BusinessWeek Online: "These Digitals Could Really Sink Film"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_10/b3873031.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_10/b3873031.htm</a><br /><br /></div>"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There's <a href="http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0402/29/d05-77233.htm">another article here</a> 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?

[David Prahl]

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.

[Philip Colmer]

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.

Here's to the digital revolution!

--Philip

[Jason Dunn]

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.

[Jonathon Watkins]

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.

[Jason Dunn]

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).

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

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!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

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.

[David Prahl]

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).

[possmann]

digi all the way - film will be dead in about 10 years - you heard it hear first

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

digi all the way - film will be dead in about 10 years - you heard it hear first

I say five for 95% of general consumers, and three for 80% of enthusiasts.

[backpackerx]

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).

But it already is. 1 roll of 35mm film $4. Developing $4. (being generous, usually $5 to $6) that's $8 for 24 pictures and half of them or more you will never look at again or throw away because of exposure, subject matter, framing problems etc. I estimated I spent $8 for every 10 photos I kept.
With my digital camera, I have no film cost and only keep and print the ones I want. You can get 4x6's printed for $.25 anywhere. That's only $2.50 for every 10 prints as opposed to $8. A film camera with my digital's features costs close to $200. My digital was $300. It takes less than 20 rolls of film to negate the cost factor of a regular 3.2 digital camera that will print nice 8x10's which is as big as most people every print.

And easy? I can point and shoot and immediately view in Auto mode--much easier than with my SLR.

[David Prahl]

But the initial cost of a nice digital camera is much higher than a film camera. You need to spend a good $50-$100 to get a decent memory card as well. I have a *free* 35mm camera that takes better shots than an Olympus 3 megapixel.

Again - I'm talking about "digital photography for everyone" like the topic says. I love digital cameras, but they need to change to overtake film.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Not to mention problems like flaky AF, dealing with batteries, etc. How about the families who use cameras like 4 times a year, using at most 6-8 rolls of film?

[backpackerx]

I guess what I'm saying is for those who want a decent film camera with features that most digitals have. You'd need certain program modes, a 35mm to 105mm zoom, and other features. That's where my $200 to $300 comparison was based.
You are absolutely right though, if all you want is a point and shoot no zoom camera to make pictures then a disposable camera will look as nice as a 3.2 megapixel cam. I've actually seen some remarkable clear, distortion free pics from $5 disposables! 8O what do they come with these days, zenon coated carl zeiss lenses? :)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Nah, it's just much better film and film developing techniques and processes.

Plus you probably are looking at 4x6s, which are pretty forgiving.

[Suhit Gupta]

I think it is still a bit pre-mature to say that film is dead, though it does appear that they are fighting a losing battle. Digital cameras capable of 14-18MP are fast approaching the quality of film, as that is about the resolution of the grain on the film itself. OTOH, these cameras are not cheap so let's see how this whole thing plays out.

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Digital offers quite a few advantages over film. It might lose out in extremely high resolution landscape photos, but how often do we print to 20x30?

[backpackerx]

I read in my Popular Science March issue today that as of 2004, digital cameras outsell film cameras. The graph from 1999 to 2005 looks like an X with digital strongly on the rise and film sharply declining.

[Suhit Gupta]

But the question is - when will that graph level off? Or are film cameras truly headed towards extinction?

Suhit

[backpackerx]

But the question is - when will that graph level off? Or are film cameras truly headed towards extinction?
When digitals have 90% of the market share :) Hey, I love my Canon SLR and only use it for my serious photography but the convenience of my digital makes it my weapon of choice for day to day use--even over my slightly smaller film point and shoot.

[David Prahl]

But the question is - when will that graph level off? Or are film cameras truly headed towards extinction?

Suhit

Typewriters, turntables, and audio cassettes. You can still find them.

[Suhit Gupta]

I agree :). I actually have two turntables myself for my vinyl records (mostly trance from when I used to spin).

Suhit