"Although it has been at least three years since I shot a roll of film, I remain painfully aware of the shortcomings of digital photography. The biggest drawbacks are cameras that aren't ready when I am and shutters that don't trip the instant I press the button. But I have been trying out two cameras that change the game -- and that could torpedo most reasons to use film."
The article goes on to talk about two cameras, the Kyocera Finecam SL300R and the Olympus E-1. The Kyocera camera is exceptional for one specific reason: the shutter lag time is 0.07 seconds, which is very fast for a non-DSLR (digital SLR) camera. I read a review of this camera in the recent issue of Maximum PC, and while they liked the camera a great deal, they felt the flash was too powerful and washed out anything within five feet. Who wants to take pictures from ten feet away? Regardless, this is an important move in the right direction for digital cameras. People want to press the button and have the camera take the picture, not wait for the camera to catch up to them.
There's another article here talking about essentially the same thing - the mainstream media seems to think that this is the year that digital film will finally obliterate analog film in the consumer space - what do you think?
Digital photography has reached the masses - just look at the digital camera counter in Best Buy during the shopping season. I think the clincher would be to deliver rich, high-res photos from a camera that's under $500 new. The majority of people can't justify spending more than that on a camera that takes photos like the ones they get from a $50 35mm.
Time for the "Brownie" of digital cameras to emerge.
As time has gone by, manufacturers have been steadily improving the cameras in the most visible areas like resolution and expandible storage. Now that digital cameras are mainstream, we will start to see more refined improvements such as a reduced lag in transferring the image to the storage and better response times when you press the shutter button.
Kodak have already seen the writing on the wall, as it were, with their announcement to cease manufacturing of traditional cameras.
I think another factor is the printing element - many people are still intimidated by computers and photo editing, so if you can get cameras with hardware red-eye reduction, printers with basic level adjustments and LCD screens, you might have a final solution.
Digital is just so convenient. It's the instantaneousness of Polaroid married with the quality of conventional photography. You can review on the spot of you got the shot.
Many's the time I have taken a digital shot, realised it was not quite right, re-shot the picture and then been happy with the second one. With conventional photography - you just don't know till it's too late.
Many's the time I have taken a digital shot, realised it was not quite right, re-shot the picture and then been happy with the second one. With conventional photography - you just don't know till it's too late.
Indeed! So many people forget how many photos most people shoot of an event or item because they have no clue how the shot turned out. I remember about a year ago someone announced a 35mm camera that had an LCD screen and a digital sensor, and the idea was that when you took the picture onto the film, you'd have an LCD preview of what you just took. :roll: Just get a digital camera already! ;-) I don't think they ever released the product...(someone probably told them how silly it was).
Many's the time I have taken a digital shot, realised it was not quite right, re-shot the picture and then been happy with the second one. With conventional photography - you just don't know till it's too late.
There's a term for this - it's called chimping. Shoot, look at LCD, shoot, look at LCD, shoot, look at LCD, repeat.
It's fine if you have no intention of learning photography, but potentially bad if you are. Generally it leads to an over-reliance on the LCD, and instead of an aid it becomes a crutch. The ideal situation is to see the LCD, learn what has gone wrong, understand it, and move on. Most just reshoot and move on without learning anything.
When you reach a certain level of experience in photography, you'll roughly know how a shot will turn out without looking at any LCD. That's what experience is good for, it tells you when there's a lemon of a shot coming up, and when a good shot is present, so you'll be able to make the most of every press of the shutter!
__________________
Baka. Soku. Zan. - The justice behind the dysORDer.
I think another factor is the printing element - many people are still intimidated by computers and photo editing, so if you can get cameras with hardware red-eye reduction, printers with basic level adjustments and LCD screens, you might have a final solution.
Hey look, if the shots I've seen from consumers' film cameras are anything to go by, they shouldn't be worrying about any of these things! I've seen worse from film cameras, and most consumers don't seem to care; they're more interested in the subject matter of the photos, provided the photo isn't too badly printed.
__________________
Baka. Soku. Zan. - The justice behind the dysORDer.
I am a major supporter of digital photography - don't get me wrong! But for it to really replace film, it needs to be very easy and very cheap (two things that technology usually isn't).
BusinessWeek Online: "These Digitals Could Really Sink Film"
Linear Mode
