[stuartr]

among other things. It is by Mike Johnston of photo.net. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes not, but he has an interesting viewpoint. It's just a short little thing, but I figured some of you might like it. I know that hobbies like photography often complement an interest in hifi, and this is one of the examples where things are crossing over.

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column42/

 

[Mr.PD]

Hey, after reading that article, I am smiling and there is a tear in my eye.
I am sitting here wishing I had a turntable, so I could throw on Alice Coopers greatest hits vinyl like used to when I was in college and a member of Columbia House Record Club. He brought back some memories I hadn't thought of in a long time.

As he was describing his distaste of those new things and he started in on digital photography, I was mentally linking digital photography to his "hi fi" description. How it was for "people" and everyone enjoyed it together. I see digital photography that way. It has opened up picture taking to a whole new group of people.

Of course he did say that he really has nothing against digital photography.

 

[stuartr]

That is why I liked it. I have nothing against digital photography -- I think it is a great medium, and in many ways superior to film, but it is just not for me. Not yet anyway. I just don't like it when people tell me to dump film, or that I am an anachronism for not only using film, but for using MANUAL FOCUS (god forbid) and non-automated cameras. To each their own right? There is a charm in it for me, and a sense of a link to a 170 year tradition of photography that I don't feel with digital. But it's all about the picture right? It is so funny how closely it compares to the format issue in audio (which he discusses) -- and I side with the fogies there too. Funny how I am so conservative in this sense, yet socially liberal. Hmm.

 

[GWN]

Interesting article. I guess I fit the profile. I must be old. Hell I am old. I prefer vinyl (3,000 albums at last count) over CD (750). All of my cameras are manual (Leica M6, R8, Hasselblad CW503) with the exception of one (Canon EOS1V) a concession made because I wanted a fast 300mm and could not afford a Leica. Even the EOS 1V has so many useless feature that I forget half of them because I never use them. I still prefer to read a newspaper or a magazine in print than to read it on a computer screen. In cars I prefer a stick shift instead of an automatic. I guess I like things mechanical. I will eventually get a Digital camera but I have no desire just yet. Nothing against Digital, under the right conditions it equals or surpasses film.

 

[spaceman]

Digital is what got me really interested in photography. Thanks for the article stuartr. I especially liked the reference to the 20k preamps and 50k speakers. Just like the Hummers we see on the road.......all status.......no practicality.

 

[Stephonovich]

I have no problems with digital, be it CD or photography. CDs are much easier to use than vinyl. I agree that vinyl can sound better than a CD, however, I don't have a vinyl setup, and it's not really portable.

For photography, a digital point-and-shoot offers ease of use far over what a film camera can. Instant review of your shots, can easily be edited, and you can e-mail it, post it on the internet, all without having to process it. However, my film SLR (Canon Rebel EOS... yeah, tons of gadgets, half of which I don't use, GWN...) still has much better resoulution than the digital, an Olympus C-4040 Zoom. (4.1 Megapixels) I believe 10MP is said to be equal to 35mm resolution. I've never had the opportunity to play with Canon or Kodak's new übercameras, so I can't comment.

I think it all comes back down to using what fits the situation best. CDs have their place, as does vinyl. Digital cameras have their place, as does film.

Oh, and I love stick shifts. Can't stand having a computer decide when it'll shift. And besides, it's safer. With an automatic, on our gravel road when it's snowed over, it'll end up upshifting to 4th due to wheelspin, so you have no power when you try to give it a little gas to pull through a small drift. Then, of course, it downshifts to 1st or 2nd and you get major wheelspin. Highly annoying. Luckily, the autostick gives you at least some measure of control.

Oh, and spaceman, Hummers (or any SUV) do have uses. Just not for the 99% of people who own them and never go off a paved road. Out here in the midwest, for those of us who live on gravel roads, 4WD is a neccessity. Granted, most people on farms have a truck, not an SUV. (truck has many more uses than an SUV. And is more fun to drive. RWD with almost no weight over the wheels equals fun)

(-:Stephonovich

 

[stargirlga]

I enjoyed this article. Yup, I'm old too (sort of). I got a digital Canon last summer, and love it for the immediate feedback, the ability to take hundreds of photos in a session, the ease of editing, sending and reprinting photos. But I want the controls of my old Canon FTB. I took great photos with that camera with only a light meter as an enhancement. Give me manual focus, match-stick metering and depth of field preview. And through the lens info rather than the separate screen. I would be a happy camper if I could have a digital version of that inexpensive camera. Guess I'll have to keep looking at more expensive cameras!
I'm only now getting back into audio after years away, so I'm amazed at the differences in equipment, status, $$$ (yipes) and possibilities. Some of it seems great, some of it hyped. I'm interested to learn more, but I just want to listen to good music and experience it better.
And lastly, I still drive a stick shift. Every car I've had (5) has been manual. Love it, lots of control, great road feel, and driving is never boring. Now people have huge honkin' behemoths like Hummers (very popular here in Atlanta), and then go throw a DVD player in the back so the kids will be sated on stupid movies instead of looking out the window and being involved in the journey.
Let's not have audio go that way...
That's my 2 cents...

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally posted by stargirlga But I want the controls of my old Canon FTB. I took great photos with that camera with only a light meter as an enhancement. Give me manual focus, match-stick metering and depth of field preview. And through the lens info rather than the separate screen. I would be a happy camper if I could have a digital version of that inexpensive camera. Guess I'll have to keep looking at more expensive cameras! ..

Yeah, I know how you feel. I do most of my shooting with a Canon F1-N, which was basically the journalistic/professional version of the FTB, also with a Leica MP, which has even fewer features -- it is essentially exactly the same as it was in 1954. But I would love it if Leica came out with a digital M. It would be very cool. Actually, I wish someone would get around to inventing digital film. They did have someone working on it, but the company went defunct. It would have been awesome -- just put this thing that fit like film into your camera, and the sensor would act just like regular film. That way you can keep your old cameras with character, and still have digital if you wanted to shoot a party or snapshots. Very cool.

 

[dmkozak]

I knew there was a reason I kept my components (and records and reel-to-reel tapes) for the last thirty years. I just didn't know what it was till now.

 

[marios_mar]

Digital photography is not yet to analog photography what CDs and SACDs are to vinyl.

 

[stuartr]

Well, since this had been resurrected, has anyone seen the Digilux 2??? I really like the design of this digicam. It looks like an analog cam (for the most part), and you can make it FEEL analog as well. You can do manual focus and aperature on the lens, as well as shutter speed on a dial. It looks pretty sweet. If I were going to get a digital POS...err PAS (point and shoot), I would go with this.