As you know, I have started to become more familiar with digital cameras and scanners. At the present time, it would seem that dedicated scanners is the way to go. Here are my concerns: 1) Outdated technology. This is kind of like owning a Beta rather than VHS. With digital cameras, what happens when the recording method, and the computer software significantly changes. For example, will the digital photograph I take now, be viewable thirty years from now, when everything will have changed so radically. 2) You can always use slides and film negatives on whatever equipment fifty years from now. It seems to me that negatives and slides are the most technologically stable (I don't mean how long they last, but secure from changing OS's, software changes, and hardware changes). It would seem to me that I can take a slide and use it a long time down the road. 3) Since negatives and slides are still technologically superior, it seems to me to make your primary image on the most technologically stable, and superior medium; then work with that image on the computer. 4) Falling prices and superior camera's in the future. I think the camera to wait for is about 5 to 10 years away in development and price. For me around 1200-1400 is the price break, where I will be compelled to move from my comfort zone now with my present photographic equipment, as long as I can re-use my lens. Any thoughts, disagreements, or further pushing of this arguement?
Hi rsn48, I think it is very hard to argue against any of your points. We just don't know what the future will hold. I do use a digital camera for internet work because it is convenient but I still keep my trusty old 35mm equipment for those special shots. There are supposedly digital cameras that will give the same quality as 35mm but I certainly cannot afford one. I have been processing my own 35mm slides for over 20 years and the early ones have shown no deterioration whatsoever when stored in a cool dark place. If you are happy with your conventional photographic equipment then stay with it and if the opportunity arises to buy a suitable scanner at a price that suits your pocket then that's an added bonus. As I said before a digital camera is "a nice to have" tool for internet work but certainly not an essential. Happy snapping, John.
I'm in agreeance with John comments, but I do, and will, take issue with those who ask questions about outdated technologies. We can never truly keep up with the latest innovations unless there is a high disposable income available to do so. That precludes 99.999% of the first world population. I can't see the recording method changing greatly during the next 5-10 years. The CF card became the CF type 1 when a type 2 became available, but current CF cameras generally use type 2 and some can use type 1 so there is some backward compatability out there. Besides, there is the usual industry non-standards in place already with SmartMedia and Sony Memory Sticks as 2 different recording media to CF1/2. BTW, the Beta vs VHS argument is really a lesson in marketing - the Beta format was seen in the industry as superior but more manufacturers took on the VHS format due to better licensing arrangements. Sony cut off their own nose in this regard. Your comment about being able to see your digital images 30 years from now is a good one - yes I say when they have been stored correctly (say on a CD-ROM or transferred to the flavour of the day storage medium) just like slides and prints. How long they will keep is open to speculation - we haven't got there yet. I hope the type of digital camera I would like now will be 'affordable' in 5-10 years time, too. But I'm not going to sit back and wait for it to be and find I'm into the "there's something new coming along and I just might wait to see what it's like" mentality - you get nowhere. Like computers and cars, there's always something better just around the corner. In the meantime you purchase what is useful to you now and worry about it being outdated when it's not doing what you want. Gary.
Good points all. I bought a cheap digital, both to 'test the water' and to get pictures of my products (and layout) onto the internet quickly. But already, I am thinking that I would like a better digital! But this one does the job for now. For my 'serious' photography, I will stay with 35mm SLR for the forseeable future. But who knows what the future holds, both in quality and price?
Alan, is that camera one of those that only takes photos within the range of the lens you buy with it? If I remember the add, the Camera was $49.95 plus choice of lens between $20.00 up to $55.00. You could get the complete outfit then to only take close up shots, or you could get one for only portraits, etc. It had to be connected to a VHS recorder. How much does the one you have cost U.S.money? Maybe I buy yours so you can buy the Rolls Royce camera?
