"Duncan" <writeonline@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:19OdnV9nC4hKk3vanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Tony Polson" <docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4ut2u39j0mpravc9saf6i6qg9ck2kf6v67@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Duncan" <writeonline@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Woody" <woody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I had one of those - brilliant camera.
>>>>>
>>>>>However you will find two problems (1) sourcing the film amd (2)
>>>>>getting
>>>>>it processed - not to mention the cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The cost????
>>>>
>>>> It isn't film that costs money, it's digital.
>>>>
>>>> By the time I had bought several DSLR bodies, replacing them as
better
>>>> ones became available, had the sensors professionally cleaned several
>>>> times, replaced several of my lenses because, while they gave perfect
>>>> results on film, they didn't work well on digital, upgraded my PC and
>>>> bought new monitors, a monitor profiler and some very expensive
>>>> software, plus additional hard disks for storage, burnt a great many
>>>> CDs and DVDs, and spent a fortune on memory cards ...
>>>>
>>>> ... I could have bought and processed all the film I would need for
at
>>>> least the next 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That saved me from writing the exact same thing. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> You're very welcome.
>>
>> I'm pretty fed up of people making false claims that digital is better
>> than film (it is still a long way away, especially in dynamic range)
>> and that shooting digital is cheap. Well, I suppose it can be cheap
>> if you just buy a cheap digital point and shoot compact camera, but
>> not if you want to be serious about photography.
>>
>> When I totted up the sums I have spent on digital gear in the last
>> five years, I was pretty shocked. Some of my gear gets a lot of hard
>> use, shooting on construction sites and on or next to the sea. Cement
>> and stone dust and salt water spray are camera/lens killers, so I have
>> to replace my equipment surprisingly often. Upgrading cameras and
>> lenses when they need replacing means that I cannot take advantage of
>> anything getting cheaper.
>>
>> Put all this together with regular upgrades to computer hardware and
>> software (two PCs at home, one for image editing and the other for the
>> business side, plus a laptop) and digital photography is extremely
>> expensive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either using a cheap point
>> and shoot compact digicam or deluding themselves.
>>
>>
>
> When I did the sums I came to much the same conclusion. And my
investment
> in equipment of the years has paid off not having to buy new more
> expensive kit. In fact the more I do the les I can get away with.
Cameras
> are tools and I choose for the job in hand.
>
> Besides the costs as Tony has illustrated with digital I can put a
modern
> film emulsion into any of my age old cameras and get better results than
> digital!
>
> The only practical way to buy into digital form a professional
perspective
> is to lease the kit. No depreciation and full vat and value that can be
> claimed back against tax.
>
> I do have a Fuji F2 that recently had to have a new sensor. It was cost
> effective to have it repaired than to buy into new kit. I still use film
> camera lenses with it and even with 1.5x magnification can do most of
what
> I need from digital.
>
> Apart from the silent operation that digital cameras can offer I still
use
> my trusty Leica M4 for street photography with hyperfocal focussing.
>
> I was in a conversation the other day with a digital photographer who
has
> no experience of film. She is a natural photographer with excellent
vision
> and composition and struggles with technical aspects. But for her she
gets
> the results. Alas this is not the case of the majority of digital
> photographers IME whom are no more than glorified sharpshooters with the
> advantage of limitless images subject to battery life and disc capacity.
>
> These days, as it was with the advent of desk top publi****ng where
> everyone was suddenly was a graphic designer digital photographer has
made
> photographers out of everyone but not always for the good.
>
> Duncan
>
Hello folks.
I used Canon EOS film bodies and lenses until I felt that Canon offered a
decent (for my needs) digital body. Note that I stayed with film until
digital bodies met my needs.
My second-hand digital body cost around £400. On its first outing on a
week's holiday with me it saved me well over £200 in film purchase and
processing costs. One great advantage of digital is that I can change ISO
without having to carry lots of half-exposed films.
For my needs, digital is better than film.
Regards, Ian.
I
|
