On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Joseph Chen wrote:
> Face it, digital is the future.
It is. The beast is slouching towards Rochester. :-)
Already, digital
> imaging is superior to film-based photography in some respects (cost per
> exposure,
Not to the average snapshooter. Think of it like this: Cost of a camera
capable of delivering 8x10's..........(OM, of course).............$1,500
Storage media capable of carrying 72 high quality exposures.......$ 200
Cost of paper and ink for 125 photo-quality 4x6 prints.......$ your call
--------
1,700
As has been pointed out before, the average snapper
can do this in the silver/analog world with a $100 camera
and $80 worth of film and processing, AND crank out
a passable 11x14 print, which his $1.5k camera (and let's not
forget the $1.5k computer, .5k photo-quality printer, etc)
cannot do. Plus, the camera and computer will be dumpster food
in 5-7 years, meaning the true costs are much, much higher.
Something in the order of $600/yr. I know geeks like us
are used to these costs, but many others are not.
Plus, the prints banged out lovingly (and in time-consuming fashion)
at home on the olde epson of the kid's
kindergarten play will fade long before the kid graduates from grade
school. Current Kodak-paper (Series 8) prints will last 150 years.
> speed of processing,
Mommies get in the Mini-van, drop off the film to be processed,
and get it in 1 hr. How much faster is digital going to be ? Now,
home processing is the realm of geeks with plenty of time to devote
to it. The two-job and parenting snapshooter is too busy
with real life and kids to geek for hours making a few prints. Much
easier --- not to mention faster --- to pick up the double-print envelope
from the 1 hr.
> Digital imaging will not only match film imaging but will far surpass the
> capabilities of film. CCDs have incredible sensitivity and exposure
> latitude. Use of high-line CCD devices have revolutionized amateur
> astronomy. Likewise, it will revolutionize photography by allowing image
> creation under incredibly difficult lighting conditions.
All true, hopefully, and perhaps we'll all live long enough
for the technology to cost less than 5-10K for the body...:-)
> This is not to say that our beloved OMs are dead yet. For now, we should be
> just content to burn through as much film as possible and use up all those
> shutter cycles before tossing whatever we have left into Oly's forthcoming
> professional digital imaging system.
Until someone besides Polaroid starts making a sizeable profit
from digital camera sales, specially to snapshooters (who drive the
entire image-making industry), pro-quality digital systems will be
basically low-volume custom pieces. If the economy ceases to grow at this
rate er...eternally, that R&D (ad)venture capital will be among the first
to evaporate. As much as we like to think that the Internet is everything
to come...few e-companies are making a profit (not even Amazon!)
and the big numbers in stock prices are purely speculative. E-sales
are currently (according to the industry's own figures) less than
30f all retail sales. Yes, I know all this will change (as the Sanyo
Sensei said: film cameras gone by 2002, right ?) soon, but a little
voice (in a Bart Simpson voice) keeps whispering: "Are we there yet ?".
*= Doris Fang =*
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|