$2100 for a DSLR body is a bit pesimistic. I've seen a Canon 350D with a 17-85 IS USM Lens for $2100, not a bad deal at all. Also, I would take more photos using a digital than I would with a film camera anyway. In my mind the equasions add up.
Printable View
$2100 for a DSLR body is a bit pesimistic. I've seen a Canon 350D with a 17-85 IS USM Lens for $2100, not a bad deal at all. Also, I would take more photos using a digital than I would with a film camera anyway. In my mind the equasions add up.
Ahh but you are assuming that everybody already has a film SLR, mine is now 20+ years old and really needs replacing, can't obtain parts etc and I dont think lenses either esp now Konica-Minolta look like they are out of the game.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
I just don't understand these discussions... to get the equivalent of what I have now for film.. it's $2100 for a body + another say $1000 for lenses... let's just round it down to $3000... well at $20 for film and processing, that's 150 rolls I can use in my film camera. Say I do 15 rolls a year... which is probably about right... then in 10 years my digital camera has paid for itself.
So for now its a Fuji S5500 ...........................................one day...........
Bushie
digitals are great too in the high-quality printing game... before with film you were looking at the price of the roll, then developing, then hi-res drum scans of the slides... looking at just the hi-res scans of say 300 photos for a magazine issue (which i do 12 of a year) was $15 each for small scans and $25 each for larger A4 ones (don't even worry about the film and developing costs, and forget about the A4 scans)... 300 minimum scans were $4,500 per issue... so that's an absolute minimum of $54,000 per years i'm saving by having a $3,000 digital camera https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
$54,000 which your Range Rover then consumes in fuel..... https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ 8O
No question at all that for pro work digital saves big $$$$. Digital has revolutionalised pro photography https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ Pro's also typically don't care how long a image can be kept for. Once it's been printed plus a year or two it's history.Quote:
Originally posted by Outlaw
digitals are great too in the high-quality printing game... before with film you were looking at the price of the roll, then developing, then hi-res drum scans of the slides... looking at just the hi-res scans of say 300 photos for a magazine issue (which i do 12 of a year) was $15 each for small scans and $25 each for larger A4 ones (don't even worry about the film and developing costs, and forget about the A4 scans)... 300 minimum scans were $4,500 per issue... so that's an absolute minimum of $54,000 per years i'm saving by having a $3,000 digital camera https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Mind you, you can buy good hi-res film scanners these days too for not very much money https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
I guess the point that I was trying to make is that I often hear the digital cameras being bought on ecconomic grounds. I personally really doubt that in most cases people have thoroughly thought it through.
Digital cameras are "sexy", and they are an aspirational product. Unfortunately, like all electronics these days they only really have a operational life of 5 years or so. The equivalent cameras to my film camera are still over $10k... I just can't splash that. No doubt in another 3/4 years the equivalent will be down to 2k.. but it hasn't happened yet.
Even if the camera survives longer you've got to hope that you will have something to plug it into. Interfaces are constantly changing. I gave away my PC from 97 the other day and noted it didn't have PS2 or firewire ports https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
It's interesting that in my local photographic shop, ALL the expert sales people will gladly sell you a digital. However if you ask them quietly what they prefer, they all recommend film. For colours and quality.
granted i don't really classify it as real photography in the sence of the word anymore... everything is basically taken care of for you with the turn of a dial... not as much skill required nowadays (kinda like the D3 and RRS :twisted:)
and for personal happy snaps i only use a $300 digital https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.
I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:
Hmmm and i bet someone slept on the couch for the next few days also for buying at Harveys :twisted:Quote:
Originally posted by Steinzy
I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.
I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:
Hmmm and i bet someone slept on the couch for the next few days also for buying at Harveys :twisted:[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Outlaw+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Outlaw)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Steinzy
I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.
I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:
Not quite - but a damn close call!!!
I don't buy the 'washed out colours' argument. Digital cameras are simply different to film ones in the way they need to be set for optimum results. Those used to film SLR cameras will take some getting used to the digitals and, of course, vice versa.
"Daddy, what's film ?"
"That's something I took pictures of my old Land Rovers on"
"Daddy, what's an old Land Rover"
"It those things I keep showing you pictures of that ran on petrol"
"Daddy, what's petrol"
well, you get the idea
Anyway, I think that Noddy used a Digital SLR for the pics he has posted on here (although I'm happy to be corrected) and nobody could say those are not TOP NOTCH pictures.