Value of money and cost of technology

Just having a sort out and decided to get rid of an old digital camera.
I found the receipt inside. I paid $350 for it - it only has 3.2 megapixels. It was bought in April 2004
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I vowed never to be an early adopter...saved a fortune on tec over the years.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


you don't need to be an early adopter to lose money on digital cameras
every new version is twice as powerful at half the price
If you are waiting for the point where prices can't go any lower, you haven't reached there yet and digital photography in the consumer space is now 20 years old (and analogue photography, outside of very few niche areas, has completely disappeared)
tim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 September 2018 14:37:35 UTC+1, tim... wrote:

FWIW digital photography began in the 1970s. Anyone that hasn't seen the first digital camera should. It's come a loooong way.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/18 14:35, tim... wrote:

I'm reasonably confident my Lumix GX8 is currently held back by the lens (I have a medium grade tele and a F1.7 prime - can't afford anything else in the m4/3 format.
The sensor captures a very wide dynamic range by my previous standards (you can pull a sky down several EV to bring clouds and blue out of virtually nothing whilst the original exposure was generally good - Lightroom makes isolating sky for selective exposure compensation pretty easy - that's before you get to real HDR with multiple shots).
Tele lens can pull reasonable focus with reasonable depth of field (though I think it could do a bit better on the focus).
Prime is a so-so lens, good for being a compact and reasonable in caves where it can just about pull off a non flash photo with acceptable noise.
I'm sure, side by side, a really expensive DSR body with a bigger sensor of course would beat it into the ground - but for hobby work, as I said, I think money on lenses is better spent. Of course, at that point you really are selling yourself into a lens mount format.
They'll keep getting better of course, but at some point, one has to say: "this is good enough - I'll use it till it blows up..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So why are we hearing adverts for black and white Ilford film and indeed colour film. is it like vinyl and cassette versions of Paul McCartneys new album, ie another marketing ploy in this case knowing loads of 35mm cameras are in drawers only needing batteries and I know some shops are doing processing, probably not on site though. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No one is processing Kodachrome slide film any longer, and I wouldn't consider using anything else.
--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Kodachrome was always back to Kodak wasnt it?
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yup
Ektachrome was the reversal film process that local labs could develop for you (or DIY if you were really really keen)
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it was a complex process, unlike other colour slide film, and seemingly very temperature sensitive. At the end, there was just the one Lab left in Armpit Nebraska or wherever it was that had the franchise to develop kodachrome.
We went to the Azores for our honeymoon in 2004, and I took a couple of even then out-of-date rolls of kodachrome which I thought ought to be OK, but the colours were a bit off. Last ones I ever took.
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:39:30 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Have you fitted Olympus lenses or are you using Panasonic ones? My Lumix GX7 is using Olympus lenses from another camera and they seem fine. Not that I'm printing to 10x8 or some such though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/18 19:29, mechanic wrote:

I started with Panasonic lenses on the basis they were most likely to behave nicely with things like image stabilisation (well the tele anyway).
But I'd be interested in trying some alternatives - maybe second hand. I could probably dry run some at the London Camera Exchange on the Strand as I walk past it 3 times a week :)
I can't see much going wrong with a non stabilised lens (focussing is a fairly basic operation) and I have sensor stabilisation too.
Is Olympus the generally best maker of lenses or is there another brand I should look at too?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/2018 12:39, DerbyBorn wrote:

That's more than a HD TV so it should produce acceptable results for up >65" at the right viewing distance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 September 2018 13:25:41 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

But not if you want a large print which will be limited to about 1/2 plate or at most 10x8 inches (~A4). Which is of course OK for most people or pictures on a phone or tablet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
whisky-dave wrote:

Today, tomorrow is not here yet.
Which is of course OK for most people or pictures on a phone or tablet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Depends if the camera sensor counts subpixels, or pixels
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/2018 12:39, DerbyBorn wrote:

Near co-incidence. I bought mine in May 2004 from Jessops. (While I was in the shop a man attempted to snatch Hil's bag by putting his hand through the open car window. She screamed and he ran away.) The camera was a Nikon Coolpix and I can't remember the cost but it was around £700 I think.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:00:31 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Was it a 3.2Mpxl Coolpix? I bought mine 11 months after that for 230 Dollars Canadian (exactly £100 at the then current exchange rate - strangely, just what my brother paid for his in the UK at just about the same time).
That seems one Hell of a price drop in just a matter of 11 months even compared to DerbyBorn's $350 price tag (I wonder what that was worth in Pounds Sterling at the time? I'm guessing somewhere round the 200 quid mark).
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/2018 14:00, Bill Wright wrote:

Similar here, although pre 2000 IIRC - a Coolpix 950 (the one with the articulation in the middle that allowed the camera bit to rotate independently of the grip and LCD- very good for getting shots from odd angles.
ISTR it was £700+ for a 2MP camera. I got it for a particular web based job, and was not expecting it to be much good for "proper" photography, but in fact was actually quite impressed with it, and used it way more than anticipated. Must get round to updating it one day! ;-) (its taken most of the photo's of my DIY projects - although I do a number with my phone these days)
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/09/2018 12:39, DerbyBorn wrote:

My first one was in 2001. I couldn't find the price, but just found the receipt for a 256MB Memory Stick for it (it was a Sony) - £35, bought in 2004.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.