Photographic equivalent of Serotta’s CSI decision

[Louis]

Nikon Plans to Stop Making Most Cameras That Use Film

(Lifted from NYT web site.)

January 12, 2006
By MARTIN FACKLER

TOKYO, Thursday, Jan. 12 - The Nikon Corporation, the Japanese camera maker, said Thursday that it would stop making most of its film cameras and lenses in order to focus on digital cameras.

The company, based in Tokyo, is the latest to join an industrywide shift toward digital photography, which has exploded in popularity. Rivals like Kodak and Canon have already shifted most of their camera production into digital products.

Nikon said it would halt production of all but two of its seven film cameras and would also stop making most lenses for those cameras. The company will halt production of the film camera models "one by one," though it refused to specify when.

A company spokesman said Nikon made the decision because sales of film cameras have plunged. In the most recent fiscal year ended March 2005, Nikon said that film camera bodies accounted for 3 percent of the 180 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in sales at the company's camera and imaging division. That is down from 16 percent the previous year.

By contrast, sales of digital cameras have soared, the company said, jumping to 75 percent of total sales in the year ended March 2005, from 47 percent three years earlier. Scanners and other products account for the remainder of the division's sales.

"The market for film cameras has been shrinking dramatically," the company spokesman, Akira Abe, said. "Digital cameras have become the norm."
Mr. Abe said the announcement might trigger a brief revival in sales of film cameras, as film photography buffs rush to buy the cameras before production stops. The decision may also help make film cameras a popular nostalgia item in second-hand markets like eBay.

Nikon made its first film camera in 1948, as Japan rose from the ashes of defeat in World War II.

The quality and durability of Nikon's film cameras made them popular for decades among amateurs and professionals alike, turning Nikon into one of the industry's best-known brands. The first Nikon cameras arrived in the United States in the 1950's when American servicemen started bringing them home from tours of duty at American bases in Japan. But in recent years, all brands of film cameras have virtually disappeared from store shelves.

Digital photography has won out because its images are visible immediately and are easily stored on tiny computer chips, eliminating the need to carry and develop clunky rolls of film.

[christian]

I can understand not making any more film SLR bodies, but lenses? Huh? Last I checked, all the D-series SLRs still take F-mount lenses. What?

Or does this mean that my 35mm equivalent 17mm-35mm glass is being rebranded "Digital 24mm-45mm"? I mean, they're not stoping making F-mount lenses, are they?

In other words, they'll still be making the lenses, right?

- Christian

[MartyE]

When I first started looking into digital camera's the owner
of a camera shop in South Africa told me that 35mm film
was the equivilant of 14 megapixels.
I'm into underwater photography and unless one is purchasing
a seperate camera/housing the "point and shoot" variety of
digital UW cameras don't come close to the film variety.

Marty

edit: it's a great time to buy used UW film equiptment,
I bought a Nikonos V with Strobe for $50.00.

[cinelli]

I've been dragging my feet on digital and using
my old F3s with manual lenses for years. If
Nikon ever catches up with the D200 production,
I guess I'll take the plunge. Hate to see the old
lenses vanish because I hate using
autofocus.

[Jeff N.]

Good! I own 3 Nikon FA's, with MD-15 motor drives, the whole 9. All mint. They'll just go up in value, IMHO. And the photo developing business seems to be holding up just fine, from what I gather. So go figure. Jeff N.

[dbrk]

Not surprisingly I'm a manual sorta' guy and my Nikon FM2 has been all over the planet and never failed me. I keep a Leica M6 too for black and white and portraits, which I much prefer. Rangefinders take patience, at least for me.

Sure I'll go digital, the way I have gone index and then Ergo/STI: because it's there but not with any great enthusiasm. Digital cameras work _great_ but they are soulless as all the other "superior" new technologies.

The problem, as i see it, is that photographic paper and film is not something some schmuck like me can hoard, the way I have a lifetime (no kidding) supply of Simplex 5500 rear derailleurs and barends with demultiplicators and teardrop downtube shifters, or Aurora shoes (bless them, they no longer sell on the Internet but if you call them they will make you shoes, but I think I've got all I need till I die), or I dunno, you name it. There will be some "retro" revival the way there still boutique demand for lugged steel, mechanical watches, leather saddles and bags, but the situation is fundamentally different in photography. Paper, chemicals, development, these things require corporate commitments and, I dunno, the future looks dimmer than in steel, leather, or tourbillons.

dbrk

[sc53]

dbrk--I take it you are a vinyl/LP man rather than a CD "perfect sound forever" guy too? So many "obsolete" technologies are still so satisfying. I still use a tube amp and peamp, as well as a turntable--but I listen to CDs and shift w/brifters too.

[Tom]

Because it's new, or because everybody's got one, or because it's easy to take decent pictures (just take a million of them and delete the duds, eventually one can accidentally do it right) or what?

[shaq-d]

digital photography is awesome. it gives every photographer the dream he wants: instant feedback on whether u made a good shot, and thus an opportunity to make another.

carbon and ti over steel, on the other hand, is a bit different.

sd

[Too Tall]

When they pry my cold dead fingers off my 2 F2s, Nikkormat and Rolleiflex...as if.

Our birthday present to my brother in law was a dynamite, vintage 2 1/4 Rollie w/zeiss lenses...he looked at it like he seen a rotarty dial phone :rolleyes: But now he gets it...for shooting his artwork and creating portfolio it has few equals.

Douglas is spot on. I enjoy the process of loading and shooting film. It has a pace and style that says...take your time, enjoy the ride :)

[e-RICHIE]

There will be some "retro" revival the way there still boutique demand for lugged steel, mechanical watches, leather saddles and bags, but the situation is fundamentally different in photography.


good news...
pal kirk has performed a major rescue mission:
http://www.frameforum.net/forum2/index.php?showtopic=1364
e-RICHIE©™®

the future's so bright, ya' gotta wear wayfarers...

[andy mac]

slightly OT but relevant to this discussion i was shocked to just read...



Do Burned CDs Have a Short Life Span?

Optical discs may not be your best bet for storing digital media long term, expert says.

John Blau, IDG News Service
Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Opinions vary on how to preserve data on digital storage media, such as optical CDs and DVDs. Kurt Gerecke, a physicist and storage expert at IBM Deutschland, has his own view: If you want to avoid having to burn new CDs every few years, use magnetic tapes to store all your pictures, videos and songs for a lifetime.

"Unlike pressed original CDs, burned CDs have a relatively short life span of between two to five years, depending on the quality of the CD," Gerecke says. "There are a few things you can do to extend the life of a burned CD, like keeping the disc in a cool, dark space, but not a whole lot more."

The problem is material degradation. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such as CD-R and CD-RW, have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam.

"Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years," Gerecke says. "Some of the better-quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years."

Distinguishing high-quality burnable CDs from low-quality discs is difficult, he says, because few vendors use life span as a selling point.

