Should I erase my memory card after every download?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill, May 29, 2005.

  1. Bill

    Confused Guest

    I never had a problem with my F717... with all cameras,
    film or digital, not keeping track of the end of roll,
    will cause down time to rewind/change media.

    Confused, Jun 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill

    ASAAR Guest

    He's long passed that point. It's a shame that he hasn't
    crossposted into the political and religious newsgroups, for they
    appear to be provide a much better fit for his style of zealotry.
    ASAAR, Jun 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill

    Mr. Mark Guest

    I never had a problem with my F717...

    You're the first person I've encountered that didn't. Seriously. I've
    known 6 people with 717's and all 6 had to send to service more than once.
    All of us have sworn off all Sony products for good. Consider yourself
    Mr. Mark, Jun 2, 2005
  4. Bill

    Mr. Mark Guest

    If by now you aren't satisfied you've made your point, the
    It's not zealotry. I didn't say film was better or digital was better. I
    said the only advantage to digital is that it isn't film. But maybe this
    group's reading comprehension isn't as sophisticated as the
    digital.slr-systems group.
    Mr. Mark, Jun 2, 2005
  5. Bill

    Colin D Guest

    Your question/challenge is very clever, Mark. Any advantages system B
    might have over system A is because it *is* related to system A. An
    advantage over system A can only be that if system B is related to
    system A. There has to be a relationship or there is no comparison. My
    motor-cycle can be compared to your truck because they are both means of
    transport. Your truck can't be compared to my dishwasher because there
    is no relativity. Since your film camera is related to my digital
    camera - they both take pictures - relativity exists.

    However, - and some have made these points already - here are some that
    I consider are advantages of digital cameras over film cameras *because*
    of the lack of film:

    1. The ability to change ISO values from shot to shot. Film cannot do
    2. The ability to check an image immediately after exposure. Pro's use
    Polaroid to check shots, so it's clearly important to be able to do so.
    3. The ability to shoot dozens, hundreds even, without reloading. Some
    film cameras have 250-exposure backs to circumvent the 24/36 exp limits
    of film, so clearly being able to shoot a large number without reloading
    is important.
    4. It is much quicker to change cards than film, and you don't need to
    seek shade to do it.
    5. Cards are more robust than film. There are instances of cameras
    being destroyed but the cards with the images have survived. A photog
    was killed in the collapse of the WTC in New York. They found his
    camera, completely destroyed in the mass of debris that buried it and
    him. The card was readable, and yielded graphic images of the
    collapse that would never have been seen if it were film.
    6. Camera size. Not having to accommodate a cassette and winding
    mechanism allows compact cameras to be much smaller and lighter than any
    35mm camera.

    There are more, but I have made the point.

    BTW, all this is not to say film is not good. It merely says that
    digital is more versatile.

    How about we turn your challenge around, and you tell us any advantage
    film has that isn't directly related to not being digital?

    Colin D, Jun 2, 2005
  6. I said the only advantage to digital is that it isn't film.

    I doubt that comes across to others as quite the ingenious insight that
    you mean it to be.
    James Of Tucson, Jun 2, 2005
  7. "A photog was killed in the collapse of the WTC in New York. They
    found his camera, completely destroyed in the mass of debris that
    buried it and him."

    Do you have more information on this? I would really like to see them.
    James Of Tucson, Jun 2, 2005
  8. Bill

    ASAAR Guest

    Anyone that says anything possible to support their positions,
    particularly when it becomes indefensible needs to have a good
    recollection of what they're previously said. You may not have said
    that film was better than digital, but you clearly implied either a
    preference for film or some kind of vague superiority owned by film
    when you replied less than 24 hours ago to "Confused" in this thread
    with the following:
    And there are plenty of photographers still using and preferring
    film that wouldn't ever be confused for zealots. As far as
    comprehension and sophistication are concerned, you really need more
    to keep from coming up with such a lame question. It's essentially
    asking for a way for digital imaging to be considered better than
    film when all digital advantages are not allowed to be considered.
    Of course what remains can be duplicated by film cameras if
    manufacturers think the features are worthwhile, but it's an
    inherently silly question. You might just as easily have asked "Is
    it possible for any non-digital feature usable by both film cameras
    and digital cameras to be used more advantageously by digital
    cameras?". Whether there are or aren't, based only on your
    followups in this thread you're clearly not the kind of person that
    can be relied on for an interesting, meaningful discussion.
    ASAAR, Jun 2, 2005
  9. Bill

    Colin D Guest

    Try this link:

    Colin D, Jun 2, 2005
  10. Bill

    Mr. Mark Guest

    I said the only advantage to digital is that it isn't film.
    It's a very subtle zen like statement. ;)
    Mr. Mark, Jun 2, 2005
  11. Bill

    Mr. Mark Guest

    Anyone that says anything possible to support their positions,
    That's because film will set you free. <g>

    Clearly you have left your sense of humor some place else. Unless you're
    shooting film right now, you might not know that it is getting prohibitively
    expensive for the average hobbiest. I've burned through almost enough
    development fees in the last 4 months to buy a new Rebel XT. And I only
    shoot about 10% color and develop my B&W at home.

    By contrast my Sony 717 (which I hate for various reasons) hasn't actually
    cost me any money since I purchased it 4 years ago.

    So now do you see the irony? Do you get the joke?

    Lighten up a bit, you'll be happier.
    No, it was a comment to Ron, who I know from other groups - not to you who
    I've never encountered before.
    So plonk me and do us both a favor.
    Mr. Mark, Jun 2, 2005
  12. Bill

    Mr. Mark Guest

    This isn't a war of digital vs. film - it is a challenge for someone to
    Look, if you didn't read the post that started this, just bugger off for the
    Film cannot? There are more types of film than 35mm roll and the gods only
    know why, but there are actually people lugging around 5x7 view cameras.
    True, but there is a diminishing return on size. A lot of people, for
    example, report that the Canon Rebel XT is actually too small and light. It
    /feels/ lighter to me than the Rebel 2000, although it could be the size
    difference and certainly /feels/ isn't a scientific comparison.
    The advantages of digital are clear to any rube fresh off the street. You
    don't even have to make the point.

    The lack of film in the system leads to many positive side effects.
    Which harkens back to my original comment to Ron, which - if some people
    lighten up a little they might get it once in a while. ;)
    You can spend hours in the dark room making your hands smell funny. <g>

    Seriously, I'm up against the clock just now, but I'll pop back by later
    today and toss out one or two things if I can think of any. :)
    Mr. Mark, Jun 2, 2005
  13. Bill

    Nostrobino Guest

    In this case it doesn't seem to. I've had digital cameras since before they
    started offering video, and prices just have gone steadily down for similar

    I don't really know why it would add to the price, anyway. What does video
    require that the digital camera doesn't already have in the first place?
    There's no extra mechanism. It seems to be mostly a firmware change.
    Admittedly I don't really know what else is involved, if anything, but it
    doesn't seem like it should be much.

    Nostrobino, Jun 2, 2005
  14. Bill

    Nostrobino Guest

    Beats me. I've never used that feature myself. But I suppose there might be
    something about a shot that you might want to make a note of.

    No doubt, but it still doesn't require out-of-camera processing unless you
    want to do that, and then you have a lot more control over the results than
    you ever do with film.

    Nostrobino, Jun 2, 2005
  15. Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    Iremember, a few years ago, when the question of whether to buy cards
    with large capacities or small was raging, one argument for small
    capacities waqs proposed that went like this: if you're on a hike, and
    happen to cross a footbridge over a stream, and decide to take a pic
    oft he stream, and discover thyat your card was full, you had a very
    real chance of droppig the card, and losing all the images on it, so
    buy smaller cards to minimize the loss. The concept of keeping track
    of how many shots are left availale on the card was, it seemed, lost
    on this person.
    It's not lost on you, is it? :)
    The idea of changing cards in a moment when you don't plan on shooting
    is a good one.
    Big Bill, Jun 2, 2005
  16. Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    Earlier, you said your film camera told you how many shots were left;
    your digital does, too. Of course, with either system, it's up to you
    to keep track.
    There's nothing wrong with changing cards when the camera says there
    are, say, 10 shots left, especialy if it avoids the problems you
    Big Bill, Jun 2, 2005
  17. Bill

    ASAAR Guest

    I see the irony, but there isn't much of a joke, except for what
    you're doing to amuse yourself. If you lighten up on your monomania
    we'll all be happier.

    Sorry, but your selfish desire to avoid legitimate criticism
    doesn't meet my KF threshold.
    ASAAR, Jun 2, 2005
  18. Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    And how does a higher price detract from a camera's functionality?
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but digital cameras' prices have been
    steadily dropping, too.
    Big Bill, Jun 2, 2005
  19. Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    Can you name *1* advantage to an auto trany that isn't related to the
    auto tranny?
    Your challenge is worded such that there's no possible answer.
    Anyone could nae any advantage they saqw, and you just say, "Yes, but
    that's because it's digital." Well, of course it is! That's the point.
    Big Bill, Jun 2, 2005
  20. Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    Your film camera's audible indicator is too late: you're already out
    of film when it sounds.You can't shoot more until you add more film.
    Both your film and digital cameras give visual indications that thyey
    are about to run out of available shots; your decision to ignore these
    are not the fault of the designer, unless you figure an audible
    countdown should be included.
    Get the shot; just realize that the camera will tell you (film or
    digital) that, if you want more shots than are available, it's time to
    change media.
    Big Bill, Jun 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.