Digital Vs Analog

Its been a while since i used a normal film camera and i really cant say i missed it. The digi is definatelly the way to go, especially when you take in concideration just how more advanced and sofisticated they become year by year. However, what i found lame from the start about my digi, reminded me some stuff about using a simple mechanical tool. The thing is that all SONY's have that stupid shutter sound that plays whenever you take a flick. Its a weakass shutter sound that has absolutely no reason to exist. It seems like Sony did it to make their digi's more 'cameras'. Unfortunatelly it seems like, at this point, theres a huge difference between the two. These last 5 days that i was on the road and camping wherever i could i used a manual camera, the feeling of a solid piece of metal that cant get broken or have more than 1 'sensitive' parts is just dope, the feeling that you're not depended on a power socket and a battery is also dope..and above all...Theres nothing like the sound the Shutter makes when you shoot at a high speed and feel that slight kick in the camera.

I wont go on and list the advantaged of a digi, or even turn this into a real debate cause the answer is clear,

digital is better,

analog is hardcore,

Sony needs to lose the fake shutter sound

and i just disabled all sound from my digi.

goodnight

Well....thanks for the update.

No problem, you're now 251 words wiser.

I think you have problems.

I'd say you just got some

it has a fake shutter sound ahahahahaha

"analog boy, in a digital world, turn up your radio"

http://www.btinternet.com/~tungchung/_images/m-1.jpg'>

Although I've never owned a digital, I love the feel of a SLR. Its kind of like having a old car that you work on yourself and know all the ins and outs of.

Wow this thread is really going nowhere. I swear the intelligence level of the people that frequent this board must be borderline retarded.

To contribute to the post Mr. Tess, I would have to say that personally I like digital better. Its more cost effective and 'printing/editing' is much easier on Photoshop if you want to for instance crop/lighten/darken,etc... You don't have to pay for rolls and developing/darkroom, you don't have to mess around with chemicals and print shit out yourself, (although handprinting photos is pretty involving and fun). I myself find that I'm not patient or methodical enough to really get into hand printing stuff, although I have on occasion.

On the other hand analog work just LOOKS better, it gets more respect, and it is hand-made which requires more diligence, patience, craft, artistry, skill, ETC...... Hand printing and color processing prints looks better than any computer/printer. Traditional black & white and color prints tend to have more character because you know someone took the time to find the right time/aperture/shutter in taking the picture as well as dicovering and setting the correct printing time as well as dodging, cropping, double exposure, etc... Hand printing is much more difficult than photoshop editing (once you learn how to use photoshop), and a hand printed photo always will look better than a picture on a computer screen.

Its like comparing vinyl records to mp3's.. Its much easier to aquire millions of mp3's (and they're free) but collecting and finding records is pretty awesome and plus records just sound better. It all depends on your personal opinion, I myself only take digital now because I don't have access to a darkroom and I am LAZY, but I do enjoy and respect hand printed photography.

<

Originally posted by chicken bone

borderline retarded.

At least you're a good sport about it.

http://www.waycoolsurgery.com/images/heart.gif'>

its all about real flix

fuji has the fake sound too

toshiba has a real sound.

i wouldnt say it's pointless, it does let you know you took the flick instead of looking at the screen each time.

Originally posted by Smart

http://www.btinternet.com/~tungchung/_images/m-1.jpg'>

hmmm, thats my camera, except i usually use a 28-105mm lens instead of that one

Both digital and analog have their advantages. When i go out taking pictures with my digital, i'll just take pictures of anything, and not really give a shit. If i don't like the picture then i just delete it, where as with my slr, i always am super picky about what i take pictures of because i'm paying for them all. In my opinion, slrs are better for more artsy pictures, and digitals are better for just messing around with. Yes, you can still get plenty of awesome pictures with a digital, but it just isn't quite the same overall feeling.

really? the OM-1? I have a couple and an OM-1N (I haven't ever figured out what the N is for...)

For lenses, I have a 28, 35, 40 and 100... and a tricky slideable 100 that corrects for paralax error...

I :love3: my camera...

oh, and a 50mm too

yep,i use an OM-1, it was passed on to me from my dad, its a great camera. And i was about to post a picture of mine and the lens i use, but it does appear my imagestation acount has been shut down because of something to do with me not following their rules. I guess they must have thought the video of the rollerskating man i hosted on their was unnacceptable or something.

Whats the difference between the OM-1 and the OM-1N?

I don't know what makes it an 'N'... I think it was something about the lightmeter or something... does all the same stuff and doesn't have any extra stuff so???

strange.

I remember having a lengthy discussion once in ID class about the fake sound on digi's... turns out that was a huge issue when the first digital cameras came out; everyone absolutely loathed them. Aside from the fact that they were much crappier than they are now, test users felt completely detached from the act of photography they were used to, it simply didn't feel like a camera. Back on the drawing boards, they realized that the psychological satisfaction that the feedback from a manual camera gives you was completely lacking in the digitals, and they sought to solve them. They tested them out with a variety of sounds, and lo and behold, the best reviewed were the ones that imitated the "click". Most people weren't even aware of the addition, yet they enjoyed it far more than the previous ones. They even tried ones with moving parts that served no function whatsoever other than providing the actual click feel.

There's still some cameras that forgo the imitation and use beeps and the such, but apparently users enjoy the "click" better. It can certainly get annoying, but imagine using a camera with no feedback whatsoever... shit would get tossed quick.

