Why do you NOT want a DSLR?

[denizenx]

yeah the popularity of digital is becos it separates the medium from the content, think of it as a novel, the book and its story. The book may may rot but the story does not change.
but of cos the separation also causes the loss of easy decoding.
as for getting a good image, premium digital can already beat most films in terms of grain and noise, and the good part of electronics is that today's premium is tomorrow's commonplace, whereas film is already a mature and stabilised technology, commercially and scientifically.
perhaps the next step to replace film is to have a low-power portable viewer like the new foldable OLEDs... so u will have ur photo album replacement. although today, u already have those image tanks with video outs.

 

[ninelives]

nah, backup is not a safe measurement, storing is . In Singapore, most will store theirs in Cisco, for a price of coz.

never depand too much on technology, I've being doing backup for my company(using $10K equipment) for many years. sometime, things just screw. It really does not mean you are safe once you backup, naw, never will.

 

[mpenza]

dust, cost and size/weight are the factors that deters me. cost being the most important now. if cost dropped to less than $2000, then size/weight would eb the dominant factor.

 

[Bedpan]

Well... When you look at cost you need to include the cost of Film.. I won't do the math here, but it does not take all that many rolls of film to equal the differnce in price between film and digital. You may also find that getting away from film and the cost/shot factor you shoot more, get more good shots and are able to improve your style technique etc.

Mike

Originally posted by mpenza
dust, cost and size/weight are the factors that deters me. cost being the most important now. if cost dropped to less than $2000, then size/weight would eb the dominant factor.

 

[zOOm]

Originally posted by Bedpan
To me the big loss moving from Digicam to DSLR is the loss of using the LCD to preview.... Can make getting some shots a bit more of a challage... I still love me 950

Mike

LCD STILL don't give accurate view; You don't see 100% & you can't see properly if you object is properly focus.

frankly, if money not a issue; not only DSLR, I also wanna collect all Nikons, Canons, Leica, Rollei, Mamiya, Hasselblad (add more yourself to the list) etc etc etc

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by zOOm

LCD STILL don't give accurate view; You don't see 100% & you can't see properly if you object is properly focus.

frankly, if money not a issue; not only DSLR, I also wanna collect all Nikons, Canons, Leica, Rollei, Mamiya, Hasselblad (add more yourself to the list) etc etc etc

Hmm....just wondering, are you aspiring to be a good photographer or a camera collector? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Regards
CK

 

[Bangdoll]

too expensive to own one....

 

[mpenza]

Originally posted by Bedpan
Well... When you look at cost you need to include the cost of Film.. I won't do the math here, but it does not take all that many rolls of film to equal the differnce in price between film and digital. You may also find that getting away from film and the cost/shot factor you shoot more, get more good shots and are able to improve your style technique etc.

Mike

I already have a digital camera mah, so no need to include the cost of film liao.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Oooh, another argument!

Better get my 2 cents in before this thread closes down as well. :devil:

Hahahaha.

As for the rest, a nice coherent post. You've taken the time to explain what I didn't bother to. Thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Oooh, another argument!

Better get my 2 cents in before this thread closes down as well. :devil:

LOL! that's the funniest thing i've read today! :bsmilie:

yeah u're right. i regretted missing out the action in the other threads!

 

[sriram]

Simple : It is too expensive.

My SLR's cost : approx $600 (got it used)
Equivalent DSLR : approx $3800

Resale price after 4 yrs:
My SLR : $450
DSLR : $800? $400? $100?

Upgrade cost for better pictures:
My SLR : $6-7 (better film)
DSLR : $4000

Printing at a pro lab:
Lab handling charge for CD : $5 per CD
Film : None

Duh?!? You do the math.

 

[sriram]

Originally posted by Jed
You get the same quality 5000 years down the road you get today,

Hehehehe... forget 5000 yrs. See if your media can be used 50 yrs down the line... Hell, even 5 yrs down the line all our CD's may be obsolete with the upcoming 40 and 50GB DVD formats.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by sriram

Hehehehe... forget 5000 yrs. See if your media can be used 50 yrs down the line... Hell, even 5 yrs down the line all our CD's may be obsolete with the upcoming 40 and 50GB DVD formats.

The smart digital photogs will re-burn them along the way to new CDs, or DVDs, or whatever new media that comes along.

