Entry tags:
Minolta calling it quits in the camera business, Nikon focussing on digital
I thought you semi-serious photographers out there might find this interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4627002.stm
On the Nikon side, they're keeping their pro line of bodies and lenses, but are otherwise going mainly digital. Unfortunately this also is the end of their medium/large format and enlarger lenses. More money for Schneider I guess.
http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/releases/show.aspx?rid=201
And on Slashdot, this guy takes consumer-oriented flat bed scanners and turns them into digital cameras with 100 megapixel resolution.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/0137225
Basically, photography has been changing radically over the last few years. A year or two ago there were more digital cameras sold than film cameras. There are benefits to both, but it boils down to two things: cost and ease of use. Digital cameras are amazingly cheap for non-professional use and they have a huge advantage over film: no recurring cost. You don't buy film, you don't pay for processing. Just download the images to your computer and upload them to Walgreens or Walmart when you want prints. You don't even have to own a printer.
Film? Lots of solid arguments can be made back and forth on image quality, tonality, grain, etc. They're endless, and frequently devolve into quasi-religious arguments like the Windows/Mac arguments.
For me, in my ever so humble opinion, it really boils down to one thing: money does not equal quality. Spending $5000 on an amazing digital (or film) setup does not guarantee you'll take good photographs, it just means you own a bunch of expensive equipment. Two things produce good photographs: an eye for composition and knowledge of how to use your equipment effectively, i.e. photographic theory. I've taken excellent photos with a (now) inexpensive Kodak 4 megapixel point-and-shoot digital camera. I've taken excellent photos with a moderately expensive Canon Eos 35mm system. Camera equipment are tools that you use for a specific job, different tools for different jobs. In my portraiture class that just started, I'm hoping to use my 50+ year old 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. You can get them on eBay for $50 +/-.
To sum up: if you don't have a decent eye for composition, and you don't know much about the theories behind photography, spending $5000 on expensive equipment means you'll be producing expensive pictures, not photographs.
Now, on to my rant about the demise of film cameras.
( Read more... )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4627002.stm
On the Nikon side, they're keeping their pro line of bodies and lenses, but are otherwise going mainly digital. Unfortunately this also is the end of their medium/large format and enlarger lenses. More money for Schneider I guess.
http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/releases/show.aspx?rid=201
And on Slashdot, this guy takes consumer-oriented flat bed scanners and turns them into digital cameras with 100 megapixel resolution.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/0137225
Basically, photography has been changing radically over the last few years. A year or two ago there were more digital cameras sold than film cameras. There are benefits to both, but it boils down to two things: cost and ease of use. Digital cameras are amazingly cheap for non-professional use and they have a huge advantage over film: no recurring cost. You don't buy film, you don't pay for processing. Just download the images to your computer and upload them to Walgreens or Walmart when you want prints. You don't even have to own a printer.
Film? Lots of solid arguments can be made back and forth on image quality, tonality, grain, etc. They're endless, and frequently devolve into quasi-religious arguments like the Windows/Mac arguments.
For me, in my ever so humble opinion, it really boils down to one thing: money does not equal quality. Spending $5000 on an amazing digital (or film) setup does not guarantee you'll take good photographs, it just means you own a bunch of expensive equipment. Two things produce good photographs: an eye for composition and knowledge of how to use your equipment effectively, i.e. photographic theory. I've taken excellent photos with a (now) inexpensive Kodak 4 megapixel point-and-shoot digital camera. I've taken excellent photos with a moderately expensive Canon Eos 35mm system. Camera equipment are tools that you use for a specific job, different tools for different jobs. In my portraiture class that just started, I'm hoping to use my 50+ year old 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. You can get them on eBay for $50 +/-.
To sum up: if you don't have a decent eye for composition, and you don't know much about the theories behind photography, spending $5000 on expensive equipment means you'll be producing expensive pictures, not photographs.
Now, on to my rant about the demise of film cameras.
( Read more... )