 - Gregory LaGrange  Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Canon Canon is going to stop developing new slr film cameras. They are going to continue with current models as long as the demand remains. For staying with the film market will be based on judging the market in the future. So no new models. Which isn't that big of a deal. Other than making a significant jump in a camera's sync speed, or making it water proof, there isn't that much of a revolution that I can see being done to a new camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Shortly after Reuters posted that article, Canon made them print a correction that they are considering whether they will stop developing new film cameras. I think that's just a little CYA so they can leave their options open. I agree, it's not really that big of a deal. The entry-level film Rebels, seem to get replaced with an almost identical model almost every year. Other than that, how often do they actually release a new EOS film camera with anything significant changed on it? After all, are there really any significant improvements to be made to a film SLR? Other than replacing the film with a digital sensor, of course. ;-) Chris A. Vedros
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"After all, are there really any significant improvements to be made to a film SLR? Other than replacing the film with a digital sensor, of course. ;-)" Why mess with perfection? Of course, they will have to continue to work on digital cameras cause they still haven't gotten that right yet! lol Gee, I'll probably gain 100 lbs. from all the crow I'll be eating if I ever go digital.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It ain't the camera, it's the photographer. But, when I went to the NY Orchid Festival and couldn't hand hold 1/10 sec. exposures [required because I had ISO 200 film in my EOS 3,] I knew I might be in trouble. The trouble really manifested itself when we had to view [on the TV screen] the digital images my friend took with his D70. So, my wife made my decision and I bought the 30D. After I got past the unreadable manual, I confirmed - it's not the camera, it's the photographer. In one person's opinion, the best features of digital photography - the LCD screen to allow, at least, a chance of catching the image you'd like; and, the ability to take lots of pictures in the first place. The worst features about digital photography - the ability to take so many pictures at little cost that the photographer doesn't try for the great shot; and, the fact that all the automation "takes away" all maneer of creativity.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
"...and, the fact that all the automation "takes away" all maneer of creativity." The automation is there for you to use - if you want it. With a good digital SLR (like your 30D), you can reduce the amount of automation as much as you want, if you feel it stifles your creativity. You can use manual focus if desired. You can use manual exposure or override the camera's meter with exposure compensation. You can shoot in RAW or adjust parameters to reduce the amount of in-camera processing that is done to the image. After the image is taken, you can process it the way you want to on your computer, instead of depending on a lab machine or technician to do it. In other words, you now have MORE creativity available to you than you EVER had with your film camera. You just need to decide to take advantage of it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Automation? The 30D has the same automation as his EOS 3, that first came out many years ago. And something else that's not the camera, it's the photographer: "the photographer doesn't try for the great shot". That's not an issue of a type of camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I agree. Disposable and point & shoot film cameras have been around WAY longer than digital cameras. Even an entry-level digital camera in the hands of an amateur snap-shooter will give him more of an opportunity to produce a decent picture than he previously had with a P&S film camera. I find it very insulting when film photographers take the attitude that just because a photographer shoots digital, that he probably also shoots on full auto, and blasts at everything in sight, hoping to get a lucky shot once in a while that will be a keeper. That is such bull.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Take your film camera on a field trip with digital users and check out who took the most exposures. Invariably, the digital user - feeling that by taking more exposure the chances of a winner improve. In fact, it doesn't matter how many images are taken - it matters whether the image is "seen" and addressed with the camera in hand. But, too many people shoot in full auto or program mode. Then they say that they always got better results with their film cameras. How much of the perceived "difference" is reflected by use of full auto. For example, with my new 30D, full auto means that the camera, by default, will sense with its nine focus points and select the object closest to the camera. Wow, tell me that doesn't blow creativity. And, it's also the reason I routinely shoot in Aperture Priority, using other modes like Shutter Priority if "speed" is a critical factor. But, review the many, many threads on wedding photography and explain how a professional wedding photographer can justify thousands of exposures at the ceremony/reception. Editing down the number of images suggests to me that the idea was many images in the hopes of a few treaures. And, that sums up my previous comment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
