Nikon dropping 35mm film cameras

[Cake^^]

This one's from the OTHER great forum out there
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/01/12/0019249.shtml?tid=126

[ZAPPER]

Another story that makes me feel old.

I wonder a few things as we pass into the new era of image capturing. Is there a digital still camera as rugged as the old SLRs? Has the shutter lag/recycle time of a digital camera caught up to the speed of a SLR with an auto winder? Do any of the digital cameras take good black and whites?

I confess, I don't remember the last time I used my old fashioned 35mms, they sit on a shelf in their bag with their assortment of lenses and other gadgets. I try to tell myself that I just don't have the time to take pictures that much any more, but I have probabally taken as many if not more digital photos in the last five years than I have film exposures in my whole life. I feel like a traitor, like I have turned on a good freind. There was a time when I would have stood my ground and went toe to toe with anyone that thought that digital would pass film quality. Times are a changing. I don't mind not being 18 and indestructable, but 40 going on 100 is getting rough!

[smearbrick1]

I bought a Minolta SLR a few years back complete with lenses and the whole deal. Cost me somewhere in the neighborhood of $500.00 after all was said and done (it may have been more). Same camera on Ebay right now will not even fetch $100.00.

I hate progress.

[Doramius]

Film camers still have their advantages, but for regular consumer America the advantages are small. If you are a professional and need every bit of detail, depth of color, and a crisp & clear image you still can't beat film and chemical developing. If you are Joe Picturetaker and want to send snapshots of your a** with various landmarks around town and moderate tourist destinations, a digital camera is gonna suit you much better. First you can delete a picture if you truly do not want it. Quality doesn't matter as long as the main part of the moment has been caught and is legible enough. Speed of getting your pictures is instant (even moreso than an 'instant film camera'. go figure) and they can be emailed right away or printed conveniently at home. You do not have to go to the store and drop off your film and come back 3-4 days later, nor pay a small extra fee to have it processed in an hour. Most importantly, You only pay for the Flash card once and it's reusable until you inadvertently smash the thing, whereas you need to carry 10x 32exp. roll canisters with you to equal the amount of same exposures available on low end digital flash cards.

The only film cameras that I find even practical for Joe Picturetaker use are the Polaroid 'Instant film cameras'. They literally spit out the picture right at the moment. But you still have bulky cartridges to carry around, and you have to wait a few minutes for the exposure to appear. Once it appears, you still have to scan it to send if off to other people, unless you don't mind giving away the only copy you just took. The drawbacks, spell themselves out when you look at cameras on cost and convenience scales.

In simpler words, the cost alone warrants the widespread move to digital. Convenience makes a pretty good statement for a move like that as well. However, if you are looking for the best quality and finest shot you can get, there's no way you can beat a film camera, at least for this point in time.

[lordsmurf]

For Joe Blow, 35mm SLR cameras never really took off anyway. They preferred crap like Polaroid and point-and-shoot 35mm or point-and-shoot digital.

As far as shutter lag, Nikon SLRs never suffered that afflication. Canon owned that one, with their myriad crap cheap SLR cameras. Nikon D1 digital operates every bit as good as a Nikon F5 35mm. The D2H has higher res and better quality at higher ISOs. Best yet, D2H is only like $3000 new (compared to $5000 new for D1 some years back). If you want high res and quality, shoot digital with a D1X (is the D2X out yet?) with adequate lighting. Be warned high res cameras tend to be slow, only like 2-3fps at best.

[Doramius]

Nikon D1 digital operates every bit as good as a Nikon F5 35mm. The D2H has higher res and better quality at higher ISOs. Best yet, D2H is only like $3000 new (compared to $5000 new for D1 some years back). If you want high res and quality, shoot digital with a D1X (is the D2X out yet?) with adequate lighting.

That porn site must be working out for you if you're able to put money like that out for cameras. :P

[ZAPPER]

I don't mind paying five to 14 grand on a good digital camera, but if I do it had better be able to cook and clean, because my Ole' Lady would leave me for sure

From what I have seen, a 4 megapixel will make 8x10 prints that can be out of this world and tuff to call if digital or film.

OK I'll give you that low light can be a hassle, but it was with film too.

I give up, and join the point and shoot crowd. In my whole life I have only had a handful of photos in the highschool and college paper and only one in an art gallery. I took me this long to find out that I am not a photographer, years of sweating exposure and f stops and fighting the focus. I could drop a digital camera and take a better focused, better exposed photo than I can spending time to try and get it right the old way. I got maybe 10 prints that I am proud of and would even consider showing.

I don't really even miss the money dropped on it. What burns me is the time wasted. I mean yes, it was a lesson and expeirence and all of that, but it is like climbing a mountian only to find out that everyone else just took the elevator.

[lordsmurf]

Low light was never a hassle for film. You can push, you have high ISO film, and you have advanced flash abilities. So far, digital has gained most flash options, some ISO, and nothing for push.

Compare a 1600 or 3200 ISO digital shot with a roll of Fuji 800 pushed to 1600 or 3200 (and push processed correctly). Add a fill flash for extra effect/help. No contest here, film will beat the crap out of digital.

[ZAPPER]

Yeah, I know. But pushing, pulling, high speed films and extra lights are kind of the hassle. I was talking in the general terms of natural light. Either way, digital or film, you need light.


LS, on a side note/question? Did you ever print/publish your book? ( I am thinking that you had mentioned doing a photo book or something)

[lordsmurf]

It was a lot harder than I expected, so it's been delayed a year. Even then, finishing it may be wishful thinking. If it does ever come out, delays will have only improved the content.