Stickmaker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stickmaker) wrote2005-12-02 09:14 am
stickmaker) wrote2005-12-02 09:14 am
Furtism vs. Faddism
I have been taking 35mm photos for well over 20 years. The past few years people have been pressing me with the question of when I will switch to a modern, digital camera. My answer leaves most of them unsatisfied, either because they don't understand it, or it makes them realize they didn't think things through.
A digital camera with a sensor good enough to match good quality 35mm film in resolution and color fidelity currently (as of late 2005) costs nearly $1000 for just the body. I already have three good 35mm film camera bodies, with an assortment of high-quality lenses and other accessories. Yes, I have to process the film to get a final image. If I want prints from a digital camera I'd either have to send the memory card off for printing (just like a roll of film) or buy a photo-quality printer.
Film is cheap, especially if you shop around. Unused, it keeps for two years or more in your freezer. Once processed, it is a stable storage medium, as long as it is kept cool, dry and out of strong light.
Yes, I will get a digital camera, probably in a couple of years. They're still on the steep part of the curve when it comes to image quality improving and price declining. I would almost certainly buy a digital camera if one of my current 35mm bodies needed replacing. I *like* digital cameras and the conveniences they provide. But I like what I already have better. So far.
One of the most ironic parts of this situation is when these digital proponents ask why the photos I show off are so much better than theirs.
Stickmaker
A digital camera with a sensor good enough to match good quality 35mm film in resolution and color fidelity currently (as of late 2005) costs nearly $1000 for just the body. I already have three good 35mm film camera bodies, with an assortment of high-quality lenses and other accessories. Yes, I have to process the film to get a final image. If I want prints from a digital camera I'd either have to send the memory card off for printing (just like a roll of film) or buy a photo-quality printer.
Film is cheap, especially if you shop around. Unused, it keeps for two years or more in your freezer. Once processed, it is a stable storage medium, as long as it is kept cool, dry and out of strong light.
Yes, I will get a digital camera, probably in a couple of years. They're still on the steep part of the curve when it comes to image quality improving and price declining. I would almost certainly buy a digital camera if one of my current 35mm bodies needed replacing. I *like* digital cameras and the conveniences they provide. But I like what I already have better. So far.
One of the most ironic parts of this situation is when these digital proponents ask why the photos I show off are so much better than theirs.
Stickmaker