 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Looks Like Leica Is Finally Getting Serious About Digital: posted by albee33 on December 08, 2003 at 18:57:45:
I found the 10mp digital back for the R8/R9. That, I think is where it's at. If I could afford the combination I think I'd be very happilly set for the rest of my camera life. The R8/R9 looks to be an awsome film camera in its own right, with amazing body egonomics, SLR (unlike other leicas), exposures from 32sec down to 1/8000 (yes three zeros). Then you're adding to that the ability to take digital pictures with the same camera in 10mp no less at between 100 and 800iso with a firewire(ieee1394) interface.
Follow Ups:
I read in one of the photo mags that Leica is coming out with a digital attachment to their R6 SLR models. You remove the back, where it attaches and goes under the camera and it makes the camera no larger then when you ad the motor drive to it. With this digital attachment you can switch back and forth between digital and film. Seems like a great idea, now if it doesn't cost a fortune, I just might wait for it to hit the market and just get it for my old R6.2.
To hell with buying a new digital camera.
Well...after shooting digital the last year or so, I have no desire at all to go back to film. I hassled with film for 30 odd years, and I'm glad its history. I prefer a camera thats made to be digital from the beginning. Get rid of the usless film advance stuff, etc. Digital is the future. Film is dead!
Beg to disagree ..... but as a pro photog, film is very much alive. Also for the foreseeable future.You can take your head out of the sand now!!!
Check out the latest Pop Photo mag on newstands. See their article about films benefits.
Well...I said that with a bit of humor, but the writing is indeed on the wall. Film does still have some useful niches, but those will fade away soon also. Ask the major camera manufacturers how many film cameras they have in development now. The big push for everyone is now in digital. I shot film in 35mm, medium format and large format since the late 60's, and two years ago I felt strongly that film would not be eclipsed for at least a decade more. The leaps that digital has gone through in the last couple of years has been faster than almost anyone would have believed a few years ago. Now that I have experienced what I can do digitally, I will never go back to film where there is a digital alternative. I still shoot a bit of film in large format, but in the next year or two, that will probably be history as well. The art part of our profession hasn't changed. Just the way we capture the information has. Digital has been a very liberating experience. I no longer have to wait to see my results. I no longer have to filter to compensate for this or that films color bias. I no longer have to run tests on each batch of film I buy. I no longer have to run to the labs to have my chromes processed, just to make slight changes, and reshoot. The costs of doing business has dropped dramatically, both in the cost of film, processing the film, and the time saved by not having to pay models to wait for proofs (or to bring them back for a reshoot). I no longer dump gallons of chemicals into the environment processing film. All those things we were used to doing when using film hampered the artistic energy we enjoy so much as a photographer. Digital has freed me so much, I couldn't imagine going back. Try it, you'll like it!
I dumped my TT in '84. By the same token as a working pro, I've fully embraced the digital world. And for all your reasons too.My only diff with you is in the time table. Film will outlast us both.
As I've said below in many posts.It is still possible for film users to have their film processed, and also put on picture discs by their labs. Or scan them into digital jpegs onto a hard drive at home.
I'm sure you know that scanning is still big with commercial production houses and studios.
Who said pros were dumping vinyl?
Last I heard Bowie has 700o plus albums,doesn't listen to CD's, Neil Young compared Cd's to taking a shower with ice cubes,and everybody appears to be releasing vinyl again. Hey, who are we to argue with musical genuises.
If digital was so great, then why are the digital world's powers that be constantly trying to improve the technolgy so that it "comes close to capturing the analog sound"?
It's also funny how people complain about pops and crackles. They apparently were listening to crappy TT's and cartridges.
There are some good Cd's out there that can occasionally match the sound quality of vinyl, but there is just so much more vinyl to be had. And you don't need to spend thousands to compensate for the Compact (disc) sound.
Film will be exceeded in quality by digits long before music is.
You mentioned the term "old relics". Many artists are releasing new material on vinyl FIRST, and the people who are buying them are kids.
Best Buy is now selling turntables, and vinyl out-sold both SACD's and DVD's last year. Time to clean the ears and catch up on the news,ol buddy.
Cheers and happy listening. And Happy New Year!
Even if digital doesn't surpass film quality, the consumer will be duped into believing the contrary, just as what happend with vinyl and Compact-sound- DiscS.
ANd it's rather silly to argue which is better. Digital film and digital music both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both do certain things very well. Digital cameras are great for fast applications, such as photojournalism. Recording digital music is a breeze compared to analog. But when it comes to listening , analog gives bigger bang for the buck (and the ears, in most genres accept maybe Jazz) Comparisons could be made as nauseum, but the fact remains that both digital and analog will have their respective advantages and uses. Better to point out the merits of both rather than to try to argue one's alledged all-out superiority over the other. End of sermon.
