Is photography going downhill with digital?

In message <>, Data Point
<> writes
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing!
>>I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit
>>of a chore.
>>
>>Regards, Rog.
>>
>
>The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in
>order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't
>afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential
>breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc.

His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

However you do have a point about weight and size.

> After that trek,
>and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost
>in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much
>film there and back.

Now many would say that the quality of your shots was poorer because you
were "machine gunning". However the professionals used to do something
similar with film to get the one good shot. People forget professionals
used motor drives and high capacity backs.

> The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and
>size, adds up fast.

Also film is not happy in hot environments... it goes off. The storage
and use temperature range for digital "film" is much higher if less
waterproof

> Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array
>for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film
>camera would have needed.

The power is the one place where film had the advantage. Though with
solar power for recharging the digital disadvantage is minimal

> Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where
>would anyone store that much?

True if you think you need a lot of storage for digital prints the
physical side is nothing compared to the slides, negatives and prints
from film.

>A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific
>photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven
>years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair,
>even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent
>photos to its credit today.

I agree... however as most photographers are men they *NEED* a new
camera with the latest gizmos every 2 years... it is a fact of nature
)))) Even though digital cameras will last years and out perform film
for quality.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:

>
>His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
>in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
>more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what
you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military
photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
carried by the men.

DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In
particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
those nocturnal species.

I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
opinion.

Data Point

Hallo Data point,
please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
for your job. My job is similar one.
Thanks.

Data Point napsal(a):
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>
>> His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
>> in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
>> more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
>
> No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what
> you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military
> photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
> term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
> on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
> they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
> military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
> too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
> The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
> There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
> model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
> crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
> them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
> was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
> military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
> being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
> saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
> carried by the men.
>
> DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
> never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
> DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
> to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
> Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
> environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
> the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
> below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
> dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
> DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
> position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
> cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
> are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
> and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.
>
> I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
> photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
> cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
> keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
> I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In
> particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
> not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
> species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
> few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
> that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
> around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
> have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
> day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
> during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
> that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
> including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
> those nocturnal species.
>
> I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
> for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
> opinion.
>
>
>

van dark

In message <>, Data Point
<> writes
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>
>>
>>His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
>>in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
>>more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
>
>No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use,

Your comments were on environments camera were used in. The military use
them in harsh environments with often hard treatment and require them to
work.

> or what
>you have learned from only reading reports about cameras.

Who said it was in reports? I have used cameras in deserts, rather damp
wooded environments, cold snowy places and urban areas.

>Military
>photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
>term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
>on an entry test.

May be where you are but not where I am... where are you as an anonymous
person with a fake email address you have no credibility until you
identify yourself.

> So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
>they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
>military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
>too bright anyway.

It depends whose' military.... Some are not as bright as others.

>(My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
Min too

>The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
>There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
>model of camera.

So it is not one of the normal high street ones then... but a specialist
one.

>military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
>being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
>saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
>carried by the men.

Rugged P&S are always useful as they are small and light

>DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
>never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms.

I have with both types.

>The main
>DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
>to stop to clean the sensor.

Yes and no. It is one of the main drawbacks with DSLR's or SLR's in
any event. The answer is not to chance the lens any more than yo have
to. It all depends on what you are doing, where and why.

>are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
>and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

But then again I do read that has lots of
experience. With a fake name and email you have ZERO experience untill
you identify yourself. There are very many deluded kooks onthe internet
making out they are experts.

>I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
>photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
>cameras.

Only for the last 30 years... in hostile environments as much as comfy
ones.

> I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
>keepers.

It depends on what you are shooting where and why.

>An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
>I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment.

True.

>I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
>for the job.

So you say

>Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>opinion.


But has no experience so any experience I have is
greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
identifying yourself.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <> said:
>
>> In message <>, Data Point
>> <> writes
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>--------------------------->
>
>
>
>> So you say
>>
>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>> opinion.
>> But has no experience so any experience I
>>have is
>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
>> identifying yourself.
>
>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>many names.

I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
be able to point us to a web site full of his work.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark <> wrote:

>Hallo Data point,
>please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
>for your job. My job is similar one.
>Thanks.

For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and
optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability,
dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its
included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day
cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that
allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing
situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even
today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better.
5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger,
subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was
already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.

Data Point

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:01:10 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <> said:
>
>> In message <>, Data Point
>> <> writes
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <-------------------------------------Le
>>>> Snip------------------------------------------------>
>
>
>
>> So you say
>>
>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> But has no experience so any experience I have is
>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
>> identifying yourself.
>
>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>many names.

And you're just a useless poorly snapshooting DSLR-Troll of one name(?)
this year.

LOL!

Outing Trolls is FUN!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:

>In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <> said:
>>
>>> In message <>, Data Point
>>> <> writes
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>--------------------------->
>>
>>
>>
>>> So you say
>>>
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>> opinion.
>>> But has no experience so any experience I
>>>have is
>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
>>> identifying yourself.
>>
>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>many names.
>
>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>be able to point us to a web site full of his work.

Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like
you were stealing them. One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images
posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to
useless DSLR trolls like you.

Boo hoo.

Too bad.

As if any self-respecting person on earth would ever want to enrich your
basement-living trolls' life for free. LOL!

Data Point

In message <>, Data Point
<> writes
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:35 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>
>>In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <>, Data Point
>>>> <> writes
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>>>--------------------------->
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you say
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>>> opinion.
>>>> But has no experience so any experience I
>>>>have is
>>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
>>>> identifying yourself.
>>>
>>>He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>>>many names.
>>
>>I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
>>be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
>
>Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like
>you were stealing them.

Never stolen a photo in my life. Why would I want to?

> One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images
>posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to
>useless DSLR trolls like you.

Then you will have no trouble giving your real name. Otherwise you are
just another wanna be troll


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

Chris H wrote:
> In message <2009110407011050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>> On 2009-11-04 06:24:05 -0800, Chris H <> said:
>>
>>> In message <>, Data Point
>>> <> writes
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <-------------------------------------Le Snip---------------------
>>>>> --------------------------->
>>
>>
>>> So you say
>>>
>>>> Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
>>>> opinion.
>>> But has no experience so any experience I
>>> have is
>>> greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
>>> identifying yourself.
>> He is never going to truly identify himself since it is our P&S pal of
>> many names.
>
> I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
> be able to point us to a web site full of his work.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his
work.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter