Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Aug 2010 14:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV I don't think you'll find many people left in our western world who prefer an old-fashioned regular camera over a digital one. While I can still appreciate the charm of fiddling with actual film and the thrill of finding out what your photos looked like all developed, digital photography is easier in just about every possible way. Thanks to The New York Times, I found a story from 2007 on the Kodak blog, detailing the ceation of the very first digital camera. In 1975. An old story, but fascinating nonetheless.
Order by: Score:
by hollovoid on Sun 29th Aug 2010 15:51 UTC
Member since:

Cool story, some of my dads friends remember working with Steve back in the day, being from the Rochester area (and still living nearby) its cool to see how many things originated from here that people use worldwide.

Reply Score: 2

The future
by Zifre on Sun 29th Aug 2010 17:17 UTC
Member since:

I always wonder what new technology will someday be commonplace.

There are so many things, such as nuclear fusion, non-rocket space launch (elevator, loop, etc.), super high capacity batteries, curing cancer, and many more things that I can't imagine, that people say may never happen. But will they?

I like to think that we are past the point in history where all new technology will be somewhat explainable to people today (i.e. try explaining a computer to someone from 500 years ago). But maybe scientific knowledge is expanding so fast that the opposite is true - maybe we can not even begin to understand the technology of the future.

This is why I love science. ;)

Reply Score: 2

by Priest on Mon 30th Aug 2010 02:42 UTC
Member since:

It still takes a decent digital camera to keep up with a 35mm in low/dim lighting.

My first digital was horrible at low light photos.

Reply Score: 5

RE: 35mm
by earksiinni on Mon 30th Aug 2010 03:37 UTC in reply to "35mm"
earksiinni Member since:

This may sound weird, but I have yet to find an inexpensive digital camera that beats my Sony Mavica under low lighting conditions.

I also actively buy records, but that's another thing altogether...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 35mm
by lfeagan on Mon 30th Aug 2010 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE: 35mm"
lfeagan Member since:

The latest crop of full-frame 35mm digital SLR contains a few very impressive specimens, namely the Nikon D700 and D3s. Those cheesy APS-C sensor cameras cannot even remotely compete with a full-frame for light-gathering ability. It is a simple matter of area my friends.

I still use a Nikon F100 with Velvia 100/200 for its quality on nature shots. But I adore my D700 for pulling in some very low noise shots at ISO 3200. Give a proper DSLR a try, you may find yourself very surprised at what is possible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 35mm
by lfeagan on Mon 30th Aug 2010 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 35mm"
lfeagan Member since:

I just wanted to follow up on my own post and say that I fully recognize that earlier poster's were talking about low-cost cameras.

It is actually quite sad what has happened with the economics of photography and the cost that may be involved in creating great pictures with digital cameras. With a film camera, the camera was just a light box that could open and close a shutter and advance the film. Given a reasonably good lens (likely a prime) and just about any light box (aka camera body), an advanced amateur could produce extremely high quality photographs simply by using a good film. The only reason to get a higher-end body was if you needed some esoteric capabilities. A more expensive light box was almost entirely unlikely to provide notably better photographs of still subjects in simple lighting conditions even in the hands of a rank amateur.

With digital cameras, the cost structure is radically altered. The light box is now at the heart of producing the image record. The cost per shot is virtually free and the equipment is constantly improving in notable ways.

As a side note, regarding the cost of taking a photograph. I really don't think of a shot as being free. Admittedly, storing bits on the CF card is "free". But, if you are doing a good job being thoughtful about your composition, it really isn't free. My time is expensive; I try to use it well.

Regarding the need to upgrade, I finally feel like at least a mini-plateau has been reached on the full-frame 35mm DSLR landscape. The need to upgrade has finally been reduced considerably for some users due to high-ISO capability at low-noise levels and reasonable resolutions.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Oliver
by Oliver on Mon 30th Aug 2010 13:23 UTC
Member since:

>While I can still appreciate the charm of fiddling with actual film and the thrill of finding out what your photos looked like all developed, digital photography is easier in just about every possible way.

This maybe true for the usual snapshots, but it isn't for real photography. Every good old-fashioned analog cameras can outperform todays high-priced DSLRs. You mix digital gimmicks with photography. It's easier to some degree, but it's far from better.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Oliver
by joshv on Mon 30th Aug 2010 13:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by Oliver"
joshv Member since:

" Every good old-fashioned analog cameras can outperform todays high-priced DSLRs. You mix digital gimmicks with photography. It's easier to some degree, but it's far from better"

Resolution-wise? Incorrect. Depending on the film, 35mm film cameras get between 4 and 16 mega pixels of effective resolution. Last I checked Canon's mid range has 18 megapixels.

I don't know what "gimmicks" you are talking about, but it certainly is much easier to get correct exposure when I can interactively balance exposure, shadow, highlight and midtones, rather than relying an automatic processing in the film developer.

Edited 2010-08-30 13:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Oliver
by dnebdal on Mon 30th Aug 2010 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Oliver"
dnebdal Member since:

There's a simple rule for online discussions: Whenever someone talks about "real X", it means "the way I do it". It's never a good sign for a reasonable discussion.

One thing that used to separate pro and amateur photographers was that the pros could spend many rolls of film per day if they so desired, while the amateurs generally had a much lower film usage. Letting us amateurs shoot many, many more pictures without ruining ourselves might be the best thing digital has done, in two ways: It makes it easier to get better at taking pictures, and it increases the chance of getting a few really good shots.

In other words - my D40 might be more expensive than a modest film SLR, and have lower image quality than a D700, but it's more than good enough for any print I'll ever make, and the film + developing cost to cover the amount of pictures I've taken with it makes it look like an absolute bargain.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Oliver
by lfeagan on Tue 31st Aug 2010 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Oliver"
lfeagan Member since:

Totally agreed. Pros can afford to take so many shots because:
alpha) They aren't paying some for-profit processing center to develop their rolls.
beta) There are no second chances to capture the defining moment of a sporting event.

Point beta is where digital has really helped non-professionals, such as when shooting their children's sporting events. I am very glad for this.

One thing that somewhat drives me crazy is when I get requests from folks to help them buy a camera the size of a pack of cards that can take decent photos at a dance club (at night). I rolls my eyes and try to find something that approximates their request as reasonably as is possible.

Another favorite of mine: When someone tries to tell me how their cellphone's camera is 10MP and therefore is nearly equivalent to a DSLR with a full-frame sensor at 12MP and a prime lens.

Me: "The phone's sensor is 1/800th the area of FF. This means that your phone cannot gather nearly enough light to produce decent photos. Also, your lens is pitiful."

Them: "But it says it is a 10mp Zeiss."

Me: /sigh

Reply Score: 1