Printing at a pro lab:
Lab handling charge for CD : $5 per CD
Film : None

as for this, heh, there IS a developing fee for film, typically $3.50 or so. And you don't have to print everything, unlike what people typically do with negs.

That's why I posted the poll as "If cost is not an issue".

Regards
CK

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by sriram

Hehehehe... forget 5000 yrs. See if your media can be used 50 yrs down the line... Hell, even 5 yrs down the line all our CD's may be obsolete with the upcoming 40 and 50GB DVD formats.

As what streetshooter mentioned, as new media comes out you'll be backing up your stuff on to the new media, and it'll still be lossless (no loss of quality). What about slides?

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Richard


As what streetshooter mentioned, as new media comes out you'll be backing up your stuff on to the new media, and it'll still be lossless (no loss of quality). What about slides?

You invest in a good humidity controlled storage system, and duplicate them (wait..... this is not quite lossless.... )

Regards
CK

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by sriram

Hehehehe... forget 5000 yrs. See if your media can be used 50 yrs down the line... Hell, even 5 yrs down the line all our CD's may be obsolete with the upcoming 40 and 50GB DVD formats.

i think u all missed Jed's point on this.

the great advantage of digital is the easy reproductivity (if there ever is such a word) of the images - across storage mediums.

want to take advantage of DVD ROMs? no problem, simply transfer the images and they will last another 50 years. Afaid of the dog chewing on your old CDs? no problem, write the image a 100 times across 100 CDs and u have a reliable backup.

I've seen a dog chew on a friend's underwear, so don't think your old negs stored in that old shoebox is safe! ha!

The longetivity of digital images is superior to negs and slides, unless u also scan those negs and slides as backup. Physical media such as negs and slides are too prone to elements of weather, erosion by age and sloppy handling all of which reduce the quality of the precious images.

Ditto for those wonderful prints. And if you want to reproduce the print 50 years from now and u are not around.....can u guarantee there will be another printer to execute the same vision exactly as you want in the final print? Can u guarantee the continuation of b/w processing for that matter?

why do u think they have technologies like ICE, ROC or GEM in scanners? Precisely because film cannot stand the test of time, sloppy fingers and dogs.

a more coherent argument for film would be the ability to scan them into your PC and have both advantages of physical media and digital backup.(then again u're back to digital).

i've seen no one put forth such an argument yet.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Red Dawn
i think u all missed Jed's point on this.

Sigh. Why does that sound SO familiar?

 

[Bedpan]

I have done the math.. I also have an S2, enjoying th world of Digital, getting better shots everyday, learning as I go. I suppose your also the type who is probably still using a 486 cause something better is coming soon.. To afraid to spend money and enjoy the technology..

You must also have one hell of a prolab to be getting Free prints.... Last time I checked it would be close to $20 to purchase the film and have it printed. Even using your wonderful math provided...

Your Camera will cost you $150 to own
The digital will cost you $3000

The digital will cost you $2850 more then the Film Camera....
Probaly a little high, but at $20 a roll for film and processing thats only about 140 rolls of film. Not sure how much you shoot.. But in the 4 months I have had my s2 I have already taken about 4500 shots.. The true advantage of digital is you never have to be afraid to push the shutter button. It does not cost you anything. Yes I have wasted a lot of shots. Yes I have played around a lot. But doing both of these things teach me about the camera, how it is going to respond and what to expect.

I am new to SLR photography. I am damn glad I went straight to digital; It has given me the freedom to shoot.

DUH?!?
Mike

Originally posted by sriram
Simple : It is too expensive.

My SLR's cost : approx $600 (got it used)
Equivalent DSLR : approx $3800

Resale price after 4 yrs:
My SLR : $450
DSLR : $800? $400? $100?

Upgrade cost for better pictures:
My SLR : $6-7 (better film)
DSLR : $4000

Printing at a pro lab:
Lab handling charge for CD : $5 per CD
Film : None

Duh?!? You do the math.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

249 reasons why i like my Digital consumer cam:


#203 I could take mini pics with my wife on our way to jalan jalan, make fun and watch it when i coming home after a long day at work. cannot do that on DSLR

#097 self portriats with twisting LCD. canot do that on DSLR


#001 lighter than DSLR


......

 

[Goondu]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


.... easy reproductivity (if there ever is such a word) ....

I think should be reproduceability?? Right? Wrong?