Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 5, 2002, 3:22 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 149
Default What pushed you over the edge and into Digital?

What made you jump into digital photography? What was the thing that made you finally decide it was worht it?

For me, I had been thinking about it for a while. When I first looked into it, a camera that was "good" (by my standard and needs) was pretty expensive. Several hundred dollars. hard for me to justfiy that when the same amount would by a nice 35mm SLR body. But the major stumbling point was sharign the images. The people most interested in my pics don't have web access or email. Also, I'm not a web guy myself, and would have to learn how to set up web pages (I know its not *that* hard). Printing at home seemed to be tricky at best to get good results. Also, it seemed expensive.

So, why did I jump in? Well, you can now get a good 2.0 MP Camera for $250 (the Canon A40 in my case). It has more features and control than the Olympus P&S 35mm camera I bought 2 years ago, and I think for the same price. Good quality for a great price. The other thing is the *very* reasonably priced, true photographic prints you can get from the Fuji Frontier digital mini-lab. 26 cents at Wal-Mart. Even cheaper at some warehouse club stores. You can't beat that. When I heard about this and how great the prints are, I was sold. I jumped in.

Now, I need for the 5 MP SLR cameras come down in price to where the better consumer 35mm SLRs are at today. Then, I'll get one of those and all the lenses and flashes and stuff I am used to using.

So, what about you? What pushed you over the edge and into digital?
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 5, 2002, 3:56 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Well:

1- The inconvenience to get 20 rolls before each trip!

2- The wait & $$$ to get them processed!

3- The wait & $$$ to get selected pictures enlarged (if they can get the color correct)

4- Then the storage & archive part... Where can I find that negative (or slide) again.

Digital = Cheap + Instant gratification + Instant access + (new toy every year)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 4:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Too many prints in Albums, most of which didn't deserve to be there!

Fear of taking too many shots and using up a film.

It was never the cost. Digital is more expensive. A throw away camera with film and flash can still produce reasonable small prints without a pc!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 4:52 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I would add the following to NHL:

5. Walmart or Walgreen lost my rolls and film and can not find them even though I have the stubs.

6. The picture I took was out of focus and I missed capturing the memories.

7. I took alot of stupid pics and paid to have them processed anyway.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 5:01 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Digital is more expensive
The cost of 20 rolls and their processing from Kodak (+ pictureCD) easily pay for a 2-3Mpixels camera!

See #1 below, that's why Kodak lab cost on average ~$20/roll, (and not ~$6.99 like @ costo)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 5:14 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

1 - I didn't like the poor processing of my films (see #4)

2 - the cost of developing bad shots along with the good ones

3 - privacy

4 - sometimes the pictures I got excluded parts that were clearly visible in the negative (also had a negative that was chopped off in the middle of the frame! &%#%^*#[email protected] bastards!)

5 - digital is faster, period no more scanning in negatives and photos, or removing dirt from the scanned image

6 - digital allowed me to correct exposures on location after a quick review

7 - it's just too cool to to have instant grtification :lol:
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 5:33 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
The cost of 20 rolls and their processing from Kodak (+ pictureCD) easily pay for a 2-3Mpixels camera! .
Just testing! To shoot digital you need an expensive cam, batteries plenty of, charger, media cards, possibly a reader, a pc, probably a printer with consumable ink and paper, contingency for repairs. You might cost your time as well, editing and printing out those 20 rolls of film.

That's probably not the complete list. So add up the capital value, add on the depreciation (a lot for high tech. kit) and I doubt if the real cost per print is less than my throw away camera and 4 hour processing. PS the photo prints also have a long life!

It's really like comparing a typewriter with a wordprocessor. For simple letter jobs a typewriter has many advantages. But we worry about technology and features which don't always add proportionately to the utility value of what we buy.

However, whilst digital is expensive, it's fun!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 6:53 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

Lets compare Apples to Apples here...in regards to shooting and developing all on your own, no outside help...

Digital Solution:

Digital Camera
Memory
Flash
Scanner
Printer
Ink & Paper
CD-Rs
and computer.

++++++++++++++++++++

SLR Camera (film based) Solution

SLR Body
35-80mm lens
70-200mm telephoto
Flash
Multiple rolls of film
In-house color developer w/ supplies + building a darkroom
Paper
Scanner
CD-Rs
and computer.


What is more expensive? I say the SLR Solution is more time and more costly when you take into the account off all the options and proceduces (I'm sure I'm missing some on both sides)
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 7:58 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 76
Default

I like the ability to post my pictures on the web, and share with friends.

I can also take alot more pictures with digital then I could with film, and it never costs extra.

The ability to delete images on the camera, and know instantly if it might be a good shot.

I don't need to go drop off any film, then pick it back up later.

And I feel I have more control with a digital camera, as long as its a higher end one with manual settings.
MIDACL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 8:21 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 62
Default

For experimentation w/ different subjects,techniques..digital can't be beat .Instant gratification is a powerful stimulant.Fear of wasting film and not being able to interpret the varying results,often even when you get them back often stifles real innovation.

David

Have a Canon G2 can't wait to get a D60 or equivalent when they get cheaper.
d77avid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.