jamiew

Oh yeah.. and the comment on developing and 3rd world countries if very valid. Due to the cost and avaliability of digital they will use film for some time. But what percent of people in these countries use professional grade C-41 and E-6? Again I go back to no one will want to use Color film in the future. It'll be like CHOOSING to shoot 110 film =)

Daniel.

 

While Kodak may have brought "photography to the masses" in the sence that given the financial and educational commitment, it was avaliable to anyone, it was still a tiny percent of the population. The masses (i.e. just about everyone) really didn't get into photography until the advent of the transister in the 1970's. AF and auto exposure is what brought people in.

 

That being said, I still do agree with the fact that film will be avaliable, I just think people will eventually stop caring and it will die due to lack of demand. Digital will get that good.

Well Robert here's an answer for you.

 

Film still makes sense if you do not own a computer =)

I thought I might reply to Daniel Taylor's post on film not being in any danger of disapearing. While I agree with you that it will not disapear completly, your example of supply and demand in the late 1800 is flawed. You see, film was super expensive back then. Pretty much only professionals had cameras and film. The reason it was profitable was that the only alternative was to have an artist create a painting of your family ($$$$). If the supply and demand curve for film ever got back to where it was in the 1800's film would indeed die off.

 

Here is how I see the near future (10-20 years). Color films of all types will virtually disapear. If you really are hooked on that Velvia look someone will come along with a photoshop plugin to fill the need. By that time digital cameras will be such good quality, and the processing will be so convienant that everyone will use it (eventually large format too).

 

I predict that B&W will linger on as an art form, but that should die out within a generation since you will digitally be able to create the look of ANY film stock, and digital sensors will continue to have even greater and greater exposure latitudes killing true B&W's one outstanding technical benifit. The way things are going I also think darkroom supplied might be legislated out of existance because some are toxic.

 

Here is digitals strategy to conquering the world:

 

1) Kill C-41 print film (In progress and victory in sight)

2) Kill E-6 silde film (In progress, but those pesky landscape people with the big cameras are trouble)

3) Kill B&W (It's actually already dead, the Leica people just havn't realized it yet ;)

 

Enjoy...

I think in the end the decision really doesn't come down to quality, but rather need and experence. 90% of the public doesn't need super high quality so they have traditionally used C-41 processed 35mm film. If you look at the groups that have fully embraced digital they almost all are C-41 processed 35mm film users. These groups are the P&S crowd and sports/news photographers. There are still people out there that are attached to C-41 in 35mm. I find they tend to use two types of equipment. Small high quality P&S and old manual cameras. The first groups is slowly moving to digital as good digital comes to small cameras, and the second group are essentially using buggy whips and we all know what happens there (and don't get angry at me for saying this since i use a Rollei 35 =).

 

Now as to E-6 film in 35mm there is no doubt that digital cameras are not as good quality straight from the camera. However in the hands of a good digital post processer most the limitations go away and in many cases can be improved upon. The issue here is also not quality. In my opinion the E-6 35mm group simply is too much in love with the actual slide to consider digital. Many arguments are made, but in the end it's the slide itself.

 

The last group of 35mm film users use traditional B&W. This will be the last group to go digital becase B&W is more like a way of life. Again it is not really quality, but the process (although digital B&W really isn;t all that good).

 

Of the three groups in about 10-20 years the only one that will be around in any numbers is traditional B&W since it's so much of an art form. Color users will all go digital by then since other than the shot there isn't that much of an artistic process today involving the photographer.

 

Notice I only mention 35mm and keep pointing out that it's not the quality. The reason is simple. If a photographer really cared about quality he wouldn't be using 35mm =)

Here is my responce:

 

1) This is only true because small sensors (i.e. it will go away)

2) See number one

3) I see this as more of a digital benefit.

4) With the same care everything is durrable

5) NOt really with 35mm film (and soon not even with MF)

6) Debatable

7) If you like grain I think film is the way to go UNTIL someone comes out with a good photoshop plugin (hint hint)

8) Not if you are under 40 (i.e. grew up in the computer age).

It's a good camera, but there are better for less money. Personally I think the Canon S50 blows it away. I say the S50 since I assume you are only looking at compact cameras. If you are looking for ANY camera at that price get the Canon G5.

 

Just so you dont think I am a Canon junkie, the S50 and G5 are almost the same camera inside and share features. The main difference is G5 has better lens, flip out LCD, Hot shoe, more accessories, and is mubho bigger.

Right now the absolute best P&S digital camera from a price performance standpoint is hte A70/A80. I would go for the A80 since it get the flip out LCD and 4mp vs. 3mp. MNake sure she gets a charger and two sets of batteries.

Ryan.

 

I did not say buy a cheap lens. I said buy a cheap 50mm lens. ALL 50mm lenses are cheap. The canon 50/ 1.8 is $70 online. It has some of the best optics in the entire Canon linup (The Nikon 50/1.8 is at least as good and less than $100 too). They are cheap because a 50mm lens is so inexpensive to manufacture. They do have cheap build quality but they take EXCELLENT pictures.

