Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Digital imaging

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Digital imaging
From: *- DORIS FANG -* <sfsttj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:55:48 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Joseph Chen wrote:

>  Face it, digital is the future.

   It is. The beast is slouching towards Rochester. :-)

  Already, digital
> imaging is superior to film-based photography in some respects (cost per
> exposure,

  Not to the average snapshooter. Think of it like this: Cost of a camera
capable of delivering 8x10's..........(OM, of course).............$1,500
Storage media capable of carrying 72 high quality exposures.......$  200
Cost of paper and ink for 125 photo-quality 4x6 prints.......$ your call
                                                                 --------
                                                                    1,700 
  As has been pointed out before, the average snapper 
can do this in the silver/analog world with a $100 camera
and $80 worth of film and processing, AND crank out
a passable 11x14 print, which his $1.5k camera (and let's not
forget the $1.5k computer, .5k photo-quality printer, etc)
cannot do. Plus, the camera and computer will be dumpster food 
in 5-7 years, meaning the true costs are much, much higher.
Something in the order of $600/yr. I know geeks like us
are used to these costs, but many others are not. 
Plus, the prints banged out lovingly (and in time-consuming fashion)
 at home on the olde epson of the kid's 
kindergarten play will fade long before the kid graduates from grade
 school. Current Kodak-paper (Series 8) prints will last 150 years.

> speed of processing,

  Mommies get in the Mini-van, drop off the film to be processed,
and get it in 1 hr. How much faster is digital going to be ? Now, 
home processing is the realm of geeks with plenty of time to devote
to it. The two-job and parenting snapshooter is too busy 
with real life and kids to geek for hours making a few prints. Much
easier --- not to mention faster --- to pick up the double-print envelope
from the 1 hr.

> Digital imaging will not only match film imaging but will far surpass the
> capabilities of film.  CCDs have incredible sensitivity and exposure
> latitude.  Use of high-line CCD devices have revolutionized amateur
> astronomy.  Likewise, it will revolutionize photography by allowing image
> creation under incredibly difficult lighting conditions.

   All true, hopefully, and perhaps we'll all live long enough
for the technology to cost less than 5-10K for the body...:-)

> This is not to say that our beloved OMs are dead yet.  For now, we should be
> just content to burn through as much film as possible and use up all those
> shutter cycles before tossing whatever we have left into Oly's forthcoming
> professional digital imaging system.

   Until someone besides Polaroid starts making a sizeable profit 
from digital camera sales, specially to snapshooters (who drive the
entire image-making industry), pro-quality digital systems will be
basically low-volume custom pieces. If the economy ceases to grow at this
rate er...eternally, that R&D (ad)venture capital will be among the first
to evaporate. As much as we like to think that the Internet is everything
to come...few e-companies are making a profit (not even Amazon!)
and the big numbers in stock prices are purely speculative. E-sales
are currently (according to the industry's own figures) less than 
30f all retail sales. Yes, I know all this will change (as the Sanyo
Sensei said: film cameras gone by 2002, right ?) soon, but a little
voice (in a Bart Simpson voice) keeps whispering: "Are we there yet ?".

                                         *= Doris Fang =*


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz