The End of Digital Photography?

[Jay]

I see a person who:

1)cannot let go of film.
2)cannot stand that digital cameras exist.
3)denies the reality that digital is now the norm. You see horses and buggys on roads these days? If yes, who uses them? Exactly, people who cannot let go of the past.
4)lives in some nerdy camera world, where "Kaiser lenses" are heard of. Seriously, If 5% of the people in this sub-forum has heard of Kaiser lenses, I would be surprised.
5)Is really, REALLY annoyed that average people can access medium format cameras.
6)is completely clueless that large manufacturers do something like, you know, research and development. I am sure if you dig through Nikons archives, you will find that the D40 was more than likely developed 2-3 years before it's market release.

Film cameras have seen their zenith, and will never be improved. Digital has yet to see it full potential.
This type of person I encounter everyday in the automotive industry; it's the bitter, resentful asshole who will make sure that everyone within earshot knows that nothing has been good since their self imposed arrested development.

 

[Top Geek]

Obligatory

 

[IceBone]

I've heard of Keiser lenses, but only because one of my prof's is like the wikipedia of photographic knowledge...

Speaking of new bodies, Nikon has been releasing updates for its cameras like clockwork every two-three years with the intervals shrinking as we approached 2009. The oldest current model is a year and a half old and the youngest half a year and even though nothing was announced at PMA 2009, when the head of Nikon Europe visited our uni we got a bit of Q&A and a replacement for the D300 is coming.

APS and full frame digital cameras are approaching their peak. It's just impossible to cram any more pixels onto such a small piece of silicon without introducting noise. The only solution is to increase sensor size like Hasselblad, Leica, Phase One, Red do. I'm thinking of buying a 50-ish year old Rolleiflex camera off of ebay for about 150-200 euro, which shoots on 6x6cm film, which, if the lens is still good (Carl Zeiss, yo) and with new film is good enough for 100+ megapixel crystal clear scans. The future is in larger sensors. And black silicon.

Also, the Nikon D700 is cheaper than 5D and much better.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Obligatory

That was hilarious.

Does he realise he sounds like the idiots who said film was dead after the birth of digital?

At first I thought this would be about digital video taking over from photography. As high speed, high def video can almost make photography obsolete in some circumstances, like sporting events. And/or CG taking over in other cases, like studio product photography and even location (cars).

As for FF bodies, well I paid about $2400AU for my 20D way back when (the only digital body I've ever bought), so it won't be long until I can upgrade to a FF body for about the same price I paid for the 20D (exchange rates have screwed things up here - now I'm earning and spending yen).

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

when the head of Nikon Europe visited our uni we got a bit of Q&A and a replacement for the D300 is coming.

No way! I heard that Canon is going to replace the 50D at some point, too!

 

[Top Geek]

Also, the Nikon D700 is cheaper than 5D...

My bad, I was just looking that the specs on dpreview, but I see Amazon now lists it at $2400.

...and much better

Hey, no argument there

It's just impossible to cram any more pixels onto such a small piece of silicon without introducing noise.

Olympus has managed to jam 12.3 MP into a four-thirds sensor. If my math is correct, that could mean about 47 MP on an FX sensor at the same pixel density. Maybe they could remove bayer interpolation and give us 15 MP images that are sharp at 100%.

No idea what the noise is like on that four-thirds sensor, though.

*waits for Nomix...*

No way! I heard that Canon is going to replace the 50D at some point, too!

Wow! I bet they'll call it... the 60D! :lol:

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

If my math is correct, that could mean about 47 MP on an FX sensor at the same pixel density.

43.7MP, actually.

 

[ja404]

Do people really upgrade every time a new body comes out? I'm still rockin my 10D.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Do people really upgrade every time a new body comes out? I'm still rockin my 10D.

Some do, most don't. There's a guy on a local forum I frequent that buys every single new Canon and Nikon that comes out. EVERY one, from pro to consumer. He then sells them after maybe 1000 actuations each. I have never seen him post a single picture, ever.

My upgrade criteria was "double my current resolution with the same or better noise characteristics for under $1500", so I got a D300 when the prices hit their low point shortly after Christmas.

 

[doigal]

i shoot both digital and film. Both have their uses, strengths, etc. Neither is 'better' than the other one, and both of them will be around for a while to come.

 

[sifu]

Do people really upgrade every time a new body comes out? I'm still rockin my 10D.

im still using my 350d which was bought second hand.

 

[NooDle]

the article is retarded.

it is however true, that film will not die as quick as anyone thinks...even this guy still uses it, and he's pretty awesome

 

[evoWALO]

I'm thinking Canon/Nikon are either waiting who'll blink first when announcing a new product and then show off an opposing model with better feature sets.

Or they're just exhausting existing stocks to make room for a new SKU avoiding the Osborne effect. That's what Apple does before announcing a new model to prevent a glut of non-moving items.

On the 25th it is said that Canon will unveil the 500D but I'm hoping for a 1D3 replacement.

Film will only die once digital becomes cheaper. Not everyone has a computer or wants to deal with one when just taking photos.

 

[kurthest]

Do people really upgrade every time a new body comes out? I'm still rockin my 10D.

I upgraded from Nikon D70 til D300 some weeks ago, and I still feel the D70 is a good camera.
And I bought the D70 back in 2004 or whenever it was (just after it was released).
I dont upgrade unless there are new or better features that raises the bar significantly.
Even with a D70, the weakest link is the person behind the camera (me).

 

[evoWALO]

Far from it. P&S cameras point to 43 MP/cm? pixel densities vs the 5D2's 2.4 MP/cm? pixel density so you could get more than 300MP in future DSLRs. Future technology will allow for better noise control and higher ISOs.

Film is a force in developing markets/countries and a niche in developed ones.

Film is great and cheap but time consuming vs digital

I personally like high density large sensors.

APS and full frame digital cameras are approaching their peak. It's just impossible to cram any more pixels onto such a small piece of silicon without introducting noise. The only solution is to increase sensor size like Hasselblad, Leica, Phase One, Red do. I'm thinking of buying a 50-ish year old Rolleiflex camera off of ebay for about 150-200 euro, which shoots on 6x6cm film, which, if the lens is still good (Carl Zeiss, yo) and with new film is good enough for 100+ megapixel crystal clear scans. The future is in larger sensors. And black silicon.

 

[evoWALO]

I upgraded from my 10D for the ISO and FPS of the 40D but I'm considering taking a $100 hit to upgrade to a 50D for the better LCD. Now I think I would've been better off buying a 5D.

Do people really upgrade every time a new body comes out? I'm still rockin my 10D.

 

[IceBone]

The smaller the sensor, the more noise, lower quality, lower DOF and even with increased noise reduction (highly unlikely in the near future), the sensors will be much more perceptive to optical errors, which will send the price of premium lenses sky rocketing, because they'll have to be made much more precisely than they are today. Even the best, most expensive lenses today will look like crap.