What will hapen with my zeiss lenses

[Guest]

Regarding digital quality, I recently read a detailed article explaining that the equivalent of a 35mm film image will be equal when the digital sensor reaches 25 to 30 MB (this is not equal to a scanned film which needs to be well beyond 100MB).
William

 

[Guest]

I had an interesting weekend recently with several friends from college. Everybody brought cameras and I was the only one toting a film-based one. What I discovered is that they're mostly bypassing the PC and printing what they want directly by simply shoving the memory card in the printer, making a couple of menu selections and telling it to "go."

"What about saving off the files?" I ask.

"Well, we never saved negatives either, so mostly we just erase the pictures. If there are one or two we *really* want, then we'll download them to the computer." is the response.

It was an interesting weekend. If my in-store observations mean anything, at the "big-box" retailers I go to, digital cameras already outnumber film cameras on the shelves. In the last year, digitals seem to have hit some "magic" price-point where sales really take off (this is in the States). To support all these digital cameras, it's not too difficult to envision a digital image processing box of some sort that perhaps hooks up to the television like a game controller and which manipulates images, prints them, burns CDs (or DVDs) and perhaps even sends emails. Few of the folks I know who shoot digital relish manupulating the images on a PC.

I too, believe film is the superior medium (today) and will always be around. By the same token I will be very surprised if digital doesn't predominate the snapshot market within five years or less. Our fate will be to have far fewer film and processing choices as a direct result.

Here's one article w/ sales figures, and some projections.

http://www.infotrends-rgi.com/press/2002110544374.html

--Rick

 

[Guest]

Am I missing some deep-seated insecurity about the digital versus film debate?

Let me bayonet my lens mount into focus: - for the year ending Sept.2001, 45.9million sterling pounds was spent on 35mm SLRs (exc. compacts, Fisherprice cameras and the ilk) compared to 24.1million on all forms of digital cameras in the UK.

1 year later, year ending Sept 2002, 42 million was spent on 35mm SLRs and 347.6 million on digital cameras. (any one who reads GfK Marketing Services Ltd stats will know where I got these figures from)

Digital sales haven't just overtaken film based SLRs in volume (1.2 million compared to 156,190 respectively), but clearly the ratios indicate the consumer spends more per investment on a digital camera (and not having factored in the use of hardware and electricity).

I have noticed that virtually all of the Contax dealers whom I regularly shop at, no longer carry the range of CZ manual focus lenses, unless these are remaindered. As a result, I've ended up paying for a lens I've never even seen in action. Flicking through the American PP from a year ago, virtually all the large chains had CZ lenses advertised in the magazines; as with British journals. I feel bewildered too by the 'modern' photographic outlet, which is worse than being lumped on a moon with silver bodied cameras which are useless to the beholder.

I guess that's what makes up committment to 35mm film; going beyond the mere anxiety that I might fall behind everyone else, or that suddenly my camera system will become 'obsolete' just because everything else is subjected to digitalisation.

For clearly if the only reason I feel secure is because I am validated by my peers who are all buying digital cameras, then the least of my worries is what will happen to C/Y mounted lenses.


Joe99

 

[Guest]

> Actually the debate is all about pixels- a 35mm format has a size of 24x36mm which translated to inches is .945x1.417. With a 4000 dpi scanner, the resulting image is .945x4000x1.417x4000=~ 21 Megapixels- in all fairness to digital medium, it must be said that part of these pixels will be "noise"- a lot depends on the quality of the film, one could use Fuji Velvia or Provia as a reference (I am quoting these two not necessarily because they are the best, it's just that I am more familiar with the fine granulation, having used them for some time). The actual MB size of the resulting file depends of whether the image is 8 bits per pixel, 14 bit, 16 bit, etc. Each pixel must be stored with information for the RGB (3 channels) with the end result on a 16 bit scan of 48 bits total per pixel. 8 bits=1 byte so 48 bits=6 bytes. In the case of a 35mm negative/slide scanned at 4000 dpi with 16 bit resolution, the resulting file is .945x4000x1.417x4000x6=about 126 Megabytes. I believe that the main thrust for the industry now is to displace the film based point and shoot cameras off the market. What makes it so challenging for the manufacturers is that digital cameras have started resembling computers in terms of loosing resale value exponentially- as a result, the R&D expenses which are less than negligeable, must be recouped based on product sold within a very narrow window of opportunity. An SLR camera, especially a good quality product as of now still retains value better than its digital counterpart. I believe that film will coexist with digital for a long time, yet greatly diminished as far as market share. Hope my rambling has not annoyed anyone- at least I did not wish to vent the film vs. digital dispute.

