increasing number of people selling off their D70 in less than a few months?
- Thread starter swimcraze
- Start date
- Status
BurgaFlippinMan
New Member
Greenie said:
Same experience here, like you, I also stepped up (digital-wise) from the Oly UZ-750...didn't really have a problem with darkness (maybe becuase of the custom curve I've loaded in) but sharpness (I had to have mine adjusted for backfocus)...yeah, its just still very very slightly behind the oly...before USMing in PS of course...
gooseberry
Senior Member
BurgaFlippinMan said:Same experience here, like you, I also stepped up (digital-wise) from the Oly UZ-750...didn't really have a problem with darkness (maybe becuase of the custom curve I've loaded in) but sharpness (I had to have mine adjusted for backfocus)...yeah, its just still very very slightly behind the oly...before USMing in PS of course...
One of the biggest changes in moving from the small sensors of the digital P&S and the larger sensors of the DSLR is that the P&S has a huge DOF, any focussing errors are pretty much masked out by the DOF. DSLRs have smaller DOF, and thus correct focussing becomes more critical, and probably some people will misinterpret DOF and sharpness.
Also, the P&S cameras do a large amount of in camera sharpening (and other processing).
acroamatic
Member
If people wanted to pick up photography, there was always FILM.bernards said:
I still reckon it's Singaporeans lust for the newest, latest electronic gadgets that's driving DSLR sales. And the sudden realisation - for those who weren't already interested in photography - that using a DSLR is a bit more complicated than they bargained for, especially with respect to getting nice shots straight out of the box i.e. without any post-processing.
Look at it this way. When film was the only option around, did every Tom, Dick and Harry give up their P&S to upgrade to a SLR? No, I don't think so. Was the price prohibitive to upgrade? Definitely not. A lot of people still stuck to their P&S cameras and were happy. Those that wanted to explore photography further bought SLRs.
Hmm... the 'simple to use' argument also doesn't make sense. If anything, owning and using a DSLR is more complicated than a film SLR. Have to take more care while changing lenses, have to get the metering spot-on more like slide film and unlike conventional film, must know how to deal with digital images and associated hardware and in all probability, have to do post-production work. A SLR seems fuss-free and simple to use in comparison.bernards said:
So, back to my main point. I reckon some people are jettisioning their DSLRs (or D70 in particular) 'cos they've found their new toy too much of a hassle. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for the 'exclusivity' of owning a DSLR. In fact, I encourage those who have bought a DSLR on a lark to be willing to experiment more, learn proper photography techniques and get real joy out of their camera.
I think you're missing out an important fact against your argument on why lots of newbies have flocked to DSLRs instead of film SLRs in the past: It doesn't cost you money to just shoot and experiment with a DSLR. Lots of people (myself included) just didn't want to bother with the cost and hassle of buying and developing film. It was a (comparatively) expensive way to learn, as like everyone says, in order to to get better you just have to shoot more. With DSLRs you can just take as many pictures as you like and the only limitation would be the size of your CF card, or your motivation ;p
This fact alone justifies getting a DSLR to learn and pick up photography, IMHO, of course
Cheers
GYR
This fact alone justifies getting a DSLR to learn and pick up photography, IMHO, of course
Cheers
GYR
clive said:
I'm sorry but i don't entirely agree with you... infact, any camera is a good camers. a SLR is a camera for pro or creative ppl, a DSLR basically does the same in SLR except that it provide room for digital enhancement and instant gratification.... a P&S is for ppl who don't bother much on 'Curve' (as in digital photography), or lighting and speed of object (as in manual SLR/rangefinder etc).
But don't forget, a winning shot may not neccessarily come from a pro camera body. A good composition and creative perspective to compose a shot is something no camera body in the market can provide. There's no function on the body knob to switch to 'Creative AUTO Compose' Mode.
Remember, the quality of a good compose picture, a winning shot all comes from your head. your camera is only tool, just like your pen/pencil/brush etc. btw, i myself is a SLR/DSLR & Rangefinder user.
cheers
earthlings
New Member
Gymrat76 said:I think you're missing out an important fact against your argument on why lots of newbies have flocked to DSLRs instead of film SLRs in the past: It doesn't cost you money to just shoot and experiment with a DSLR. Lots of people (myself included) just didn't want to bother with the cost and hassle of buying and developing film. It was a (comparatively) expensive way to learn, as like everyone says, in order to to get better you just have to shoot more. With DSLRs you can just take as many pictures as you like and the only limitation would be the size of your CF card, or your motivation ;p
This fact alone justifies getting a DSLR to learn and pick up photography, IMHO, of course
Cheers
GYR
I share the same tots. But there are still people out there constantly discouraging others from getting DSLR citing the costs, and expensives lens etc and hosts of why why why?. They instead encourage film SLR. To me SLR is almost dead (not medium format) and more expensive to learn and use in the long run. So just go and buy the DSLR that u can afford and slowly built up your lens collections.
acroamatic
Member
Gymrat76 said:
The cost is hidden. How much does your 512MB/1GB+ CF card cost? How much time (and time is money) is expended on post-production? Yes, I'll grant you that you can shoot as much as you want and that practice makes perfect.
