What's the Biggest Weakness of Digital Photography Today?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by , Feb 8, 2004.



    Why? And what is coming on the horizon from the camera manufacturers to
    fix it?

    Is it noise, low resolution, shutter delay, lack of dynamic range,

    I think it is the dynamic range. Sure, noise is there, but there are
    ways to reduce or eliminate with software afterward that are easy to
    use. Megapixels are pretty good, so resolution is coming along.
    Shutter delay is a complaint, but you can always push the shutter button
    halfway down. My biggest complaint is dynamic range. Can't seem to get
    the detail I want in the shadows. I guess you can fix somewhat with
    software, but it's much harder than fixing the noise.

    What do you think?
    , Feb 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements


    Steve B Guest

    Agreed, and it's too easy to get blowout.
    Steve B, Feb 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements


    stan Guest

    Dpends on what your needs are. For me, more sharpness would be nice
    in future cameras and faster speeds to save images to the memory card.
    stan, Feb 8, 2004

    Mark M Guest

    Biggest weakness:

    Ease, cost, and permanence of PRINTING digital images.
    This issue has yet to be addressed adequately.
    Mark M, Feb 8, 2004
    Gordon Trebis, Feb 8, 2004

    AArDvarK Guest

    over-expose by one or two stops ... ?
    AArDvarK, Feb 8, 2004

    Searching_ut Guest

    I vote for dynamic range, and lack of resolution. Dynamic range needs no
    explanation. MP's however could easily be argued. My take is that if I had
    the roughly the same pixel density as my current 6mp DSLR in a full framed
    sensor, the additional pixels would allow more cropping, perspective
    adjustment etc while still allowing a high enough density image to provide
    more control over color, sharpness etc.

    It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

    For what it's worth

    Searching_ut, Feb 8, 2004

    Ron Andrews Guest

    I think the biggest problem is the lack of affordable DSLR's. For the
    price of an EOS Digital, I can get a film SLR, a good film scanner, and
    enough left over to pay for a bunch of film.
    Ron Andrews, Feb 8, 2004
  9. I would say:

    1. Autofocus Lag
    2. Dynamic range
    3. Noise

    I was not sure to put Dynamic range on 1. but in my case the Autofocus Lag
    is more annoying because a lot of times I am shooting indoors under lower
    light. I guess the professional cameras do have less Autofocus Lag than the
    point-and-shoot cameras.

    I finally put the Autofocus Lag on 1. even because I do not really
    understand why the digital cameras have a problem here. My optical SLR has
    only slower autofocus when on 300mm Tele. With my 35-80 lense I never had
    focus problems. The strange thing for me is that I do not see where the
    difference is here to optical. From my point of view it should be the same
    for optical and digital cameras.
    Martin Wildam, Feb 8, 2004

    KBob Guest

    X-Original-Message-ID: <>
    X-Agent-Group: rec.photo.digital
    X-Agent-Format: 1 1 0 0 1 500000 0 0 1 0 "*" 0
    X-Intro: "On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:01:37 GMT,

    Cheapo plastic shells, painted-on numbers instead of engraved,
    quick-'n-dirty manufacturing methods in general taking precedence over
    perceived quality, both for bodies and lenses. More than anything I
    miss the expected workmanship touches that distinguished fine optics
    from Canon and Nikon that made them a pleasure to own.

    I believe that bulk and weight need improvement, and a lot of this is
    related to camera power requirements that will undoubtedly improve
    over time. One gripe is that Nikon, Canon and Kodak fail to provide
    TTL metering for most of their prosumer cameras that is capable of
    functioning with earlier lenses--they certainly could if they wanted

    There's little point in complaining about dynamic range when 10+ stops
    are available in RAW mode, and resolution of the best DSLRs is
    acceptable by traditional standards.
    KBob, Feb 8, 2004

    stan Guest

    I don't understand. Do you own a computer and a printer? My print cost me
    something like $100 a couple of years ago and I can print photos easily from
    my computer that look as good as any photo lab prints and I can do it from
    the convenience of my own home. What's so difficult about that? Per print
    cost is a little higher, but the convenience outweighs that cost by far.
    stan, Feb 8, 2004

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Really? Are you comparing apples to apples?

    I've dropped off a CF card full of digital images at a photofinisher,
    came back a few hours later and picked it back up along with prints.
    This was identical in ease, cost, and permanence of 35mm negative film.