Similar Limitations
Hard-drive disks also have their limitations, according to Gerecke. The problem with hard drives, he says, is not so much the disk itself as it is the disk bearing, which has a positioning function similar to a ball bearing. "If the hard drive uses an inexpensive disk bearing, that bearing will wear out faster than a more expensive one," he says. His recommendation: a hard-drive disk with 7200 revolutions per minute.

To overcome the preservation limitations of burnable CDs, Gerecke suggests using magnetic tapes, which, he claims, can have a life span of 30 years to 100 years, depending on their quality. "Even if magnetic tapes are also subject to degradation, they're still the superior storage media," he says.

But he's quick to point out that no storage medium lasts forever and, consequently, consumers and business alike need to have a migration plan to new storage technologies.

"Companies, in particular, need to be constantly looking at new storage technologies and have an archiving strategy that allows them to automatically migrate to new technologies," he says. "Otherwise, they're going to wind up in a dead-end. And for those sitting on terabytes of crucial data, that could be a colossal problem."

[billrick]

On topic: I'll be hitting the pawn shops this weekend looking for a good FM2. Last film camera I bought was a Nikon 8008s.

good news...
pal kirk has performed a major rescue mission: <snip>

Sort of off-topic, but who cares, ITS NEWS FROM E-RICHIE! . . .

HOLY COW! e-Richie, I could kiss you! And if I could get Mr. Pacenti in the room it would be group hug time! I love these lugs. And I was just about to have a new fork built for my Waterford-built Riv Road, with a bit more rake. I hope to be your first customer for the fork crown! Hal-a-lew-ya! And thank you!



:banana:

[e-RICHIE]

On topic: I'll be hitting the pawn shops this weekend looking for a good FM2. Last film camera I bought was a Nikon 8008s.



Sort of off-topic, but who cares, ITS NEWS FROM E-RICHIE! . . .

HOLY COW! e-Richie, I could kiss you! And if I could get Mr. Pacenti in the room it would be group hug time! I love these lugs. And I was just about to have a new fork built for my Waterford-built Riv Road, with a bit more rake. I hope to be your first customer for the fork crown! Hal-a-lew-ya! And thank you!



:banana:


yuck - i'll go last.

[Kirk Pacenti]

No, no, I insist Richard, after you. ;)

[Chief]

Because it's new, or because everybody's got one, or because it's easy to take decent pictures (just take a million of them and delete the duds, eventually one can accidentally do it right) or what?

"Even the blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."

[billrick]

Kirk, E-Richie, here we go (no hugging, just dancing):

:banana: :banana: :banana:



:beer:

[Larry D]

I do agree that digital has some very nice features like the instant feedback on your shots and being able to vary the ISO between pictures, but there is something about going into a darkroom and working with a negative to produce a work of art that digital will never match.

I finally took the plunge into digital SLRs to use for snapshots at work and for outdoor activities like skiing. The only thing that will drive me totsally to digital is if I am no longer living in an area where I can setup my darkroom either due to space limitations or when I can not dispose of the chemicals. Until then my "antiques", Mamiya RB67, Nikon F2, and Olympus Pen F will still get their fair share of usage.

[Tom]

...but there is something about going into a darkroom and working with a negative to produce a work of art that digital will never match.
...

That's the true soul of film, but there are some that would argue that you can produce art with digital it's just that the technique is different.

Everything has soul, it's just that the souls are different.

Or sucky. See also music, pop.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Kirk, E-Richie, here we go (no hugging, just dancing):

:banana: :banana: :banana:



:beer:

OK that's cool. I can handle dancing just NO lugging! ...er, hugging

[e-RICHIE]

following up...
NO FILM USED HERE!)

[Kirk Pacenti]

For those wondering these pics were shot on a 6 mega-pixel Cannon Digital Rebel EOS.

[rodenmg]

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/DO1.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/DO2.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/HT.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/BB.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/BB.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/SP2.jpg

Over the years I've done both chemical and digital. Still have my film bodies and these were taken with a manual focus, manual everything lens left over from those days. But I don't miss the darkroom and chemicals at all!

And in case anyone is wondering these were taken with a 4 megapixel camera which I routinely print 13X19 sized prints with that are better than anything I ever did with 35mm film. Of course film has gotten better over the years, save for Kodachrom 25.

[davids]

dbrk--I take it you are a vinyl/LP man rather than a CD "perfect sound forever" guy too? So many "obsolete" technologies are still so satisfying. I still use a tube amp and peamp, as well as a turntable--but I listen to CDs and shift w/brifters too.
Digital = Perfecting an approximation
Analog = Approximating perfection

Two different philosophies, each can be done very well, or very poorly.

[rodenmg]

Digital = Perfecting an approximation
Analog = Approximating perfection

Two different philosophies, each can be done very well, or very poorly.

Amen. An anology that I've thought fitting was that analog recordings are like a good steak. Digital reproduction is like grinding the steak into hamburger and then trying to press it back into a steak :)

[Kirk Pacenti]

"Imperfection is Perfection"

by some sage philosopher in Chester CT.

[e-RICHIE]

"Imperfection is Perfection"

by some sage philosopher in Chester CT.


all talk.
all the time.

[baselthedog]

I have a love-hate affair with digital which has nothing to do with its quality (sharpness) but with how_it_feels. Being a designer, I use digital cameras all the time for work and nothing beats it for speed and immediate manipulations, quick and dirty stuff, etc., etc. (I also understand that professional photographers have real needs, must move on to digital, and are for the most part being well served by high-end digital). But also being a designer, I find digital cameras a pain to use (incredibly bad ergonomics on the small models, waaaaay too many buttons, their layouts incredibly non-intuitive), and (for me) quite devoid of sensuality. If I am going to spend several thousand dollars on a DSLR plus lenses, I want to be excited just by touching it, w/o even having turned the damned thing on.

Hey, I love my iPod -- but whatever happend to old-style shutter speed dials which simultaneously/easily/intuitively showed the selected speed AND its relationship to to other speeds? There was something beautiful about the pre-electronic era when form really followed function: dials, levers (hmmm... bicycles) -- today, this is no longer the case as an entire camera can be made to fit within a tube or a square box, and probably one day, a string. Many exciting possibilities for expression. Such consequences of miniaturization made possible many wonderful new things, such as tiny halogen bulbs or LED bulbs which allowed industrial designers to create new typologies for lighting fixtures, without having to deal with the shape or bulk of the "Edison" light bulb.

For my own photos I use a Nikon F3 (in truth the FM2 has a far better exposure meter interface with its simple red blinkers but I wanted interchangeable prisms so I'm stuck with a crappy LCD indicator), and a Leica M6. The latter in particular is an absolute pleasure to hold and use. It has 3 controls, period: turn the shutter speed dial, turn the aperture ring, press the shutter. That's it. And every surface, every nook and cranny on my well-worn M6 feels great. I will gladly switch to digital when they reach this level of simplicity, effortlessness, and lean sensuality.

(BTW I think the Ford Taurus, while breaking new grounds in car-shaping, also sadly heralded the gratuitous "bulging-up" of consumer goods that has characterized mass-market industrial design for the last 15 years).

Back to topic -- I would probably more compare the end of the CSi to that of the Hasselblad 500/501, which Hasselblad finally, quietly, discontinued last year. It's been around in various iterations for about 50 years and when you compare the latest versions with the earliest, you see an unmistakable kinship between the past and present, and marvel (well, I do) at the carefully-wrought changes along its refined evolution. Mercedes used to be like this, every year or two something new comes out but unmistakably you see the family DNA.

[stackie]

Roden,

Those are the worst lugs that I have ever seen. :)

Jon

[rodenmg]

If you like the feel of the F2 and having all the controls logically placed and easy to use while looking through the viewfinder, go pick up and use a D2 series. Real cameras are still being made and with digital sensors but they are not cheap. An F2 was not cheap either.

Sorry, I ment F3 ( or F2 for that matter)



I have a love-hate affair with digital which has nothing to do with its quality (sharpness) but with how_it_feels. Being a designer, I use digital cameras all the time for work and nothing beats it for speed and immediate manipulations, quick and dirty stuff, etc., etc. (I also understand that professional photographers have real needs, must move on to digital, and are for the most part being well served by high-end digital). But also being a designer, I find digital cameras a pain to use (incredibly bad ergonomics on the small models, waaaaay too many buttons, their layouts incredibly non-intuitive), and (for me) quite devoid of sensuality. If I am going to spend several thousand dollars on a DSLR plus lenses, I want to be excited just by touching it, w/o even having turned the damned thing on.

Hey, I love my iPod -- but whatever happend to old-style shutter speed dials which simultaneously/easily/intuitively showed the selected speed AND its relationship to to other speeds? There was something beautiful about the pre-electronic era when form really followed function: dials, levers (hmmm... bicycles) -- today, this is no longer the case as an entire camera can be made to fit within a tube or a square box, and probably one day, a string. Many exciting possibilities for expression. Such consequences of miniaturization made possible many wonderful new things, such as tiny halogen bulbs or LED bulbs which allowed industrial designers to create new typologies for lighting fixtures, without having to deal with the shape or bulk of the "Edison" light bulb.

For my own photos I use a Nikon F3 (in truth the FM2 has a far better exposure meter interface with its simple red blinkers but I wanted interchangeable prisms so I'm stuck with a crappy LCD indicator), and a Leica M6. The latter in particular is an absolute pleasure to hold and use. It has 3 controls, period: turn the shutter speed dial, turn the aperture ring, press the shutter. That's it. And every surface, every nook and cranny on my well-worn M6 feels great. I will gladly switch to digital when they reach this level of simplicity, effortlessness, and lean sensuality.

(BTW I think the Ford Taurus, while breaking new grounds in car-shaping, also sadly heralded the gratuitous "bulging-up" of consumer goods that has characterized mass-market industrial design for the last 15 years).

Back to topic -- I would probably more compare the end of the CSi to that of the Hasselblad 500/501, which Hasselblad finally, quietly, discontinued last year. It's been around in various iterations for about 50 years and when you compare the latest versions with the earliest, you see an unmistakable kinship between the past and present, and marvel (well, I do) at the carefully-wrought changes along its refined evolution. Mercedes used to be like this, every year or two something new comes out but unmistakably you see the family DNA.

[Jeff N.]

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/DO1.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/DO2.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/HT.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/BB.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/BB.jpg

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mikeroden/images/welding101/SP2.jpg

Over the years I've done both chemical and digital. Still have my film bodies and these were taken with a manual focus, manual everything lens left over from those days. But I don't miss the darkroom and chemicals at all!

And in case anyone is wondering these were taken with a 4 megapixel camera which I routinely print 13X19 sized prints with that are better than anything I ever did with 35mm film. Of course film has gotten better over the years, save for Kodachrom 25.Do a close up of MOOTS welds. Much more pleasing. Jeff N.

[e-RICHIE]

i need a new camera. for years i had a sony mavica 1.6 and
it died last week. it was a laugher of a camera but it could take
some seriously badass closeups. the macro setting was its
best feature.

who can recommend a more here/now slr-ish digital camera
that excels in ultra close-up shots? i want to have a manual
focus option too.

can i get out of a camera store for less than $500 total?

hey - thanks for reading.

[weisan]

It's funny how all those things we learned in biking are actually transferable to another trade. As years passed, I hate myself more and more when I realize that the equipment, whether it's digital or traditional SLR, you know, mean less and less...as my *eye* gets poorer and poorer. Boy, did I max-out the capabilities of my 2.1 megapixel kodak camera but it produces some unexpected results. There is this guy on ebay, his handlename is **tframer**, he's like the king of all NIKON collectors. Once in a while, I would go in and check on things he has put a bid or won, man, he knows where to find the good stuff. He probably re-sells most of it back in the used market, maybe in a storefront. With people like tframer around, I am not worried about not finding a good SLR for the next 10 years or so....unless of course, molds get to em' first. :p

[baselthedog]

www.dpreview.com has good, extensive reviews.

Pentax and Nikon have good macro/close-up, but those were on their point-and-shoot models.

Keep in mind that on DSLR's there is a 1.3x-1.6x magnification factor on lenses' stated focal lengths, owing to the fact that the CCD sensor can only capture a portion of the image field (real photographers, please correct me if I am wrong). Of course if Nikon is discontinuing manual stuff, then maybe soon all lenses will have "re-labeled" focal lenghths, no need for conversion!

[e-RICHIE]

thanks. how 'bout if i forego manual focus, and assume he'll
find work elsewhere - could i get a killer point/shoot digital
camera with an el-supremo macro feature and still get change
from my $500? i don't care what else it does, i just wanna
get real close. no wierdo replies, okay?!

[baselthedog]

If you like the feel of the F2 and having all the controls logically placed and easy to use while looking through the viewfinder, go pick up and use a D2 series. Real cameras are still being made and with digital sensors but they are not cheap. An F2 was not cheap either.

Sorry, I ment F3 ( or F2 for that matter)


rodenmg, you are right about the high-end DSLRs. The basic controls are all there, and all the damn fussy extra buttons -- well, they exist b/c digital technology allows for far far more functions, requiring their control/selection.

