software/firmware and then charge the same or more than a true mechanical operations......



regards,
me

-----------------------
Welcome to the digital realm.....!!!!!

 

[Prismatic]

Originally posted by YSLee
So many points to address. Sorry if I miss anything.


Regarding lack of grain, I think you've just seen it. Alternatively I could show you shots scanned from a Frontier machine...

...Finally, I'd like to address the comparison between prints from slides and prints from digital; there's a reason why machines like the Frontier are so popular (hint: speed and quality), and I think quite a fair amount of people can testify to that. In effect that also means your slide has been digitally scanned in first, which in effect makes the comparison quite similar. From prints printed in this way, I fail to see any difference in slide or digital. In fact digital looks better at times (again, high ISO at great enlargements). Again much of this depends on the photographer; a crap photog shooting digital isn't going to get much results.

Hi, i think I get what you are trying to say. But then again, if you are thinking in terms of your output being digital and all, there's really no point making this comparision between film and digital at all. Yes, most labs are using the Frontier system now, but you have to know that how good a print from a film shot is only as good as how the Frontier machine can scan the film. As such there will be much different between film and digital prints, digital even tops up in some case, since the data from each pixel is first generation which allows for accurate interpolation between pixel point for colour graduation.

There's still a reason why some professionals still choose to have their prints enlargement via enlarger setup. But then again as I said, for most situations, there's no point going such detailed arguement. As long as I get my results, I don not really care what medium I use.

 

[YSLee]

haha, ok, point taken. But I was stressing that digital already offers many improvements over film in a context that is fairly standard for most of us (few use enlargers for colour work nowadays).

 

[clive]

digital will keep improving

film will always be around until the day when all the earth's chemicals used for making film run out

 

[BraveHart]

*Off topic warning*

You know if they could make a neat lil machine that processes E6 that is SMALL, AFFORABLE and easy to use (preferbly just slide the canister in....key in film type...amt of push/pull...press button...shake legs and wait for output)...I don't think I'll ever have the need to go digital

*please resume regular thread activities*

 

[newuser]

Was even thinking of getting a Nikon F75 as a starting SLR camera.

Cos starter DSLR are still way above the $2K mark.

I think for those memorable occasions like birthday parties, holidaying, weddings..etc, I would prefer film over digital

I would prefer digital over film for events like casual shoots, or non-memorable shots like buildings and fashion shoots.

 

[FiveIronFrenzy]

hmm... yah film dead like tube amps are dead man. Who wants a mesa boogie nowadays anyway?

OFT I know, sorry. But I couldn't resist

 

[sriram]

Originally posted by Ah meng
Most likely Canon & Nikon will stop production of film slr and announcement will b made once they clear all old stocks.Just my 2 cents so dont flame me.However i wont switch to digital unless price is right & resolution is on par with the best film.

So you work for Canon / Nikon? Or do you have "high level, top secret" contacts in there?

 

[suj]

Originally posted by djork
haha unless they can convince kodak, fuji, ilford, bla bla bla to stop producing film... and produce only ccds...

mate.. digitial photography is fun.. slr film photography has its own charm.

infact i am willing to bet that SLR camera prices will go up as we move through the years. Film will stay for decades.. in case you didnt know.. not every city in the world has a digital infrastructure like singapore to support digital photography...

 

[Silverelf]

Originally posted by reno77
From the business point of view, it would make more sense for the companies to push for digital. Why sell someone a $500 film camera that lasts 10-20 years when you can sell him a $2000 digital one that would become obselete in 5 years time.

You'd be lucky it'd last ONE not to say FIVE years!

 

[Kiwi]

Originally posted by YSLee
So many points to address. Sorry if I miss anything.
Kiwi, I agree with your point about the prices if you're talking about digital SLRs, but for point and shoots I think they're very close. That said I think you miss the point about bulk printing with digital; most labs offer very competitive prices, and since digital is a very easy to transmit medium, sending it for printing is getting easier as labs like fotohub start to have online facilities to send your photos in for printing.

Hi YS,

Ermm, sorry.. what prices are you referring to?

I've seen shots taken with my friends' respectable digicams (not DSLR) such as the Canon G2. If he simply sends the images off to the shops for printing, I find the colours and sharpness are really sub-standard. I don't use prosumer digital cams so I'm not sure but I suspect it's bcos the individual images are not edited yet.

For my DSLR, if I do send images to the shop (rarely though), I definitely will do editing of all the images myself. If not, the prints are just not contrasty and crisp enough. Looks as if I was using some really cheap lenses.

Whereas if I use films, I can rest assure the pro lab i'm comfortable with will do it for me and the colours and sharpness are all very good.

To me, I'd like to keep digital in its "rightful" place. (It's my personal opinion.) I think they are worthy to be seen on screen and can be conveniently burnt into CDs. Only for very good shots which I want to show around, I'll print them out. For bulk printing, I still love films.