new type sensor from kodak

[christer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1015392&highlight=

[jhild]

In the good old times of film based photography upgrading a camera was easy and cheap,

just load the newest film and keep the camera. In the digital age one has to throw away

or at least sell the camera for little money if he wants an upgrade or simply the newest

available as it´s not possible to fit a better sensor in. That´s progress, economy will grow

by using "throw away technologie" from Kodak.Digital slavery is a better word for me...

 

Jo

[frc]

Away with the everlasting Leica bodies,

long live the throw away M9,

eco friendly fo course.

[AlanG]

In the good old times of film based photography upgrading a camera was easy and cheap,

just load the newest film and keep the camera. In the digital age one has to throw away

or at least sell the camera for little money if he wants an upgrade or simply the newest

available as it´s not possible to fit a better sensor in. That´s progress, economy will grow

by using "throw away technologie" from Kodak.Digital slavery is a better word for me...

 

Jo

 

This seems true on the face of it. We're still at the early stages of digital photography. However if you are happy with your existing film or digital camera, you don't have to buy a new one. No one is forcing you.

 

As far as throw away technology, film was much more wasteful. I used to carry a trash bag with me on every job just to handle all of the wrappers and waste from the Polaroid and regular film packaging I shot on every project.

 

And the savings by not shooting film and not having to move film to and from labs and to and from clients is both more economical, efficient, and eco friendly. At one time I shared a studio with a couple of other photographers. We had three large refrigerators to store all of our unexposed film. And we also had many filing cabinets to store all of our processed film. And we had big trash cans to throw away all of the bracketed, extra, and otherwise "bad" photos (maybe 90 percent of each shoot.) And some of our rent went to floor space for our darkrooms. If you add up all of the direct and indirect costs, I could easily replace all of my cameras every few years and still be way ahead.

 

And you know what? From when I first started shooting 4x5 transparencies in 1970 until now, I don't think the film quality for 4x5 improved that dramatically. (Yes it improved, but it wasn't extreme.)

 

Technological change has been a constant in photography. I'm sure there was some complaining when people had to transition from Daguerrotypes. And there was complaining when color became popular, and when 35mm took over, etc. etc.

[elansprint72]

 

Technological change has been a constant in photography. I'm sure there was some complaining when people had to transition from Daguerrotypes. And there was complaining when color became popular, and when 35mm took over, etc. etc.

 

Alan,

I think it started when the artists stopped painting on the walls of caves and moved to on other surfaces.

[farnz]

... I'm sure there was some complaining when people had to transition from Daguerrotypes. And there was complaining when color became popular, and when 35mm took over, etc. etc.

I agree, Alan, but we can't win because I feel sure that if there were no upgrades then some people would complain about that too. "This film's no better than it was ten years ago; what are they doing with all that research and development money that pushes up the cost of my films?!"

 

Me? I'm just happy with my digital image quality and not having to lug a Pentax 67 and tripod around with me anymore.

 

Pete.