    Now, if you're talking about doing it at home, how do inkjet printers
    match up against a home darkroom? (I'd rate the home darkroom to be
    better on permanence compared to most inkjets but MUCH worse on ease
    and I don't know about cost.)

    Samuel Paik, Feb 8, 2004

    Drifter Guest

    Agreed, and it's too easy to get blowout.

    Here here! I agree on that and I still think focusing needs work (or
    a split prism like we used to have <sigh>).

    Drifter, Feb 9, 2004

    Drifter Guest

    You can print yourself with VERY cheap equipment and get a good print
    or if you don't want to do that you can take your card in to any
    number of places that will print it out with the same paper, etc. as
    they would use for film prints. Hand the card to them, come back in
    an hour, how much easier can they make it?

    Drifter, Feb 9, 2004

    Duram Guest

    1-a 3D camera with two lenses and a firmware that join both
    images into a very nice 3D anaglyph picture.
    2-Recording speed to the memory card
    3-remote control (all cameras must have remote control)
    4-video recording in full size not 320*240 (if the camera is
    a 2 megapixel the video may be recorded as 1600*1200, etc)
    5-video out (all cameras must have video out in case of just a TV is
    for us to see the pictures)
    Duram, Feb 9, 2004
  16. My top 10 wish list:

    1. Full-frame sensor with at least 9MP.
    2. Full-frame sensor with at least 9MP.
    3. Full-frame sensor with at least 9MP.
    10. Full-frame sensor with at least 9MP.

    (In an under US$3,000 body. We owe a large debt of gratitude to the early
    adopters who were nutty enough to fork over US$3,000 for a mere 3MP 1.6x
    sensor in the D30, so I figure it's my turn for the 9MP full-frame
    You need a 300D or D70.

    It turns out that the dSLRs have a wider dynamic range than slide film.
    Since I hate grain, I find negative films completely unacceptable and only
    shoot slide films (in 645), so as far as I'm concerned, dSLR dynamic range
    is fine. And there's at least an extra stop to be had by using RAW at ISO
    100 and converting to 16-bit TIFFs.
    You need a 300D or D70.

    The _consumer_ digital cameras use the CCD for AF, and the frame rate from
    the CCD limits the speed at which the camera can focus, making them
    completely hopeless. The dSLRs use the same AF system as the film SLRs, and
    they are amazingly fast.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 9, 2004
  17. You're six months out of date. Any film scanner that will compete with the
    300D/D70 will cost about the same as the 300D/D70. And even with the 10D or
    D100, you won't have much left over for film and processing, since decent
    scanners are in the $800 to $1200 range. And if you toss in the value of
    your time for scanning, using film becomes a bad idea really quickly. (And
    film scanners, being mechanical devices, have useful operating lifetimes not
    a whole lot longer than digital cameras. I see lots of people on the film
    scanner lists replacing scanners not because of performance, but because of
    out-of-warrantee failures.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 9, 2004
  18. Hmm. As an ex-B&W darkroom guy, I disagree. Color was never an option (nasty
    chemicals, tighter temperature requirements, expensive papers making test
    images and mistakes painful), and even B&W printing was pretty painful. Once
    you had a great print (after hours of backwrecking work in the darkroom)
    people would say "can I have a copy". With digital, you can say yes.

    The A4 inkjet printers are quite nice. The new Epson R800 (PX-G900 in Japan
    and on my desk) uses pigment inks (permanence not a problem), is quite easy
    to use (especially with Qimage), and is cheaper than any laser printer I
    ever purchased. It's a bit slower than the dye ink 960, but otherwise just
    fine. Even B&W on the PX-G900 looks pretty good (better than the 960, IMHO).

    The dye ink printers certainly do have permanence problems, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 9, 2004

    Lionel Guest

    X-Original-Message-ID: <>
    X-Agent-Group: rec.photo.digital
    X-Agent-Format: 1 1 0 1 1 56700 0 0 1 0 "*" 0
    X-Intro: "Kibo informs me that
    <> stated that:\n"

    IMO, the single biggest weakness is the number of idiot trolls who think
    it's clever to start idiot threads about digital cameras vs film
    Easily fixed - shoot in RAW mode.
    Lionel, Feb 9, 2004

    Trev Guest

    Do you know what the pixel size is For a TV, hint !600x 1200 is too
    big. But 320 x 240 Fits just right. :¬)
    Trev, Feb 9, 2004
    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.