John - Full Auto and Program Modes are NOT a Digital phenomenon! Your EOS-3 had a Program AE mode, also. The EOS film body that I used before I went digital had those modes also, but that doesn't mean I used them. Aperture Priority and Manual are the only modes I ever use on my Digital Rebel. In your example of the field trip, you don't give the full picture. The digital shooter can review a shot, and if there was a problem, he can make corrections and get a better shot with the next exposure. The film shooter may get home, have the film processed, and find that none of his shots were any good. Now the moment is lost. You make the assumption that the film shooter is a better photographer to begin with, and he will get great shots even if he only shoots a few exposures. And that is what I call pompous BULL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
I always love these threads! Sometimes I think that people believe that they must choose between film and digital. I think that there is no reason to make this choice. Why choose when you can do both? It is, as others have said, not the camera or means of capture. Just on this site alone I see images that people have made using P&S cameras; mid-level and pro level cameras – film and digital. Sometimes the images are amazing and sometimes they are fairly poor. Neither the brand of camera nor means of capture appear to have anything to do with the quality of the resulting image. I do sometimes wonder why anyone just starting out in photography would purchase a pro level $4-5000 camera; however, this is their choice and I don’t figure it to be my business how anyone spends her/his money. I recently purchased my first pro level camera – Canon 5D – and while I love the camera and feel that it offers tools that my other equipment did not, it does not automatically make me a better photographer – although, I wish it did!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Chris - I don't try to opine about anything. Rather I give answers based on my personal experiences over almost 45 years. I just bought my 30D - so, I'm still learning to use it. But, many friends just shoot and shoot and shoot. Too many pics and then they complain when their results are great. In general, it's because they didn't take the time or THINK like they did when using a film camera. Of course, shame on them My point remains. Today, the digital camera does make it too easy. Too many features [whether one tries to use them.] Too many folks purchasing much more camera than they'll ever need. But, they just gotta have the altest model. I bought the 30D over the 20D because I do use the full spot meter [I did with my EOS 3 and my EOS 620.] But, I never considered a Prosumer, which might have been better to have for my wife's use too. Nonetheless - a three day trip to the InnerHarbor of Baltimore and a MEmorial DAy GAla - and I'm still going slowly with regard to the number of pictures I shoot!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I agree that it's so much automation which has given digital camera owners such a bad rap these days. It's also true that automation began with film cameras and has been around for several decades. Heck, I bought my first SLR back in the mid-eighties from a lady who was happy to unload it to me for a song, when the auto-program/auto-focus boom was flexing its advertizing muscles and convincing her that it was about time for an upgrade. Automation can be easily confused as a crutch to creative vision. No matter what capture medium one decides upon and chooses to embrace, automation is only beneficial to us as photographers if we know in our mind's eye what the final result will eventually be before we press the shutter and we are only seeking the most efficient way to get there. ...And John, Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
I haven't jumped into many of the digital vs film discussions, because it is all simply silly to me. We are all photographers. Does it matter what medium we use? I shot slide for a long time, and just couldn't afford the film it takes to bracket, or shoot a subject over and over as the light changes, capturing a unique view every time. The comment about digital photogs shooting too many pictures is ludicrous. Aren't we taught from the very begining to bracket? Well, bracketing takes a lot of film. Three shots for every one. And yes, with digital I now shoot at times when I wouldn't have with film, but I have also had some great pictures turn out because of that. Would anyone here argue that Art Wolfe is not a good photographer? A quote from his website. "I put approximately eight rolls of film through the camera in a five-minute period." If a digital photographer did this, it sounds like many of you would accuss them of "taking too many pictures." But if a film photographer does it, then he is just being thorough? Enough already. Like it was said before, it is not the camera, it is the photographer. Does a camera with more bells and whistles make it easier? Yes. Does that mean the bells and whistles will make you take a good picture? No. I am on a few forums, and this is the only one where there is such a divide between members of the SAME art form.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Someday Bob - we just gotta get together and share notes!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
