Digital photography... expensive hobby ?

[Villareal]

Don't you agree that aside for instant gratification , it is quite expensive and not worth the cost ?
i.e printing etc

 

[LOLyourFace]

it's fun and great for web use...

i am one with my Canon S110... i carry it where ever i go.. i have few impressive shots of scenery and black & white shots

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Villareal
Don't you agree that aside for instant gratification , it is quite expensive and not worth the cost ?
i.e printing etc

The money you would spend on film and developing MORE than makes up for the cost... I havent bought film in over 4 years...

 

[Nefrodite]

it depends, beginner and hobbiest digital cams aren't that expensive. professional or enthusiast slr digital cams with custom lenses = oh my god its so *()*^#% much money kind of expensive

 

[dopcombo]

But don't you want to see your photos printed out and collected in a book?
I know i would. Especially when my grandparents don't have a computer and i would like to share my photos with them.

That said, I do feel like buying one just for the fun of it.

 

[Lars]

I am going to buy a digital camera because I can't afford to develop all the pictures I would like to take. Right now I really have to think if the shot is worth it, soon I don't have that problem anymore.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: dopcombo
But don't you want to see your photos printed out and collected in a book?
I know i would. Especially when my grandparents don't have a computer and i would like to share my photos with them.

That said, I do feel like buying one just for the fun of it.

you can still have prints with a digital camera

 

[Nefrodite]

but you always have the downside where quality printouts of digital picts are expensive some people buy a medium quality digital cam as their proofer and use a high quality slr film cam for final prints.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.

 

[Gunbuster]

<<custom lenses = oh my god its so *()*^#% much money kind of expensive>>

not custom, canon and nikon pro digitals use the same lenses as the film bodies

 

[randomlinh]

4x6 prints for sharing from walmart are .26c... exellent quality for the price. Probably 95% of the ppl you show it to would notice.

But doing digital as a "real" hobby i'd doubt is any more expensive than film. The body of a digital slr is indeed at a higher cost.. but the ability to master photo's on the comp and un-wasted prints (in theory...) balance that out. In film, you have lots of film costs.

each way you gotta get lenses.

But on the digital scale, you can do a lot even w/ a non-SLR.. get a oly 4040 or canon g2... a lot of it is how well you take the picture, not just the camera.

So basically, all i'm really saying is, photography in general, can get expensive... just depends on how you use it.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.

hehe yup, is why many people use the digi cam to just quiickly test out settings and stuff b4 whipping out the film cam for final capture. some of that new film is awesome looking. i have a friend thats into this stuff. until foveon finally comes out with their new digital sensor.. current digicams are suck

 

[hudster]

Digital is the ONLY way to takes pics...period. (well, with 1 qualification: it really helps to be computer savvy/literate)

I bought a Sony Cybershot DSC-S75 just over a year ago, so that I'd have a digital camera to take TONS of pics of my daughter when she was born last June (my first child and only child so far). The camera was $700 at the time, and was well worth it in my opinion. Cefore she was born, I told myself that I wanted to try to take at least 1 picture of her every day for her entire first year. Well, I've missed some days, but even though I failed to take a pic every day, in the past year I've taken over 6,000 pictures total, and I would estimate that at least 4,000 of those pics are of my daughter. So even though I missed some days, I'm still happy with the result: having a lot of pictures of my daughter to look back on in the future.

Now, out of those 6,000 pics, of course there are some bad ones (blurry, etc). But the great thing is, when I do order prints over the internet, I'm picking and choosing which ones I want to be 'developed', so when I get the prints, I'm never ever disappointed by blurry prints or otherwise bad pictures (which was often the case for me with regular film cameras)

And as far as getting prints 'developed', it's really doesn't have to be any more expensive than regular film development. Wal-Mart online offers 4x6" prints for $0.26 each, which would work out to $6.24 for 24 prints, which I think is about the same price as their regular in-store film devlopment, isn't it? And like I mentioned above, I'm never wasting money getting blurry pics developed, since I'm the one picking&choosing which pics to get developed.

So, yes, while digital seems expensive up front, I think that the benefits pay for themselves over the long run. I know I'll certainly never go back.


-hudster

 

[rahvin]

I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.

Film photography is roughly equivalent to about 7mpixels at 400ISO (35mm). Current digital cameras reach 60-80% of that on the consumer end. Professional level Digital cameras are equivalent to 35mm film and are rapidly approaching the quality of medium format. With the ability to generate actual photographic prints using a laser film processing technique (as little as .25cents a print) there really isn't any point to not going digital.

 

[Villareal]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.

I read somewhere that you have to have a Digicam with at least a 8.0MP resolution to match 35MM Film.
That being said, I can't even imagine what such a camera would cost.

 

[silverpig]

<<I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.>>


High quality CCDs found in digicams are WAY more precise than any film. In astronomy, all of the professional scientific exposures are done with CCDs now. Look at the pics from Hubble. There's no way you could get anything like that with film.

For most people, film is more precise (only the slow speed film though), but once you start getting into the professional level stuff, you can't beat a CCD.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: silverpig
<<I silver. of grain a as small near where no is pixel but yes, lens decent A camera? 110 old an resolution the has that something on lenses level professional need one does Why question. have>> High quality CCDs found in digicams are WAY more precise than any film. In astronomy, all of the professional scientific exposures are done with CCDs now. Look at the pics from Hubble. There's no way you could get anything like that with film. For most people, film is more precise (only the slow speed film though), but once you start getting into the professional level stuff, you can't beat a CCD.

</I>Well.... We have apples and oranges here. I was referring to cameras available to the public today. A 5 MP camera is a 5 MP camera. Now if we are talking a chip with a count of 20 MP, that would be different. As mentioned elsewhere, a medium format digital back CCD, has capabilities requiring high quality optics. As does the Hubble. But I would hate to hang a medium format camera around my neck, and certainly NOT the Hubble

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: silverpig
<<I have a question. Why does one need professional level lenses on something that has the resolution of an old 110 camera? A decent lens yes, but a pixel is no where near as small as a grain of silver.>>


High quality CCDs found in digicams are WAY more precise than any film. In astronomy, all of the professional scientific exposures are done with CCDs now. Look at the pics from Hubble. There's no way you could get anything like that with film.

For most people, film is more precise (only the slow speed film though), but once you start getting into the professional level stuff, you can't beat a CCD.

eh? what? do current slr digi cams use 3 different ccds, one for red gree and blue? if not they are NOT precise.

must wait for foveon.

 

[silverpig]

I'm not too familiar with what's available to consumers commercially, but the astro telescope at UBC uses a CCD, as do any high end optical scopes. CCDs can just be so much more accurate than film.

As for using high end optics on a digital SLR you can pick up at a good camera store, well I wouldn't know off hand as to whether it's useful, or just wasted money, but I do know that once you get to a certain point, you will need high end optics to take advantage of the CCD. At which monetary point that comes with commercial cameras today, I'm not too sure.

I would, however, assume that anyone who is going to spend $7500 on a digital SLR and some high end optics should know what he's doing and will make sure it's worth it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nice thing about CCDs for astronomy is no reciprocity failure. (Im into amateur astronomy or was until I moved into this orange sky hell known as boston) Anyway, SBIG and others DO make nice equipment, and sooner or later when I move outta here, I hope to get one. Have a line on a good 20 inch mirror, which I might pick up if I can figure out how to get a worthy mount for it. Dobsonians arent very good for photography, dontcha know

 

[silverpig]

Yep, that's very true. My astro prof told us all about CCD vs film, and it was actually quite interesting (the rest of that course was on freaking spacedust).