However I just still feel that the time of lean mean machines are gone (bicycles being a hardy survivor from the purge). When I use these new cameras I feel like there is a 3-foot thick wall of "electronics" between my hands and the glass that is capturing the image. My Leica doesn't feel like this, it feels "pure" in the sense that a lot of extraneous things have been stripped out. I used to drive a Saab 900, the old beautiful-ugly (depending on whom you asked, but you know my opinion) kind, every expressive line and curve simultaneously idiosyncratic and sensible, which felt nice and lean when I sit in the "cockpit"; sadly the car did not pass the most recent California smog test, was categorized as a "gross polluter" and to make a long story slightly shorter, the state PAID me $1000 to destroy it, it's a little cube of metal now. The replacement is a VW (station wagon, so I can haul things, like bikes) -- it's a nice car but when I sit in it, I feel a little suffocated, there's so much technology and padding btwn me and the outside. That's how I feel about the, er, "feel" of digital technology. They're wonderful things but thus far they're a little behind in the simple pleasures (of eye, of touch).

(This complaint doesn't apply so much to Apple computers, of course.)

Sorry if I've really deviated away from bicycle-talk. Yet I'm sure common sensibilities exist between these two worlds.

[rodenmg]

Do a close up of MOOTS welds. Much more pleasing. Jeff N.

I'd love to. When can you come over? :)

[dbrk]

Tom asked why I think digital has no soul. First, let me say that I know it works great, I use it (occasionally, like the way I borrow my daugther's cell phone once in a great while), it's the future, there's no going backwards, I'm a dinosaur, etc., it's all true. I am happy to _use_ digital but I cannot love it.

A manual camera involves touch, imperfection, relationship, and even something like conflict, asymmetry, and repeated failure. When you handle a manual camera it's got a distinctive personality (like the famous wobble in a Valjoux mechanical watch) and certainly it has quirks. No two set of Simplex dt shifters are the same, anymore than my old "identical" OM-1s. Fricition shifting is a "hassle" in comparison to click-and-shift index; just like focusing a Leica means you will miss a shot that digital gets every time. That's all okay with me. Nailing a friction shift, like taking a good picture, well, that's worth all the times I miss or "waste" my time getting it wrong. Some things are better because they are harder or because they don't come easily.

I hold similar antiquated views regarding a humanities eduction. I'm of the view that my students could stand a little more _contact_ with learning, or to put it into cycling, a _lot_ more friction shifting. It's about engagement, about _taking time_ to learn. As a college professor I insist they read books that they must hold in their hands, write legibly with a pen in a blue book, and I permit absolutely NO Internet "research." I want them to _slow down_ and _think_. I order as few as four books for a fifteen week semester and make them read the same things again and again.
Spinoza once said "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

And as for that "imperfection is perfection," I think that quotation originally belongs to S. Sazuki in _Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind_. That's a book with a lot of soul, ironic of course since Buddhism teaches there is no soul! Love that.

dbrk

[jerk]

i need a new camera. for years i had a sony mavica 1.6 and
it died last week. it was a laugher of a camera but it could take
some seriously badass closeups. the macro setting was its
best feature.

who can recommend a more here/now slr-ish digital camera
that excels in ultra close-up shots? i want to have a manual
focus option too.

can i get out of a camera store for less than $500 total?

hey - thanks for reading.

don't be a punk and don't listen to the haters....this is what you want.

you can get it in the range you want. the jerk knows the jerk has one.

jerk

[dave thompson]

i need a new camera. for years i had a sony mavica 1.6 and
it died last week. it was a laugher of a camera but it could take
some seriously badass closeups. the macro setting was its
best feature.

who can recommend a more here/now slr-ish digital camera
that excels in ultra close-up shots? i want to have a manual
focus option too.

can i get out of a camera store for less than $500 total?

hey - thanks for reading.
Just shot these in ambient (lousy) light with my Fuji S602Z, from about 1/2" away.

I think these cameras can be had for well under $500. Easy to use and through-the-lens viewing, focus, etc.

[e-RICHIE]

And as for that "imperfection is perfection," I think that quotation originally belongs to S. Sazuki in _Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind_. That's a book with a lot of soul, ironic of course since Buddhism teaches there is no soul! Love that.

dbrk


without question, the quote originated with someone
with many more levels than me - but the odd thing is,
i heard it, and i heard it completely out of context, while
listening to wpkn in bridgeport in the mid 80s era. no
matter what the programers were discussing, it was as
if those three words were magnified so that i could hear
them. they resonated with me - and stayed with me ever
since. eventually i did co-opt it for my t shirts because
i think the "phrase" has meaning and i also thought that's
what martha stewart would do. btw, that martha stewart
part is not true! anyway - once, on the framebuilder list,
pal joe starck axed me about the t shirt and what the
"phrase" meant to me, and i replied:


J?? wrote:
"Can you tell me what YOU mean by "imperfection is perfection?"


i spent a long time trying to raise the bar of my work, all the while
having none of the mechanical and other skills of my peers;
when you learn framebuilding in london, you're never far from
your dirt floor roots. all i ever was was a racer who dug bikes,
and a dreamer too. i also have/had a good eye when it comes to
"borrowing". heck, who among us really is that innovative?

anyway, at 5 years into the gig i thought, "another 5 and i'll have
it licked." after 10 i still stumbled. the frames got sold and i had a
following, but i never thought i had a handle on "how it should be
done". i guess i conceded that it'd take 20 years to nail it...

despite the insecurities, i did feel that some of my choices for
materials and design were very correct and believed that some
of my frames - not many of them - were actually quite good.

my dilemna had always been: "why is it that i can hit my marks
conceptually, but in practice i often fall short? do i chalk it up to
that i do it by hand - and due to this, repeatabilty is not guaranteed?"

again, despite the insecurities, people queued up for orders.
were the frames really as lacking as "i" thought they were, DESPITE
the good press i was getting? why was there such a juxtaposition?

then one day i heard that phrase used during a talk show interview
on an fm college radio program. the three words somehow consoled
me and from that moment on i was comfortable with my life and the
warts i see on my frames. comfortable. not complacent.

while it did help explain away why there are monday frames and friday
frames, i could finally accept that this was "handwork", and as such, the
total package is more important than any one component. (i'm not certain,
but isn't this a gestalt situation?)

fyi, i heard the phrase in the mid 80s. it took almost 10 years for me to
co-opt it on a t shirt. yes - i am relating it to bikes here, but in essence,
it's a life lesson, not a bike one.

the above text is as distilled and concise as explanation as i can give
at this moment. if you asked twice or if i typed it twice, there would be
slight variations.

e-RICHIE

ps the framebuilder list email link lives here:
http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=framebuilders.10408.0942.eml

[weisan]

I heart that, Richie-sawa.

Hey - thanks for listenin'

[e-RICHIE]

I heart that, Richie-sawa.

Hey - thanks for listenin'


it's a good thing imho cheers :beer:

[palincss]

I have a love-hate affair with digital which has nothing to do with its quality (sharpness) but with how_it_feels. Being a designer, I use digital cameras all the time for work and nothing beats it for speed and immediate manipulations, quick and dirty stuff, etc., etc. (I also understand that professional photographers have real needs, must move on to digital, and are for the most part being well served by high-end digital). But also being a designer, I find digital cameras a pain to use (incredibly bad ergonomics on the small models, waaaaay too many buttons, their layouts incredibly non-intuitive), and (for me) quite devoid of sensuality. If I am going to spend several thousand dollars on a DSLR plus lenses, I want to be excited just by touching it, w/o even having turned the damned thing on.

I feel exactly as you do. After a roughly 30 year hiatus (preceeded by time with a Pentax Spotmatic and a Rolleiflex T) I recently woke from a long nap and looked at digital cameras. Hideous controls. Little buttons, menu after menu, shutter speeds and f stop settings god alone knows where -- awful.

Last week, I discovered there's a ditigal camera that isn't designed that way. The f stop control is on the lens. The shutter speed is exactly where it is on my Spotmatic. The camera's all about instant familiarity to anyone used to a "regular" SLR. It's a Leica Digilux 2. (And there's a Panasonic model that's a twin.)

Yes, all is not perfect there: the viewfinder is not optical, it's video and some reviewers hate it. Also, there's no buffer for RAW mode, and it can take upwards of seven seconds to write in that mode. And, of course, the supplied memory card is tiny -- but then, aren't they all? And there's some kind of minor issue about too-aggressive noise suppression software in some modes. Finally, it's a bit pricey: the cheapest price I found on the net the other day was around $1400, for a 5 megapixel camera, compared to roughly 900 for a D70 Nikon at 8 megapixels.

On the other hand, the ergonomics of controls are definitely worth something; and it's got top notch Leica glass. Dead silent, 5 hrs continuous operation on a charge - and were anyone with any experience with any real SLR to pick one up, they'd know how to use it and find the controls entirely intuitive.

I wish they were easier to find. There are very few stores that carry one: none at all in the District of Columbia, only two in VA (and none in the metro DC area), and the closest of two in MD is in Beltsville - not exactly what I'd call "close".

[jerk]

I feel exactly as you do. After a roughly 30 year hiatus (preceeded by time with a Pentax Spotmatic and a Rolleiflex T) I recently woke from a long nap and looked at digital cameras. Hideous controls. Little buttons, menu after menu, shutter speeds and f stop settings god alone knows where -- awful.

Last week, I discovered there's a ditigal camera that isn't designed that way. The f stop control is on the lens. The shutter speed is exactly where it is on my Spotmatic. The camera's all about instant familiarity to anyone used to a "regular" SLR. It's a Leica Digilux 2. (And there's a Panasonic model that's a twin.)

Yes, all is not perfect there: the viewfinder is not optical, it's video and some reviewers hate it. Also, there's no buffer for RAW mode, and it can take upwards of seven seconds to write in that mode. And, of course, the supplied memory card is tiny -- but then, aren't they all? And there's some kind of minor issue about too-aggressive noise suppression software in some modes. Finally, it's a bit pricey: the cheapest price I found on the net the other day was around $1400, for a 5 megapixel camera, compared to roughly 900 for a D70 Nikon at 8 megapixels.

On the other hand, the ergonomics of controls are definitely worth something; and it's got top notch Leica glass. Dead silent, 5 hrs continuous operation on a charge - and were anyone with any experience with any real SLR to pick one up, they'd know how to use it and find the controls entirely intuitive.

I wish they were easier to find. There are very few stores that carry one: none at all in the District of Columbia, only two in VA (and none in the metro DC area), and the closest of two in MD is in Beltsville - not exactly what I'd call "close".


get a digilux 1. it has an optical viewfinder and it's the best. the digital bullshi'ite only has to be as good as the optics as far as the jerk is concerned and it works great and feels like a real camera. the pictures it takes are great, the size is great and it has all the features all the kids want.

jerk

[eddief]

Brand new point and shoot with full manual controls to go along with full auto. Have not had the time to determine it's full potential, but think it is capable of anything I can imagine including macro. On amazon for around $300.

More pixels in the 710, but can't imagine I'd need them.

[Serotta PETE]

following up...
NO FILM USED HERE!)


Detail on those lugs is excellent

[Serotta PETE]

i need a new camera. for years i had a sony mavica 1.6 and
it died last week. it was a laugher of a camera but it could take
some seriously badass closeups. the macro setting was its
best feature.

who can recommend a more here/now slr-ish digital camera
that excels in ultra close-up shots? i want to have a manual
focus option too.

can i get out of a camera store for less than $500 total?

hey - thanks for reading.

Any of the NIKON or CANON would be good. Go to web site and look, then go to a store to touch them and look. 5 Meg is more than plenty

Let me know which models you like and I will ask a friend down here to give you a price and recommendation on selections. Send to my e-mail.

Also B&H is the city has quite a selection on there web site and they give pretty good service. I have a nikon 4900 but it has been discontinured. Got my daughter a NIKON S3 for Christmas.

[rodenmg]

thanks. how 'bout if i forego manual focus, and assume he'll
find work elsewhere - could i get a killer point/shoot digital
camera with an el-supremo macro feature and still get change
from my $500? i don't care what else it does, i just wanna
get real close. no wierdo replies, okay?!

I've played with a new Fuji F10, which I got my daughter for Christamas, and it's really excellent. Not for the advanced photographer who like to do it all for themself mind you, but a really a nice camera that has good low light and macro capabilities with a nice lens.

[Climb01742]

for my job, i see a lot of images -- still and moving -- and my take on film vs digital is...there's "old" beauty and now there's "new" beauty. to me, it's akin to comparing a black and white image to a color one. they're both simply beautiful, simply different.

a thought written in pen vs a thought written on a mac. both thoughts, simply different.

[rodenmg]

I understand what you mean. When you first get one of the newer digital bodies all the menues and things that can be customized or programed or setup is allmost overwhelming. But the basics are still the same. When I shot the examples I posted I mounted my old AIS (Nikon terms) and selected a shutter speed that would sync, twisted the aperature ring to what setting would give the depth of field I wanted, focused on what I thought would put me in best part of that depth of field and fired. I shoot in a "raw" format that needs developing and about the only difference is I didn't have to turn the lights out to process it. The basics are still the same but the options, if you choose to use them.... well the sky is the limit. It still boils down to "it's the engine not the bike".



rodenmg, you are right about the high-end DSLRs. The basic controls are all there, and all the damn fussy extra buttons -- well, they exist b/c digital technology allows for far far more functions, requiring their control/selection.