David - You need to read through things one 'mo time. We're not on different wavelengths at all. We're just saying that there is something to be said about the relative ease of taking too many pictures and, therefore, not getting the best possible, due to the automation available. And, please, don't quote Art Wolfe 'cause I'll see you and raise with Sam Garcia!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
-"For example, with my new 30D, full auto means that the camera, by default, will sense with its nine focus points and select the object closest to the camera. Wow, tell me that doesn't blow creativity." I don't have to fix something with a computer" as if they have some exclusive gift or knowledge, then turn around a say "Be Sure To Bracket". It's crap.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Okay, half of that response disappeared. -"For example, with my new 30D, full auto means that the camera, by default, will sense with its nine focus points and select the object closest to the camera. Wow, tell me that doesn't blow creativity." And he supports his argument with an EOS 3 and it's 45 focus points, 21 zone metering, and eye controlled focus. This is the same as those that prefix everything with "I'm a film person" and then follow it up with self-righteous claims of "I don't have to fix something with photoshop" or "I want credit for my pictures". As if they have some exclusive skill or knowledge. Then they'll turn around and say "Be sure to bracket!" It's crap. If the subject was autofocus taking the skill out of getting a picture and allowing many people to get a good shot who wouldn't without it, that's a point. But even that is something that's only shared with digital and film cameras. It started with film cameras.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
John, you're right. I had my dander up over something else, and let it spill over to this thread. While this thread was not as much us vs them, there have been quite a few of those. I do think, though, that it is unfair to point the finger at digital photography, in regards to people who shoot at anything without actually concentrating on getting THE shot. This has been around a lot longer than digital. Why do you think they sold the cheap film? I will agree, however, that it has given people more opportunity to do it. But, what does it matter? It doesn't bother me at all if someone is clicking away. More power to them. In fact, just this weekend I was shooting a waterfall that presented a very difficult setup. It was in what was basically a slot canyon made of granite, with highlights at the top, very dark at the bottom, and very little room to set up. I was there, with my tripod, GND, shutter release, etc... while others came in with P&S cameras, with their flashes going off. I was amused, if anything. BTW, I see you shot with a 620. That was my first auto SLR (I had an AE before that). Wasn't that a great camera? It is still sitting here, on a shelf next to me. I can't let myself give it up! And, actually, I shoot my 10D pretty much the same as I did the 620. I also use Aperture Priority, and use the exposure compensation when it is needed. I think that is one of the most important parts of photography: learning our equipment. I have become familiar enough with my camera to know when it is going to try to over or under expose a scene. I did shoot the 620 in manual more than I do the 10D, but it was still based on in camera spot metering. The 620 had very good spot metering! Oh, and I'll keep the Art Wolfe, and let you raise me a Garcia. I'll hit you with a pair of Muench's! ;-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
David - I bought my 620 after a lot of research on auto-focus cameras when the Big 3 were Canon [620/650,] Nikon 2020 and Minolta [Maxxum 7.] The Maxxum was regarded as a marvel, the 620/650 were touted for the bayonet system. unfortunately, the Nikon was well received - but, Nikon bought oput replacements. Of course, two months later, when the 620 received User Reviews, the "rub" was the fact that the auto-bracketting features had to be reset for every new picture. The camera was immediately obsolete, replaced by the 630. I just sold my 620 to help pay for the 17-85 mm zoom for my 30D. It hurt -since the camera served me so well for so many years.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
John, I was just lucky. I'll admit, when I bought the 620, I was still very new at photography, and didn't know much about cameras. I was hot for Canon (for no real good reason), and I found the 620 in a pawn shop. I was able to talk the sales person into selling me the 620 if they threw in a used Canon 70-210 lens (which I still have and use a lot. A slow focusing lens, but very sharp, with great color rendering). Later, when I started doing research on cameras, I discovered how lucky I was to have fallen into the 620. Like you said, the 630 replaced it, but the 630 didn't have some of the features that the 620 had. If I remember right, the 620 was the last consumer, prosumer, whatever, camera that Canon released with certain features. After that, only the more expensive pro models had them. And, with as little as I could get for a well used 620, I just won't let myself part with it! ;-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||