Dan wrote:
Not every time, I think. I think it might be able to get an apgrade path analogous to that of a PC; you can add RAM and upgrade the CPU while keeping the mainboard to and other units - but what you get is not going to be as good as a new PC . By the same token, current camera CPUs and memory might handle somewhat larger sensors, albeit not as efficiently as newer cameras designed with these in mind, and if the resolution increases enough, I'd need a new camera anyway (just like you will have to fully replace the PC eventually, ff you want to keep up.) Also, there are of course parts of the camera that would be fairly up-to-date for much longer (the actual body and viewfinder, shutter/aperture control...)Quoting Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
And that's 4 times more for equipment that faster becomes obsolete, too.
Of course, the camera won't be less usable just because something better
has been released, but I don't like the idea of spending that much money
on something that's worth nothing in a year or two. Actually, I've done
exactly that e.g. with my PC, but there at least I have an opportunity
to keep up with some of the technology without replacing the entire
unit. With a digital camera, on the other hand, you're pretty much stuck
with what you've got. You can't start using a better film, or add more
RAM or insert a faster CPU or... Oh well, You can get better lenses for
a DSLR, of course, but wouldn't some kind of upgradability in the sensor
department be nice?
It would be very nice. But you also need to update the CPU and memory to handle
the larger data.
Apart from that, wouldn't it be nice to have one colour sensor and one black and white? Or perhaps add a lower resolution one with higher sensitivity? Or have special effects built into the sensor?
So it's generally going to be cheaper to buy a whole new
camera, especially if you consider that you should get more life out of the new
mechanical components and you can sell the old camera for something.
The question is of course whether you can.
Depends on how you see it. Film is equivalent to a rather high resolution and bits-per-pixel, and there is no lossy compression. I'd say that if you really want to keep your data, you should store it uncompressed, or compressed with something like LZW/ZIP. In which case you wouldn't get much more than 1 36 film worth of data on a CD. Also CDs (especially 50c ones, I would guess) are generally regarded as having a lifetime a lot shorter than the one of film. And the processing is in many analogous to writing the CD; you could do it yourself at a really low cost or get someone else to do it at a price.
And before anyone mentions it: Since I want to keep all my images, and
would like to have them as securely stored as possible, I don't think
I'd be able to make much money back by saving on film costs (I'd have to
spend most of that money on backups.)
You can back up about 10x36 films worth of digital images onto a 50c CD-R. You
can copy the CD-R and so have 2 backups in different places. I don't see how
the backups will ever cost as much as film + processing.
But nobody has to justify their choice digital/film. If you're happy with film,
find it less time consuming, more enjoyable, prefer the results then great. Don't criticise other people who have chosen digital because they prefer its
different benefits.
All these digi vs film threads seem so pointless - use whatever you like and
don't criticise other's choices. And now I've gone and contributed to it :-(
He, he.
But I think you've missed the point. Such discussions are not so much about criticising others who have chosen (or I guess sometimes they are, in which case I agree that they are pointless), but rather about influencing people who haven't. As such, they may present a more balanced picture to those who want to know more, than what camera producers or labs or whatever will give them - in which case they are truly valuable. Or they may be more biased in the sense that people are trying at all cost to convince others that they should make the same choice as themselves. I don't see anything wrong in that, either. If I'm convinced that film is always better, then why shouldn't I try to talk other people into going for film? I mean, it will be for their own good (or so my conviction will be, if I'm sure film is better; actually, I'm somewhat more neutral than that.) Or if I think one of the common arguments for digital doesn't hold (this is closer to the truth, actually), shouldn't I try to make sure nobody chooses digital *based on that particular argument alone*? Again, it will be for their own good. Also, if you're more selfish, and think e.g. that digital cameras are too expensive, maybe you can actually get them down to a price you're more comfortable with by getting enough people feel the same way. I won't object too much to that as basis of a discussion, too (even though it's somewhat selfish.)
Also, I think that the discussion arises partly from the fact that the information normally available in media is seen by film fans as being biased towards digital. Again, why shouldn't they try to balance the picture a bit?
- Toralf
