Is it worth going digital right now?

[vincent_j_m]

Olympus lost touch with reality over a decade ago. I wonder how they are still around. The 4/3 system is too little, too late and too expensive. At least APS didn't cost a lot more than 35mm equivalents. At these price, Oly should be selling in the high tens if they are lucky. I know a few pros who've taken a look at the Oly system but have absolutely no plans of buying it... they're happy with their Canons and Nikons - they deliver the goods and have been around a lot longer.

[beauh44]

>If I were a big cheese at Canon, I'd think long and hard about changing over so other camera manufacturers could use the Canon lens line and vice-versa.

 

>Which may be why you're not a big cheese at Canon.

 

That's what I was saying, Mark - I'd think long and hard about it because it's a BAD idea, not because it's a good one. Think I can get that gig at Canon now? Big bucks, here I come!! ;-) Best wishes . . .

[anthony_thornborough1]

Mark, Quality is an issue, as I write illustrated books (and do social photography for friends, particularly portraits), but none of this is very time-critical: sometimes I have months or even a couple of years.

 

In my experience using commercial processing rather than DIY for film is fine if you find a good place that produces consistently great results. (I had to give up darkrooming because of asthma.) Book publishers are, however, increasingly adapting to the use of digital images and for my last project some 40-50 of the pictures were burned on CDs rather than submitted as prints or tx (as was the 135,000 word text) - an enormous saving in time and money, as I used to burn out a printer every 10-12 months!

 

I see digital as inevitable and am greatly attracted to its immediacy, ease of reworking and storage, and am merely wondering what the state of play is as there seem to be no common standards: the sensor arrays are all different sizes, and the ones that can match 35mm for quality and full-frame are horribly expensive. I guess I'm lucky enough to be able to hold off and wait a couple more years - who knows, even 645 digital backs may become affordable (in my dreams!)

 

The Oly system looked attractive, though I've been put off by what people have said about its cost and about 4/3 being a dead duck before its hatched. Probably just fond memories of using the old OM system, which was so incredibly compact for an SLR, and which delivered such great results. People seem to have a lot of faith in the Canon EOS system's future so I'm planning on sticking with it now, but deferring entry into the digital world.

 

Thanks for all the comments: they have been very illuminating!

[oistein]

what can beat a BIGSCREEN SLIDE SHOW?!

 

no, I'll stick to my 1V and Provia 100F and 400F and Velvia etc for a couple of more years...

[J.W. Wall]

Anthony, apparently you write about some really high-tech weaponry, such as fighter aircraft. Have you asked this question of any of the technical folks who handle those aircraft? Should be somewhat enlightening....

[anthony_thornborough1]

Yes, it's a good point, and I think they're just as confused as I am regarding upper-end amateur DSLRs!

 

I suppose it's just a case of wait and see, but I can't help thinking that the camera industry will settle on a near-common DSLR standard for sensor size before long, even if lenses remain unique to each brand.

[arthur_reyes1]

Hi folks.

Sorry for a late reply to something that was posted on the 4th. But I'm just now getting back to checking the discussion forum after the weekend. Enjoyed reading the responses to this question. But if I may add my two cents. Here's my opinion as to why I think film will not be going away anytime soon. One word. "Costco".

Have you seen all cases and cases and cases of Kodak film they sell. Someone is buying it and its obvious that Kodak (Costco)is still willing to sell it. I still love film and I'm not ready to jump to digital. Funny story from the weekend. My father in law (film user as well) was taking a picture of a group of kids we were with. Their parents are digital folks. After my father in law took the picture, all the kids said, "Can I see, can I see!" You should have seen their look of disapointment when they were told it was not a digital camera and it was still a "old fashion" camera. Classis look! Too bad I didn't have my "old fashion" camera with me to take the shot.