If someone finally does it right I might be convinced to buy a digital camera but for now an all mechanical film camera is where it's at.
hornlover, brother, you do have some points, like for example: digital's similarity to film quality images and quick turnover and the chemicals, oh the chemicals. However the implementation and cost of the choices is awful. Of course that's the same with all new technologies, but it looks like nobody wants to do it right, they just want to sell product. Coming back to Leica, thier position seems to be nothing more than being an oldfashioned style counterpoint wrapped up in their own dogma. All these cameras these days seems to have thrown real ergonomy out the window in favour of electronically controlled 'features' and buttons all over the place all the while feigning ergonomy in body shape only. And that includes film cameras unfortunately. All that sort of explains why I posted what I had at the beginning of this threadBut musey, is so right. How could you possibly prefer cd? Maybe it's my anti-button bent but i just plain can't stand all the hidden control that the player clenches in its fist (meanwhile it sticks out a cheap plastic tongue at you). And of course the sound that demands that you throw out reality in favour of something entirely warmed over. Kind of like the difference between punk and pop-punk; actually, a hell of a lot like the difference between punk and pop-punk, so warmed over and prettied up. However musey brother, I can't imagine that vinyl statistic has held up to this year's christmas buying season. DVD players have been a monster seller beyond comparison, with the bottom rung of the ladder coming in at less than the price of two DVDs, I for one can see why (even if the magnetic video tape wasn't so: big, cheap, fragile, inflexible as a medium, and just plain rotten as an information storage device).
me, out
It seems to be a race as to which company can out-do the other with new tricks and more megapixals and more sales. It seems that when you buy their latest stupendous miracle wonder for umpteen bucks they make an even more stupendous miracle for less money and the one you just bought six months ago becomes worthless.
It seems, just like vinyl records and turntables, my old Hasselblad and Leica R6.2 film cameras are holding their own quite well.
Since my FujiFilm FinePix 4900 Zoom which I bought about 2 years ago is now considered a worthless piece of shit, I've pretty much had it. If Leica can come out with their Digilux 2 with an exceptionally fine Leica quality lens, that's enough for me. To hell with bells and whistles, it's the quality of the picture that counts. If I bought one, I would most likely keep it. If they develop a digital back for my old R6.2 at a resonable price, that would be even better, -and I'm not talking about the $14,000 digital back Kodak makes for the Hasselblad.
Digital is to film as digital is to vinyl. Film will be with us for a long time and vinyl with be with us a long time. Infact, the difference between vinyl is that LP record sales have been increasing while CDs have been decreasing, and that is with all the new SACDs, DVD-A, HDCDs, and CDRs. This is not true with photo film.
This is similar in concept to Kodak/Nikon's 3rd generation digital SLR from 1995-97 vintage - DCS460. It comprises a digital back with its own power supply and interface, and hooks up to a multi-pin socket on a Nikon N90s/F90x. Later models (DCS660, 760) are built on the F5, and (I believe) cannot revert to film mode (with a film back).Mike
Sealed New in Box. Only to use a Canon for everyday work. They lose so much value , once you (leave the showroom floor) open the box.
This kind of logic is really bad.You buy a Leica for the quality of the images it makes, its ease of use and its reliability.
The following true story is perhaps a better explaination:
Some years ago a wealthy man bought a Stradivarius violin at an auction. He paid a lot of money for the Strad, yet was not a violinist. A person at the auction said, "I guess you are going to put it in a glass case and display it over the mantle." At which point the new owner said, "No, I bought it to play (meaning that he would make the violin available to skilled violinists). "It would be criminal to put this in a glass case and not hear it played." This instrument must be played so people can enjoy the sound that only it can deliver."
Recently, Mr. Irwin Jacobs, the founder of Qualcomm bought a Strad (he paid over a million dollars for it) and he loans it to the concertmaster (first violinist) of the San Diego Symphony Orchestra, so the audience can hear this remarkable instrument when the Symphony performs its concerts.
Those of us who have taken them out of the box and used them have found they are great for taking pictures.
I don't get it. They seem the sort of thing (being solidly made and all) that would retain its value like any quality piece of high end audio gear. If you like "upgrading" your camera every couple years or whatever then I suppose you'd have a point; if your implication were true. Which I see no evidence of.
When I think investment, I think long term (like 10, 20, 30 years) reliability, which is where my interest in current cameras just sort of drops dead, along with their auto-focus, and silly shutter release buttons that you have to press twice.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
