On 15 May 2005 at 20:00, Bob Blakely wrote: > My conclusions: > > For most use 40 lppmm is entirely suitable. > > If you want the very best (equal to using say, Provia 100F or Tech Pan film or > better, the very best lenses, solid tripod, controlled lighting and critical > focusing) you still need film and you will need it for a long time. > > Average consumers don't care because they don't blow their photos up to 3x5 > feet, don't ever crop and are used to accepting the quality of a $4 throw away > one shot p&s camera. Digital processing is within the consumers' capabilities > and gives them a feeling of "control". Many pro's, especially PJs and wedding > photogs will drop film also and go to digital to save money and time. The > money > is in the volume and therefore in the average consumer. Film outlets and film > choices will dwindle. We'll all be forced to digital for most work because of > this. Our shiny new digital cameras will have a tech life of about three years > just like computers. Eventually, after 10 years, what was the very best > digital > camera when it was purchased will command a price of $25 on ebay, about the > price of a Russian Leica copy. > > Bonus: for some years to come, your digital cameras will not require the > very best lenses to work to the best of their capabilities. > > Drawback: You will need a newer, more capable computer and larger > communications bandwidth every three to six years. > Just my opinion...
I guess I'll have to keep my Mamiya 7 kit and LS-8000 MF scanner for a few more years yet. :-) I constructed my computer system to cope with my scanner needs before I bought my DSLR camera, historically my work-station computers have 5-7 year life-span and servers more. Digital camera files are minuscule in size compared to the files generated by MF film scans so even 22MP DSLR files would remain manageable using my current system for its life. Post processing time whilst not instant definitely isn't reducing my productivity using my current system, any additional processing time due to larger RAW files sizes would be tolerable. I don't subscribe to this theory of ever increasingly capable cameras and the need to upgrade. Like computers DSLR technology will likely plateau within the next five years. There is little point even considering more than about 16MP in a 35mm frame camera, there would be little need or benefit for 99.99% of photographers but for pose factor. At the 16MP point prints up to 16x20" will be about as good as they get and wall sized prints would be better than using 35mm film for the same job (and that's just a demonstrable fact, the film res numbers look great in text but don't work in practice, been there), I know they'll have no soul but I'm learning to deal with that. I feel for the photographers that have a real attachment for film but really I only care about the best most cost effective methods of getting my images into print and digital processes have solved a lot of my problems and made me a lot less angry :-) Just my current perspective of the situation. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