Regards

Andrei

 

[Guest]

Andrei,

You raise some very valuable information and I believe that your reasoning is dead sound. Digital photography in many ways mirrors the launch of APS in that it both are primarily aimed at the point and shoot market as that is where image quality is at its least important in the reasons for buying.

Digital however has another major market – that of the press, a market that it has completely dominated in a very short time despite the horrendously expensive set up costs. This initial expenditure is offset by daily savings in processing costs and immediacy of image. A newspaper photographer’s daily output of images probably equates to a month in my terms. They can justify initial costs against running costs, I cannot. I can buy a wagon load of EBX and have it processed with the difference in cost between a digital SLR outfit and my RTS outfit even allowing for my also buying a decent film scanner.

When you look at today’s newspapers compared with those of four years ago you will notice a deterioration in the image quality. The press have also traded quality against cost. The freelance market for photographic images is slowly following suit. For years they have scanned slide submissions themselves, now some will accept high quality digital images. A recent survey by the (British) Bureau of Professional Photographers found that in the main image libraries would not yet accept images captured on digital cameras though their annual handbook lists dozens of magazines that do. I recently read a holiday brochure that was obviously compiled of 2/3 film, 1/3 digital images. I say obviously because quite frankly I could spot the digital images a mile off and even my wife commented on the poor quality of some of the photographs. If the public come to accept this ‘dumbing down’ of image quality, and they will, then digital will alsomstart to dominate the freelance market.

Whilst the British photographic press are digital crazy in their articles – just as they went APS crazy a few years ago, it is noticeable that only one Pro’ photographer has fully embraced digital and to be completely honest he is not what I would call a reliable witness (personal feelings). It is noticeable that the same press that embraced APS without reservation are similarly embracing digital technology without reservation. There is never, or very, very rarely a proper comparison of image quality. If digital could also claim this scalp then it would be trumpeted from every rooftop. It is n’t and so we must assume that they know it is inferior at this time.

I can honestly say that I welcome the advantages that digital could and will bring. There are occasions now when I prefer to use a digital camera – auction listing for ex&le. I can foresee situations where photographers might prefer the immediacy of image or where it would be impossible to carry film (in hot climates for ex&le). But, I will not rush into jumping on the technological bandwagon as some seem to be unable to resist. Digital sound quality is a compromise over analogue and at present digital photography is a compromise in quality over film. That will change and when it does, providing it is at the right price, then I will gladly jump ships.

At present I will stick my neck out right onto the block and claim that any decent 35mm compact will produce a better image on print than any 35mm digital camera. If there are any high end digital camera users near Yorkshire prepared to put this to the test then I would love compare direct like for like images.