However I just still feel that the time of lean mean machines are gone (bicycles being a hardy survivor from the purge). When I use these new cameras I feel like there is a 3-foot thick wall of "electronics" between my hands and the glass that is capturing the image. My Leica doesn't feel like this, it feels "pure" in the sense that a lot of extraneous things have been stripped out. I used to drive a Saab 900, the old beautiful-ugly (depending on whom you asked, but you know my opinion) kind, every expressive line and curve simultaneously idiosyncratic and sensible, which felt nice and lean when I sit in the "cockpit"; sadly the car did not pass the most recent California smog test, was categorized as a "gross polluter" and to make a long story slightly shorter, the state PAID me $1000 to destroy it, it's a little cube of metal now. The replacement is a VW (station wagon, so I can haul things, like bikes) -- it's a nice car but when I sit in it, I feel a little suffocated, there's so much technology and padding btwn me and the outside. That's how I feel about the, er, "feel" of digital technology. They're wonderful things but thus far they're a little behind in the simple pleasures (of eye, of touch).

(This complaint doesn't apply so much to Apple computers, of course.)

Sorry if I've really deviated away from bicycle-talk. Yet I'm sure common sensibilities exist between these two worlds.

[baselthedog]

[QUOTE=palincss] It's a Leica Digilux 2. (And there's a Panasonic model that's a twin.)... Finally, it's a bit pricey: the cheapest price I found on the net the other day was around $1400, for a 5 megapixel camera, compared to roughly 900 for a D70 Nikon at 8 megapixels.QUOTE]


The Digilux is really a Panasonic. Panasonic designed the electronics, and Leica supplied the lens.

I know a really good independent Leica distributor in HK who is absolutely top-notch to deal with, a real gentleman... come to think of it very much like dbrk. His prices, when I bought my stuff from him, were far far less than US prices. PM me if you want details.

BTW have you taken a look at the Epson RD-1. Can't be beat for the user experience. But pricey...

As for dollars-per-megapixel, well I would say that is one way of making your choice, only one criteria amongst several. Assuming the difference isn't so bad after accounting for the passage of time, etc., I'd rather spend $1400 on something I'll really enjoy (according to whatever my criteria be) than "waste" $800 on something I'd only feel so-so about. Isn't this why we all lust after Sachs, Serottas, Vanillas, Hampstens, Moots, etc., don't we?

[e-RICHIE]

I've played with a new Fuji F10, which I got my daughter for Christamas, and it's really excellent. Not for the advanced photographer who like to do it all for themself mind you, but a really a nice camera that has good low light and macro capabilities with a nice lens.


cool
i'll google it after H2.

[baselthedog]

One more thing -- the pixel count on the latest digicams are really impressive but unless your "job" demands it, high pixel count = much much bigger files, requiring faster computers, larger disk drives, better printers to really take advantage of it, etc., etc.

As Spiderman knows well: With great powers come great responsibilities.

If one were inclined to go for high pixel count, I think one would be well served to also care about how such a camera would render color tones, contrast, density (how many shades of grey can the chip render, between black and white?), etc., all of which contribute to the quality of the final image just as much, if not more, than sharpness. Half of the iconic photos in our cultural memories are far from razor sharp. I have Noctilux lens for my M6 (the reason I couldn't upgrade a computer for six years) which, on the few occasions when I am paying attention, takes absolutely wonderful photos in low light but (or because?) was PURPOSEFULLY designed to be darker and out-of-focus at the image corners. I agree with Climb, in that there is old beauty and new beauty. The old beauty sprang from analog imperfections that have been improved, refined, and yes, fetishized (bokeh, anyone?) over a century. The new beauty simply hasn't matched the old in this regard, however one can also argue that new beauty should pursue its own criteria rather than trying to replicate the old. (When I think about carbon bikes this way, everything makes sense -- dbrk and Steve Hampsten, that Carbone Tournesol is really really stunning).

[rodenmg]

cool
i'll google it after H2.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/
and
http://www.dpreview.com

are two good sites for reviews that can be trusted.

[baselthedog]

I understand what you mean. When you first get one of the newer digital bodies all the menues and things that can be customized or programed or setup is allmost overwhelming. But the basics are still the same. When I shot the examples I posted I mounted my old AIS (Nikon terms) and selected a shutter speed that would sync, twisted the aperature ring to what setting would give the depth of field I wanted, focused on what I thought would put me in best part of that depth of field and fired. I shoot in a "raw" format that needs developing and about the only difference is I didn't have to turn the lights out to process it. The basics are still the same but the options, if you choose to use them.... well the sky is the limit. It still boils down to "it's the engine not the bike".


My last 2 cents, I promise:

It IS the engine, not the bike; I just wish these "bikes" were more refined, emphasis on the r-word. Even just the lousy buttons -- the best-feeling, best-acting push-buttons on an electronic gadgets have to be the ones on old-style HP scientific/business calculators.

[BBB]

I have two Cannon SLRs - one film, one digital. Both are great cameras, but the film or 'normal' SLR definately takes a higher quality photo, although without the technological advantages of the digital camera - wasted shots for example. I think there is room, or at least should be room, for both methods and it would be a shame if film was to fall by the way side (although it might save lugging two cameras around on holiday). But economics will suggest otherwise if Nikon's sales figures are anything to go by.

The friction shift approach to teaching is interesting, although it is not without a sense of irony that this approach is set out via the internet. How do the students take to it? Is legible writing in an electronic age a rare thing?

[rodenmg]

get a digilux 1. it has an optical viewfinder and it's the best. the digital bullshi'ite only has to be as good as the optics as far as the jerk is concerned and it works great and feels like a real camera. the pictures it takes are great, the size is great and it has all the features all the kids want.

jerk

Dude! I always wanted a Leica but had kids in stead. Still wish I'd gone for the Leica. They are like Ferrari. Even if they aren't going 150 they are still sexy as all heck. Not to mention that they still produce some of the best lenses on the planet.

[rePhil]

Nikon was very good to me, Never had a failure with thousands and thousands of rolls through F2's, 3,s 4's and 5's.All this in a saltwater environment doing boat brochures. The F3 was my favorite until the 5 came along. I liked the autofocus, and loved the meter on the F5. I used to get a kick out the guys who would pull lightmeters out of their bags. But they were just tools to me. Sure, I felt they all had a personality, but in the end they were just tools plain and simple. A way to try to capture a cool photo. A way to make a living and feed my family. While I still have an F5 all the rest went to E bay. I really hope that none of them went to a collector. They were meant to be used.
Never like Kodachrome. When Fuji came out with E6 I never looked back. I was one of the early converts to velvia, then provia. It was nothing to go through 20 or 30 rolls for THE shot. Several years ago an art director and I were convinced that the day would come when he would view what I was shooting on a laptop as I shot, saving tons of money on film, processing, time and eliminating the wait to see if we got the one.
Digital is evolving at such a rapid rate, I hesitate to buy anything.
Digital is convenient. Film is dead. No use building film cameras.
Image stabilizing lenses.Prices are falling while technology goes up. Whats not to like?