^Thats a discussion i'd like to take part in, thing is, i disabled the sound on mine long time ago( i wrote before that i just did it to make add a dramatic tone:D ) and i never felt annoyed by the absense of sound...instead, i started hearing and appreciating the sounds a digi makes (it does). While using my canon after a long long time i really LOVED the shutter sound...if i had to analyze it further i'd say that it mostly has to do with the synchronisation of the push of the button with the sound the shutter does and the knowledge and manual setting of the shutter speed that helps you hear the result of the value you set. For example, when i use a 20second shutter speed the camera goes click20secondsclack..the digi goes 20secondsclickclack...it just doesnt make sense. Digital cameras take longer to focus(when in auto) and take some time to process the image before its actually recorded, with this and that i often have the feeling that i have less 'power of the moment' in my hands...a manual camera feels more instant. Bottom line, i concider digis and film cameras two separate things although you have an image as a product the way and the proceedure used is a whole different story...i'd prefer it if camera makers would keep both in value for what they are instead of trying to make it one.

i have to agree with chiken bone on pretty much everything thing.

while i like the 'feel' of traditionally printed photographs, especially fiber, at this point there is no discernable quality difference between the two mediums.

I just wish i wasnt lazy and printed out all the photos i liked from my day out, or at least got them printed. I always end up looking at them on my computer. not good.

also, the other squabble i have with digital, is NOISE! and how out of focus areas are so shittily represented. I hate it! small rage of focus is huge to me, use it all the time, even complete out of focus, and digital is horrible for that. but this is only for printing, not on the computer/capture end.

Im the unlucky guy who bought a four mega pixel thinking it was better than a three...nope. other than size difference, its not much better. and until i can afford one of those new fangled digital slr's, im stuck with it.

I hear that, luckily i got a 5 megapixel one that can switch to full manual..from focus to values. Noise is a big issue and i have the impression that the older the camera gets the more grain you get.

Digi's, contrary to legendary film slr cameras like smarts olympus or the fm-1 that last for a lifetime, are meant to be tossed away and updated by the newest more improved model.

My digi has a slight delay after you hit the 'shutter'.

I was shooting pics of an airshow this weekend and

found that the delay was killing every shot! Eventually

I worked out the proper timing, but I did miss the speed

of an slr... It's instant!

My father is convinced that film is going to die.

He spent 30 years working in the film industry as

in the camera department, so you think he'd want film

to stick around, but he knows it will die a quick death (commercially).

Eventually only art pieces will be on film.

Totally, digis are not for photojournalism yet. I've managed to get real fast when in manual focus (of course that means you need the time to focus but is you're shooting an event, you can more or less fix the focus once and start bursting).

Film is going to die no doubt.

film is already dead, commercially. I've experieced this first hand.

The thing is that all SONY's have that stupid shutter sound that plays whenever you take a flick. Its a weakass shutter sound that has absolutely no reason to exist. It seems like Sony did it to make their digi's more 'cameras'.

Until you realize that you've got the sound turned on in the camera and you go to the setup menu and turn it off. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tesseract

Its been a while since i used a normal film camera and i really cant say i missed it. The digi is definatelly the way to go, especially when you take in concideration just how more advanced and sofisticated they become year by year. However, what i found lame from the start about my digi, reminded me some stuff about using a simple mechanical tool. The thing is that all SONY's have that stupid shutter sound that plays whenever you take a flick. Its a weakass shutter sound that has absolutely no reason to exist. It seems like Sony did it to make their digi's more 'cameras'. Unfortunatelly it seems like, at this point, theres a huge difference between the two. These last 5 days that i was on the road and camping wherever i could i used a manual camera, the feeling of a solid piece of metal that cant get broken or have more than 1 'sensitive' parts is just dope, the feeling that you're not depended on a power socket and a battery is also dope..and above all...Theres nothing like the sound the Shutter makes when you shoot at a high speed and feel that slight kick in the camera.

 

I wont go on and list the advantaged of a digi, or even turn this into a real debate cause the answer is clear,

digital is better,

analog is hardcore,

Sony needs to lose the fake shutter sound

and i just disabled all sound from my digi.

 

goodnight

Until you realize that you've got the sound turned on in the camera and you go to the setup menu and turn it off.

...Until you learn to read the whole story before typing...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tesseract

Totally, digis are not for photojournalism yet. I've managed to get real fast when in manual focus (of course that means you need the time to focus but is you're shooting an event, you can more or less fix the focus once and start bursting).

 

Film is going to die no doubt.

I'm going to have to disagree about digis being unable to handle photojournalism. The digital SLR's these days with their 6+ megapixels, ability to slap on any lens that goes on modern day SLR's, and high rate of fire make them capable of anything a film camera can do. Plus they can store a huge amount of images with excellent quality based on the flash memory you have. Plus you just can't fuck with .RAW image files, makes my life easier. I currently have a Canon 10d DSLR and it was by far the best investment in cameras I've ever made. Though I have to admit, my 35+ year old Nikkormat with a prime lens still produces top quality pictures. Film isn't dead yet, but in a few years time the price/quality will be amazing for digital cameras.

I'll have to agree and rephrase...digis on autofocus have a huge delay...thats it. I hear you on dslr's and raw image...one thing's for sure..digis have a long way ahead to reach their best. And when they start to do so, the difference will be huge.