[picnic]

"My only remaining question - which is somewhat off on a tangent - is it possible to edit Canon xxD DSLR images satisfactorily using Corel Photopaint? That's the software I've been using for donkey's years and am happy with it, but don't about RAW file issues as Adobe Photoshop seems to be the industry standard now

 

-- Anthony Thornborough , July 04, 2003; 11:17 A.M. Eastern "

 

Anthony, I can assure you that you can easily use Photopaint. I do use PS, but used PP for years. RAW is not converted within your graphics app (well, shouldn't say that because there is now a RAW plugin for PS--which I own), but generally 3rd party programs. The one many Canon folks are using is from Capture One--and they have an LE version. I've used several other RAW converters (Canon's is a royal pain and not used by many I don't think) and up until the PS plugin came out, I was using one called Breezebrowser--its now about $45 I believe. The Capture one LE is $99, as is the PS plugin. I woul dnot recommend C1LE--you will be amazed at how easy your RAW workflow would become with this program. You convert your RAW image to a tiff (generally), do your processing within whatever graphics app you want and save as you wish.

 

Diane

[chuckk]

The upcoming digital cameras from Canon are not unknowns. In September there will be an EOS 3D with 1.3 crop factor and a later Canon 1D refresh model. The EOS 3D with fast and full-blown AF/AE features and a 1.3 crop factor will be the upgrade for 35mm pro's and prosumers who haven't taken the plunge and D30/D60 users who were not overcome with joy by the 10D. The increase in resolution will be incremental (more than 6 and less than 11) and the speed will be about 4 FPS. $2500+ MSRP is my guess.

 

The 1D refresh will provide greater resolution while maintaining high FPS--and you'll even get an LCD zoom. It might migrate to a CMOS sensor, but I think not as a full frame. Interleaving is a must, whether CCD or CMOS for that kind of speed so a full frame sensor wouldn't help the cause too much. The 1D could receive the benefits of CMOS while maintaining speed with multiple write-accelerated paths to the buffer.

 

If a digital camera is not an income producing asset for you and you want more of Canon's higher-end features I counsel waiting. I'm not a pro so an EOS 3D or a wave of used 1D's (with the apostrophy) this fall will be of great interest to this 1V user.

 

Cheers,

[jim_larson1]

Speaking as one of the "ignorant masses", I think digital cameras are a completely personal decision.

 

If you are a computer geek with money, now is a good time to go digital.

If you are a computer geek without money, then digital is still too expensive compared to film (shot per shot it is cheaper, but the bodies are too expensive. . .and if you shoot so much film that the digital *is* cost effective, then "you have money")

 

If you are *not* a computer geek, then digital is a bad thing. I mean, all your photos live on the computer! If you don't like computers, then you will be much happier with albums.

 

But as always, if you can wait, then you should wait. The cost of dSLR's are not going up. Quality is not going down. The dSLR of 2008 will be heads and shoulders above the 10D, and probably the 1Ds as well. Cost will probably be comparable to film.

 

Think of the computer industry. It took 12 years for price and features to stabilize to the point where your computer wasn't obsolete (in cost and ability) in six months. No reason to think the cameras won't be similar.

[jon_austin]

I agree with Jim Larson's July 8th post. I'm a computer geek (20+ years) who owned two Kodak P/S digitals before investing in a Canon 10D, 3 lenses and a Speedlite. Prior to that first digicam (which I bought in mid-1999), I had a 35mm P/S that I used rarely, like on vacations and at special events. Since going digital, I shoot everything, everywhere, all the time.

 

I'm still learning how to be a good (or better) photographer (does anyone ever really stop learning?), and with digital, I learn as I shoot (instantly), not hours / days / weeks later when I get the film developed.

 

As one contributor wrote, this is a very personal decision. For me, it's easy: if I don't use digital, I just don't shoot. Since I'm a computer geek, the back-end stuff came easily and naturally. My first digital camera was an experiment, and I upgraded each time I realized that the capabilities of the digicam I owned had begun to limit my creative options.

 

I may be wrong, but I think I'll get the itch to replace my 10D with a newer model before I outgrow it, especially when the price of a DSLR with a full-frame sensor comes out of the stratosphere.

 

In the mean time, I'm shooting a ton, increasing my ratio of keepers:throw-aways, printing some of the best, and having a ball!