[Dekonick]

for my job, i see a lot of images -- still and moving -- and my take on film vs digital is...there's "old" beauty and now there's "new" beauty. to me, it's akin to comparing a black and white image to a color one. they're both simply beautiful, simply different.

a thought written in pen vs a thought written on a mac. both thoughts, simply different.

Digital can be beautiful. http://www.theclananderson.com/Stuff/hubble.jpg

[Climb01742]

The new beauty simply hasn't matched the old in this regard, however one can also argue that new beauty should pursue its own criteria rather than trying to replicate the old.

bingo. actually, double secret probation bingo. :D

[e-RICHIE]

bingo. actually, double secret probation bingo. :D



...ah that little known codisil from the charter of Faber U.

[Climb01742]

...ah that little known codisil from the charter of Faber U.

hey, did we quit when the germans bombed pearl harbor?*








*did bluto matriculate for 6 or 7 years, can't remember?**







**"roadtrip!"

[Climb01742]

another analogy might be the transition from silent films to "talkies". oh my god, the handwringing, the wailing, the bemoaning that took place! a great silent film by chaplin or keaton is monumental, but so is the heartbreaking dialogue from "on the waterfront" in the back of the cab between charlie and terry, or machine-gun dialogue of "maltese falcon", or anything groucho says about freedonia or the sanity clause. just old and new beauty. same with film nior and color. the "old" beauty of the inky murky moody shades of black of sam fuller's early pix (where shadows are practically a character) vs terrence malick "days of heaven", where color is basically a character.

just different, but equal, kinds of beauty and art, IMHO, bro.

[e-RICHIE]

another analogy might be the transition from silent films to "talkies". oh my god, the handwringing, the wailing, the bemoaning that took place! a great silent film by chaplin or keaton is monumental, but so is the heartbreaking dialogue from "on the waterfront" in the back of the cab between charlie and terry, or machine-gun dialogue of "maltese falcon", or anything groucho says about freedonia or the sanity clause. just old and new beauty. same with film nior and color. the "old" beauty of the inky murky moody shades of black of sam fuller's early pix (where shadows are practically a character) vs terrence malick "days of heaven", where color is basically a character.

just different, but equal, kinds of beauty and art, IMHO, bro.

and who can forget this gem of an exchange from "Sunset Boulevard" ...
JOE GILLES-
"You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA-
"I am big, it's the pictures that got small."

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . William told me at Cross Nats when I couldn’t get him all in the frame.

BBDave

[Too Tall]

The hairspray and cigs are a little thick today?

Twizzler - Nikon still rocks. The pics I've posted lately are with a very inexpensive Nikon CoolPix 4600.

[e-RICHIE]

The hairspray and cigs are a little thick today?

Twizzler - Nikon still rocks. The pics I've posted lately are with a very inexpensive Nikon CoolPix 4600.


thanks you silly stieglitz you!

[dbrk]

another analogy might be the transition from silent films to "talkies". oh my god, the handwringing, the wailing, the bemoaning that took place!...[snipped stuff goes here]
just different, but equal, kinds of beauty and art, IMHO, bro.

It's not the _appreciation_ that I think may (or perhaps in Climb's case, may not) be lost, it's the experience and the skill. To wit, how many riders under 40 nowadays have reached for a down tube shifter, let alone ridden friction or had the experience of taking a picture that requires you to understand the camera (at least marginally, as in my case)? The soul is in the interaction, not solely in the object, though the object too invites this relationship (or not).

Gratuitous bicycle soul content. I have incoming a bike that will test the very boundaries of soul: a _new_ Mariposa made for the last seen in 1954 Campagnolo Paris-Roubaix shifters. These use a single chainring and invite you, if you have the nerve, to disengage the rear wheel with a rod that then moves the chain up and down its mighty five cogs by pedaling backwards. The point of building this more than 50 years obsolete bicycle was to create an experience of skill, fun, and a certain degree of frustration on the learning curve. When you see Mike Barry shift this effortlessly going up a 6%+ climb, you see something beautiful to behold. Fascinated as I was by Mike's '70s built Mariposa in this style, it was seeing him _ride_ it that made me go so far as to want to do this...regularly. Of course, Dario is building me a 'cross bike, I think (it's his choice), and that will be a galaxy away from this, and that's a fine thing! It's not the beauty or the difference, it's the soul we have lost in the world of indexing on the bars mono-a-mono race bikes. Rant off. I will become a silent film now.

db[uster]rk[eaton]

[e-RICHIE]

It's not the _appreciation_ that I think may (or perhaps in Climb's case, may not) be lost, it's the experience and the skill.<cut>

agreed on all counts - and i'll paste (again) what
i believe is a telling quote mined from an interview*
with philippe dufour...

"PD: I go to extremes in life to do the best I can. In today’s modern movement, born with the 'renaissance’ of the mechanical watch, even in the best of these movements, everything is designed to be made on a machine. Please understand me when I say that even if the hand of man has its role to play, the architecture itself of the movement, like the design of its component parts, is created with machine manufacturing in mind. However, a machine is incapable of making bridges with rounded corners as are done by hand in my atelier. In the 'Simplicity’ watch, there is the enormous added value of being totally handcrafted. There is a certain emotional attraction of knowing that a skilled hand, using traditional tools, has created a personal timepiece. It has its own internal vibration. It is something living and unique…it is poetry from the hand."

*http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000476650

[Climb01742]

It's not the _appreciation_ that I think may (or perhaps in Climb's case, may not) be lost, it's the experience and the skill. To wit, how many riders under 40 nowadays have reached for a down tube shifter, let alone ridden friction or had the experience of taking a picture that requires you to understand the camera (at least marginally, as in my case)? The soul is in the interaction, not solely in the object, though the object too invites this relationship (or not).db[uster]rk[eaton]

douglas, i certainly don't wholeheartedly disagree, but i do have a slightly different take: any piece of art has many purposes and/or meanings, but i would argue that it's primary purpose is communication, a sharing. for that purpose, it is the content of the image (or song or poem or film or painting) that is paramount. so its mode of creation becomes secondary. i began my career in an analog (and film and lead type and typewriter) era. i now work in a digital (and pixel and photoshop and final cut and flame and henry) era. our ability to manipulate that content to express exactly what the artist (or in my case, advertising hack) wishes is miles and miles better. again, our disagreement isn't profound, but subtle. the "art" the modern tools let me make now is geometrically, if not exponentially, greater now than it was when i was a young'un.

[Tom]

Lost Worlds, author Michael Bywater. On the subject of loss, in general. I happen to be reading that one at the moment (your description of your course assignments made me laugh because I have several books going at the moment. I can't just plow right through them because I have to read a little and let it ferment for a while otherwise it's just words on paper. Kind of like just riding to add miles) and it is how my question arose.

I agree with Climb, I think, the art is the communication no matter the medium or technique. Millions of people have monkeyed with a brush and oils but there's only one Lady With an Ermine.

[chrisroph]

ansel just rolled.