 

And remember cheap in lens terms means plastic build and lower durability when roughly handled. It has little to do with reliability with proper care (and given the cameras are you looking at this lens will be just as well made as the camera).

 

The other good reason to start with the 50 is that you will quickly realize if you need a wide or telephoto lens. Since both are somewhat expensive better to make the purchasing decision based on your personal experience.

Your welcome. I have the Canon G3 and am still undecided between the 420 and 550.

Unless you really really really need the smallest flash possible then skip the 220EX. it does not have a pan and tilt head, and has less power than the other two. Really you should only consider the 420ex or 550ex. Here are links:

 

Goto BHPhoto.com and search for "canon flash". Click on the features link and decide if the 550 is worth the extra dough to you vs. the 420.

Ryan.

 

I am going to suggest something completly differnt. Assuming price is not an issue I would reccomend you start with a Digital SLR and a cheap 50mm lens. Set the camera so that it displays the histogram in image review and set the review time to 10 seconds so you are forced to actually review each image. While this is a much more expensive initial purchase here is what you gain:

 

- Entially no film costs (after the initial memory card) so you can shoot to your hearts content which will give you a faster learning curve.

- Since the world is gradually going digital you will have to learn the digital darkroom process. This something you will have to buy a good (i.e. a scanner more expensive than a DSLR) to do with film.

 

Now if you only plan to shoot something like 10 rolls of film a year then I dont think digital is worth it, but that also will mean you will not learn much.

 

You asked for an opinion and this in mine. You are welcome to message me diretly for further advice.

The 50mm is mostly touted as a great lens to learn with since it forces you to move around to get framing (i.e. think). I don't think you will find many experienced SLR users that only use this one lens since it is so limiting, but it's a great learning tool.

There are reasons so many pro wedding photographers use 35mm/Digital SLR's. The others use MF and I have been to numerous weddings where the photographer has to ask the couple to stage certain events to get the shot. The photos turn up excellent, but man does it put a damper on the flow of the wedding.

Unless you really realy need the small size of the camera, or have an extensive set of AUTO FOCUS Pentax lenses I would suggest you pass on the *istD. Here is a somewhat diased review against the *istD from a former Pentax user:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml

Nakul.

 

You really should go to DPReview and read up pon the newest crop of digital cameras. Kyrocera/Contax and Konica/Minolta have some pretty fast cameras.

Peter.

 

This decision should be a no brainer. THE standard lens for this kind of photography has pretty much been the 80-200 2.8 lens since Nikon introdiced the first one years back. In the Canon linup the current standard is 70-200 2.8 IS L. While there are faster primes in this range, given how good the current crop of DSLR's are at high ISO you really only need this one lens.

 

That being said once you learn your personal style you might find you want a faster lens or one with more reach, but until then you should start with the 70-200.

Actually the digital rebel's default settings probably are biased more towards the average consumer then the G5 (i.e. higher sharpening and more vivid colors).

 

The G series P&S actually have more professional controls in camera than the Digital Rebel since it really is aimed at professional applications (albeit ones that do not require the speed and high ISO capabilities of a DSLR). On my G3 I have flash exposure compensation, total control over metering, etc. etc.

 

I consider the digital rebel targeting a different market than the G5. The next step up from my G3 would be the 10D.

Bob.

 

I am with you 100% when it comes to artictic representaions of nudes (like venus de milo or whatnot). When I say nudity I am referring to an actual person being nude. That being said something like Nationa Geopraphic studies on ancient tribes and the like really muddy the waters.

It's kind of funny how much I read here about how schools should not block fine art nudity. While I personally do not have an issue with any kinda of nudity (ecept for children), that is my OPINION. That's the key word .. OPINION. What is in your opinion fine art, is pornography in other people's opinions. Now ideally people's opinions should not matter that much as far as the law goes, but when it comes to nudity and minors, it matters a great deal. Even in liberal Europe there is a fuzzy line (just it's much more in the nudity is ok camp over there). The simple matter is that if a school in the US with minors displays, or knowingly allows the viewing of, ANY type of nudity at all they are breaking the law. The idea that they have a right to view it if it is art is irrelevent. Hell even adults here at photo.net that are helping Matt find ways around the filters are technically breaking the law.

 

I am sure all of us (adults of course) have "read" magazines like playboy and penthouse. In my OPINION most of those images are more fine art than about 80% of the nudity here at Photo.net. That does not mean I want those magazines in the local school libraries.

I consider the A60/A70/A80 the bestcurrent cameras in their class.

Why do you need something avaliable at supermarkets?

The first question to ask if what is your age and what level of school are you in.

 

If you are under 18 the mear fact that photo.net allows nudity would rule it out of many schools.

You know I just realized my last comment may have come off as harsh. I really was making two comments. One a thanks for the link since it's what I have been looking for to use with my TLR, and a second comment that it is not what I want for a P&S.

me thinks that a digital body to take the G series lenses is unlikly, but one can only hope.