Curious - opinion?

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by metalstorm

I'm with you here, but tell that to the purists who buy tube amps, etc and masters to listen to their LPs. Or are you one of those purists?

Actually, this is the same issue in reverse - nowadays, LPs are made carefully in small production lots with the awareness that they are targetting a very quality conscious small niche of the market. At the same time, CDs and DVDs are mass produced and quality control is often lacking. Often the actual quality of a carefully produced LP is better than a shoddily produced CD or DVD. So even if the potential quality of the newer digital technology is higher than the older analog LP, the LP might be alot closer to fulfilling the potential of the underlying technology than the CD is.

And I'm not one of these purists, but I am a pragmatist who has worked in the industry that produces the technology that goes into this audio gear. And one can certainly buy older used high-end analog gear for a pittance that far outperforms crappy mid-level consumer quality digital gear.

For example, I own an audio setup that has a used APT-Holman preamp, a Macintosh Amp, and a Luxman direct drive turntable with a Shure V15 Type V cartridge, that, together, cost me between $800-900 second hand. This stuff was all ultra high end analog gear when it was new ~20 years ago. This gear blows away any newer digital gear that can be bought for under $2000 in audio quality, and the build quality is in line with newer digital gear in the $20K+ price range.

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

For example, I own an audio setup that has a used APT-Holman preamp, a Macintosh Amp, and a Luxman direct drive turntable with a Shure V15 Type V cartridge, that, together, cost me between $800-900 second hand.* This stuff was all ultra high end analog gear when it was new ~20 years ago.* *This gear blows away any newer digital gear that can be bought for under $2000 in audio quality, and the build quality is in line with newer digital gear in the $20K+ price range.

Nice! I need to find some room for my audio stuff. My stuff has been in storage ever since I moved to Mississippi three and a half years ago.

[justicehoward]

....im not being rude here but , like who friggin cares? Why dont you spend more time worrying about the future of your IMAGES instead of the future of your cameras...just a thought ..

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by justicehoward

....im not being rude here but , like who friggin cares? Why dont you spend more time worrying about the future of your IMAGES instead of the future of your cameras...just a thought ..

The archiving issues of digital images is discussed at length on other threads, Howard. This one is on another subject entirely.

[ellette]

Originally Posted by justicehoward

....im not being rude here but , like who friggin cares? Why dont you spend more time worrying about the future of your IMAGES instead of the future of your cameras...just a thought ..

As scoundrel said, it has been talked about elsewhere. There are many concerns involved in photography, not just one. Besides, some people can't afford to buy cameras often, so of course they should worry about the future of their camera, and you may not care, but many people do. For some people, having a digital has given them the feeling that their pictures will actually have a much better chance at long life. No negatives sticking together in a drawer somewhere or getting scratched because they fell out of their envelope (granted, that isn't taking great care of them, but it happens) and now they can easily back up their images and just print them out as they need them. Archival printing isn't horribly expensive either, especially when it pays for itself if you mostly only bother to print the ones you sell. For someone like me though, and many others, a camera is a HUGE expense and you truly don't want to buy one that will need replacing in a couple years since that means you'll be camerless before long with no chance of becoming a camera owner again without some serious sacrifices (ie., kids not going to the good school, kids not getting glasses, no food...things like that ).

Sara

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by justicehoward

....im not being rude here but , like who friggin cares? Why dont you spend more time worrying about the future of your IMAGES instead of the future of your cameras...just a thought ..

I agree completely that priority belongs on the images, both making and preserving them. I don't think people spend a tremendous amount of time worrying about subjects like obsolescence... it is a good subject for an on line photography forum though. This is a place where we all meet to exchange ideas, learn new things and make some friends. This is a well where we come to quench our un-quenchable thirst for photography.

There was a saying in one of my old favorite books... "What does a climber do when they aren't climbing? They read and talk about climbing, that's what." That's what we're doing here, we're reading and talking about photography because, at the moment, we aren't photographing.

You're not being rude, your point is valid... you may want to keep using that disclaimer for a while though, until people learn that's just your particular voice and you mean no dis-respect.

Chip

[allmono]

I think MF and LF 5"x4" probably still has its place. But with film and processing costs. 22mp digital backs give the same grainless result as a 22mp scan from a 5"x4" ? A colleague of mine has just spent (clients money of course) 3,000 euro on film and processing just for one 2 week long job!

Some say digital has no soul, but with a bit of jiggery in CS2 we get the same result as from our Sinar.

[prophotoimages]

Speaking of film, Kodak is raising prices of film by about 3-17%. The company states that they have been absorbing unrelenting increases in the costs of raw materials used to manfacture film. I find that digital has had a huge impact on these costs.

Also a loss of some fine film cameras and companies that have gone out of business or dropped the continuance of making & production of these cameras which has hurt their bottom line. It seems as if it's "all aout the buck".

Amen

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by prophotoimages

Speaking of film, Kodak is raising prices of film by about 3-17%. The company states that they have been absorbing unrelenting increases in the costs of raw materials used to manfacture film. I find that digital has had a huge impact on these costs.

Also a loss of some fine film cameras and companies that have gone out of business or dropped the continuance of making & production of these cameras which has hurt their bottom line. It seems as if it's "all aout the buck".

Amen

Hard for me to believe that Kodak couldn't have been more competitive in the pro and prosumer digital arena. The company has all but given up making anything but point-and-shoot digitals, right?

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Hard for me to believe that Kodak couldn't have been more competitive in the pro and prosumer digital arena. The company has all but given up making anything but point-and-shoot digitals, right?

That's where all the revenue is. Nikon grossed something like 4-1/2 times as much on consumer cameras as they did on DSLRs and lenses last year. Who knows what Kodak is doing... they're still grasping for a piece of the digital market but nothing looks solid for them at all.
Chip

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Hard for me to believe that Kodak couldn't have been more competitive in the pro and prosumer digital arena. The company has all but given up making anything but point-and-shoot digitals, right?

Then again, Kodak's film camera offerings have mainly been point-and-shoot models for decades: Instamatics, cheap 35mm film cameras, APS. If Kodak has been making any film cameras for the past few decades that a pro photographer would be interested in, I haven't heard of them. To the best of my knowledge, Kodak hasn't been in the 35 mm SLR market since it stopped producing its Retina series.

[mysteryscribe]

We would all like to think that photography is about the craft to everyone involved, but alas its about the profit and loss statements to the suits. It comes down to this and not a thing we can do about it.

Digital is cheaper to shoot for the pros.... easier to shoot for the average person... had immediate gratification that polaroid could only dream of.... that means film is less in demand (all kinds)... Paper for wet process is in less demand....There will be too much supply and too little demand to keep them all in business.....

Some manufacturers will fall by the wayside.... Most camera manufacturers I fear have already made it known they will be out of the film camera business.... The film and paper itself will most likely be produced in countries who print their labels in languages we can't understand (levity)....

What and how much at what price is a mystery to me, but it will be whatever the economics dictates.. that is for sure.... It's all profit and loss.

Consumer cameras were never meant to last a lifetime (kodak polaroid philiosphy) Now everyone has adopted it. When the camera bodies began to weigh less than a pair of socks, I knew it had come to pass... Soon it might be cheaper to lease than to buy a camera, since it will be pretty much a disposable item like cars are now.