[e-RICHIE]

ansel just rolled.


film at eleven.

[davids]

It's not the _appreciation_ that I think may (or perhaps in Climb's case, may not) be lost, it's the experience and the skill. To wit, how many riders under 40 nowadays have reached for a down tube shifter, let alone ridden friction or had the experience of taking a picture that requires you to understand the camera (at least marginally, as in my case)? The soul is in the interaction, not solely in the object, though the object too invites this relationship (or not).
db[uster]rk[eaton]
I tend more towards climb's side on this one, but dbrk's point is well taken.

Technological progress is, when viewed from sufficient distance, pretty much constant. There's differences in engineering philosophies between vinyl and mpegs, friction shifters and STI, Kodachrome and 4 megapixels. But they're all technologies, and all constitute an effort by us semi-skilled apes to impose our will on the world. Each pursues a similar end through different means.

I find it hard to see the preference for one technology over another as anything more than an esthetic, or even nostalgic, bias. You've got to look at specific solutions before it's possible to make real judgements.

"Analog" isn't better than "Digital", or visa-versa. My VPI HW-19 Jr. turntable reproduces music better than my Panasonic portable CD player. And my Sony CD transport/Enlightened Audio Designed D/A converter combo reproduces music better than that close-and-play Technics turntable I had during college...

Find the 'best' analog reproduction system and compare it to the 'best' digital reproduction system. It doesn't matter which one does a better job - It wouldn't prove that analog or digital is the better design philosophy. Only that the best specific application of one outshines the best specific application of the other. At this moment.

Dbrk's reference to the human-machine interface is important - I think that's it's critically important to our appreciation and experience of the technology, and it's where lots of technologies fail us. But once again, I've seen fantastic interfaces on digital machines (IPod, anyone?) and lousy ones on older technologies (OK, I don't get the appeal of downtube shifters at all.) Again, it's the particular application, not the underlying technology, that will carry the day.

[JohnS]

ansel just rolled.
Ansel rolled when those itty-bitty 35mm amateur cameras took over! :p

[andy mac]

just to ref back to the article i posted, how do you store digital photos then if the life of a cd is only 2 to 5 years? i have all mine on cd's. an external hard drive seems ok now but will probably be obsolete in 5 years - like an 8 track. negs best for posterity and long term storage???

maybe i'm kidding myself that anyone will really care about shots i've taken or my life. it's not like i'm an important interesting celebrity like fstrthnu.

i made the switch back to film 2 years ago for important stuff - safari, wedding, friends passed out etc, although i shoot throw away on digital.

i wonder though if digital photography has made it easier and cheaper for people to take photos, so in that sense it's probably a good thing. it does crack me up to see people trying to take photos of a big event on a cell phone.

cheers & beers,

andy.

[shaq-d]

you can store stuff on gmail or own yourself a website..cheap and lots of storage and they do their own backup...

sd

[Tom]

I do know that the stuff we have regulatory requirement to keep unaltered for seven years gets burned onto optical but it's really, really good optical. From the company of the guy that says it'll fail in two years.

[YO!!!]

Here is a company that offers new or used / digital or print /
autofocus or manual camera gear.

http://www.keh.com/hmpg/index.cfm

I have used them before and they are good folks.

[Ti Designs]

Prices are falling while technology goes up. Whats not to like?


Cameras are broken down into two catagories, expensive tools that can get right down to the job, and consumer toys that sell on long lists of functions and features which get in the way. I've used two Nikon digital cameras, a D2x and my own Coolpix 5700. With the D2x you can shut off all the added bells and whistles and shoot. The Coolpix can do close-up work as well as my old film bellows camera could, but the learning curve was more pain than riding up Mt Washington with loaded panniers. Being a retro grouch (I still claim that the most expensive part of any user/tool combination is teaching the idiot how to use the tool) I figured it was just me - I'm too stupid to use most of the internet, that whole IM thing has me scratching my head.

So I had all kinds of troubles getting the Coolpix to do good close-up work. I got in touch with Nikon, they refered me to my dealer. I e-mailed the dealer, told them I was having problems with the zillions of functions the camera has. They said they have an expert on Nikon cameras, I should see him, so I did. After 45 minutes of watching the expert fight with the same problems I had I came to my conclusion - what makes digital cameras more expensive is the ability to turn off the extra stupid functions that you don't need.

Cameras (and bicycles) shouldn't be complicated devices - at least not from the standpoint of the user. Adding complexity just makes things harder to use and less reliable. I've found two bugs in the menus of my CoolPix camera, Nikon is quick to point out that resetting the camera solves both problems but it's something they missed in testing because there are just too many functions. Cars have also gotten that way. I drive a car that's too simple to leave me stranded - can't say that for anything made today! Bikes are getting there. Did we need electronic shifting?

[Skrawny]

I have made the switch too and it has rekindled my love of photography.

I am an armature photographer who is self taught and never has been able to set up a darkroom (I still rent)

I started with the Nikon F4 -a great pro camera that is a wonderful cudgel too. Then moved to the F100 and thought it was the perfect film camera for me. My strobe was the SB-24.

Unfortunately life has gotten busy. I rarely get to lug out the F100 (and flash) and frequently choose instead a digital P&S because of its portability. As a result, unfinished rolls of film would sit in my F100; this made the time it took between taking film pix and seeing the results long enough that I would forget what I did...

Just last month I bought a Nikon D70s (digital Nikon SLR), the new SB-600 flash -and I have been shooting ever since. The feedback is instant, I am learning again because I can see immediately the mistakes I made. I only use the automatic mode when I hand it to someone else to shoot. The wireless flash ability lets me get creative with lighting like I never have before. It does not fit in the pocket of jeans like a P&S, but the pop-up flash and lighter weight than the F100 means I take it with me more often. Yes the rubberized magnesium body of the F100 has a more satisfying heft, and it was more durable, but that is all I miss. I am learning to use the photoshop digital "darkroom" to do things I was never able to do with film. Finally I can "burn & dodge!"

Nikon knows what it is doing. They will keep making the F6, the most advanced film camera in the lineup and -arguably- in the world, to satisfy the pros who have $30K invested in lenses and don't want to go digital. They will also keep making the F10, an entry level film camera for students. I hope they keep making the quality lenses for these cameras.

On the P&S side, don't forget the Casio Exilim. I think it is one of the best on the market right now. Enough pixels (most P&S cameras are limited by quality of the lenses anyway), huge LCD, image stabilization, decent zoom and small. I own an old Cannon S400 P&S, but I have 4 separate friends who have gotten a Exilim and all are happy. If I were in the market, I'd get one.
-s

[William]

Put it in a display case & wipe it with a cloth diaper, or use it and abuse it for what it was intended?

It's all functional tools to be used for the purpose they were designed for IMHO (but you can still clean it with the diaper if you wish ;) ).


William