Still, I find the DSLR has eroded my discipline a bit precisely because of the "shoot as much as you want" mentality. It's just so hard not to review the shots immediately and reshoot. It doesn't improve my 'eye' nor my technique. It just gives me a 2nd chance to take a shot. Assuming it wasn't one of those fleeting moments that will never happen again. With film, I'm more deliberate, more decisive about what to shoot and when to shoot because of the scarcity of film.
But these points are going slightly off track. Let's bring it back to the topic. People are selling off their D70s. Why? I'm assuming it's because some sellers were not interested in photography in the first place and finding that instead of bothering with the "cost and hassle" of film they are having to bother about the "cost and hassle" of digital, or DSLR photography to be precise.
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
A bit bizarre here ... :think:
The starter of this thread .. since then no sound no pics .. :dunno:
BUY BUY BUY ... then ... SELL SELL SELL ... wat is the problem ?? :bsmilie:
The starter of this thread .. since then no sound no pics .. :dunno:
BUY BUY BUY ... then ... SELL SELL SELL ... wat is the problem ?? :bsmilie:
glennyong said:
Before, only I have computer (AT286) now almost everybody owns one or more computer.
Before, I have a scanner, now almost everyone got a colour scanner.
Before, I have colour printer, now almost everyone got a colour printer.
I used to be able to design webpage for a living, now every kid on the block can do it.
Why? that's life.
In photography, only the hardworking and creative and talented ones can earn a living with it. In real life, many are just serious amatuer/amatuer and hobbyist. Technology are making life easier for us. Who knows, 20 yrs down the road, you may be able to buy parts and assemble your own camera. :bsmilie:
BurgaFlippinMan
New Member
Yeah, true. I did however, begin taking photos as a hobby before the C750, started with my F801.....so the small DOF is really just something I've been craving for in my digitals...
Yeah, P&S do do a lot of in cam work....well, its better for ppl who don't play much PS (like me last time)
Yeah, P&S do do a lot of in cam work....well, its better for ppl who don't play much PS (like me last time)
gooseberry said:
earthlings said:I share the same tots. But there are still people out there constantly discouraging others from getting DSLR citing the costs, and expensives lens etc and hosts of why why why?. They instead encourage film SLR. To me SLR is almost dead (not medium format) and more expensive to learn and use in the long run. So just go and buy the DSLR that u can afford and slowly built up your lens collections.
Not true. Not true at all. You have a heavier startup cost with DSLR, you don't see it, but the D70 is just a consumer level DSLR, just perhaps maybe a F80 digitised. A F80 is only $650 new (I think), a D70 is $1000 more.
Film is as cheap as $3~$10 (slides), developing is about $4 for slides, approx you can shoot 71 rolls, that's 2571 shots. Given the discipline to learn and shoot before thinking, you won't even reach 71 rolls in 2 years unlike digital.
That's just comparing the cost of the bodies alone. Not forgetting digital film is a seperate cost.
It's not dead, not at all.
acroamatic said:
It's been said many times. Digital is easy, i's convenient, it's fast. To argue otherwise is just plain pointless. Digital photography has turned the learning curve into a very small hill. I for one never picked up photography earlier because film was just too much trouble. When digital came along, I was hooked. Well now that I am going deeper in photography with my digital gear. I actually started having intrest in film as well.
I agree about the reckless purchases then followed by regret. But it seem the thread has also turned into a newbies and snobs discussion.
Aiya people just like to buy and sell than let them loh. Why argue so much, go and shoot. The camera is only a black box, it is not all there is to photography. Don't forget there is also the lens (IMHO the main thing in photography not the body) and the creativity juice of the photographer and the interpretation that the photographer wants to put across.
shutterbug
New Member
bernards said:
That's right. Imagine after shooting with film, u still need to travel to the lab (transport cost) and wait, then there's cost of developing and printing + negative. $20? for each 36 roll?
Then comes looking at the photo. Forgot what settings u used to take that picture because it is a fast action scene, no time to write down. Picture did not turn out right? Also don't know why? Unlike digital, all data are in exif.
Then u got to scan the photos so that u can share thru internet. After scanning u got to do correction in photoshop. So much time and energy wasted?
Film is as good as dead. Only my auntie still use her film P&S camera. Everyone in my family to relatives to friend use digital now.
Even Nikon is withdrawing from film p&s camera. Before they can sell 2 miliion units of p&s camera a year, this year they est to sell only 50k.
See Kodak? Once a blue chip in stock market. See what their stocks is worth right now? Some may argue, maybe not now, ok... it is just sooner or later.
shutterbug said:Film is as good as dead. Only my auntie still use her film P&S camera. Everyone in my family to relatives to friend use digital now.
Even Nikon is withdrawing from film p&s camera. Before they can sell 2 miliion units of p&s camera a year, this year they est to sell only 50k.
See Kodak? Once a blue chip in stock market. See what their stocks is worth right now? Some may argue, maybe not now, ok... it is just sooner or later.
Correction! Film wll not die off so easily.
For example, can digital B&W prints (in general) get as good result as a B&W prints developed from a film?
There are still markets for film... don't jump into conclusion so fast.
- Status
Similar threads