Clive

 

[Guest]

Hi Joe , whilst I think I largely agree with your sentiments , I suspect that your interpretation of the stats is not quite comparing apples with apples . As they say , "their are lies , damned lies , and statistics!". You mention 1,2 million digital cameras vs. 156190 SLR's - clearly , more than 90% of those digital cameras would be of the P&S variety , yet you dont mention the number of film based Point & shoots that were also sold in the corresponding period , nor the even higher number of disposable cameras . I dont know why you deliberately choose to ignore these when it is also clear that all the people investing all this money in digital cameras are for the most part not "serious" photographers with high end digital cameras either . I dont mean to sound defensive , but I just thought your facts came across a little slanted to me - for my own part , I have no intention of going digital for some time to come as I have no need for it , however , I do print digitally via a scanner and inkjet printer . So please dont think of me as one of these anti digital nuts , I just like to see things in their correct perspective! Steve

 

[Guest]

Looks like another digital vs film debate that is recycling many of the arguments being circulated on several forums, analog and digital around the Net. Some good arguments have been stated (and restated), and some of the stuff (numbers, perception of quality, etc) remains fodder for endless debate.

I personally come into this debate from the opposite direction. I have been shooting digital for five years (was easier after an eye operation to use the LCD screens than a small viewfinder) and eased back into film in the last two years with a Contax G2. Since then, I have gotten into the manual focus C/Y line and recently picked up a 645 at a great price from someone going digital. So I'm a big believer in film and the Zeiss line of lenses...the biggest reason I'm not totally invested in digital yet is the quality of black and white and my perception that Canon and Nikon lenses don't yet match what Zeiss offers beyond pure sharpness.

With that said, digital offers substantial benefits as a learning tool and the improvement in quality is unmistakeable, even with the upfront investment being quite high. I owe a very great deal of my improvement as a photographer thanks to the immediate feedback provided, and the ability to control results on a computer and printer. What people forget is that many minilabs (and a number of pro labs for that matter) butcher color and B&W development --the ability for people to take more control over the process with a digital, or even use a good online photo developing service to process only the shots they want, should not be overlooked.

I expect film to remain around for quite a while, but some analog ways of working (most notably darkroom work) and some film choices will go by the wayside as digital continues to mature. I don't have a commment on the cost/benefit issues at this point...that's an individual decision than can be argued either way depending on what type of work or hobby a photographer is engaged in.

Clive's arguments comparing digital to APS represent one extreme of this endless debate, just as there are people at dpreview.com on the other extreme who declare the death of film on a regular basis. I prefer not to live in the world of either extreme and enjoy the significant benefits of both mediums (digital for color wedding, studio and still life work, 35mm for street shooting and family snapshots, medium format for fine arts B&W landscape work and some portraiture). I expect that digital will take over all the color work I do eventually, assuming Contax get their act together and take a step beyond the unfortunate missteps of the N Digital.

 

[Guest]

Clive, old fruit:

I sense a Luddite in our midst -- one without a head! A similar attitude is held by many farts in the chess field. That Kasparov has been brought to a dead halt by a computer does not seem to register: it's over, the future is digital.

Both chess program and digicam benefit from Moore's Law, where circuit miniaturization doubles processing speed every 18 months. The same is not true for human brains and film, both analog.

It was touch-and-go with the 6MP DSLRs (Canon D60, Nikon D100) versus 35mm color film. With the Canon 1Ds, it's all over except for the screaming (pain or pleasure). An RTSIII, tripod and Tech Pan should still dominate the 1Ds in the B&W dept.

I do enjoy writing chess programs and shooting with my DSLR. However, I rejoined the film c& a few months ago because I like the medium and the C/Y equipment. I'm even thinking about snagging a Leica M4 if I can talk myself into using a hand-held light meter again. If analog cameras and wooden chess pieces feel right in the hand, use 'em! If the largest print you need is 8x10, it doesn't matter if you shoot 3MP or 35mm film... I checked.

 

[Guest]

Rico,

Check again my last sentence in the last but one paragraph!

Clive

 

[Guest]

>This is a really dumb statement: "At present I will stick my neck out right onto the block and claim that any decent 35mm compact will produce a better image on print than any 35mm digital camera". You need to look at more digital shots. Yes. Compare a low end digital to a good quality Point and Shoot Image and your statement will hold together. Compare ANY 35 mm film to the highest end Digital Cameras on the market, and with the right photographer, the output will be comparable.

michael.