Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Technology

Digital Cameras Force Film Off Dixons' Shelves 368

Posted by timothy from the buggywhips-hard-to-find-too dept.
ngibbons writes "BBC News story regarding digital camera sales: 'High Street retailer Dixons, which started by selling 35mm cameras, is to stop stocking the items because of the popularity of digital cameras.' Digital cameras will out-sell 35mm cameras in the UK by a ratio of 15:1 this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Cameras Force Film Off Dixons' Shelves More

Digital Cameras Force Film Off Dixons' Shelves

Comments Filter:
  • It was only going to be a matter of time before the only place you could buy a film camera was at a dedicated photography store.

    • Re:only a matter of time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DoktorTomoe ( 643004 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:45AM (#13276866)

      I do not see a problem with this. If I want a TV set, I am not going to Walmart, but to a specialized dealer. I won't buy a PC anywhere else than my local PC shop. And I'd had the money (or the combination to the shopkeepers safe) certainly would not buy my ship at "Honest Stans used Ships", but at a dedicated dealer, if not even at the manufacturer himself.


      Yes, this often is more expensive than discount or online shopping. However, I like the luxury of a nice chat with the shopkeepers (as long as I do not have the combination to their safe, that is), and the way they tread a returning customer, e.g. replacing that defective AMD chip without quarrels or pointing at the manufacturers warranty. Let behind that a dedicated shop knows what it is speaking of.

      • Re:only a matter of time (Score:4, Funny)

        by SimilarityEngine ( 892055 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:54AM (#13276882)

        ...the way they tread a returning customer...

        Ouch.

      • Re:only a matter of time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Geeky ( 90998 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @05:35AM (#13276995)
        The significance is that in the UK, I would guess that Dixons sell more cameras than almost anyone. Not to enthusiasts, but to Joe Public. Those who don't buy at Dixons probably go to Argos, or if they're really adventurous perhaps Jessops. This means that film cameras are no longer mainstream; this will have a knock on effect on prices and availability in all UK camera shops, as Dixons probably drove the market especially for point and shoot (although Dixons also sold plenty of entry to mid level SLRs).
      • not buy my ship at "Honest Stans used Ships", but at a dedicated dealer,

        Maybe it's just me, but "Honest Stans used Ships" sounds a lot like a dealer dedicated to one type of product to me...

  • Force? (Score:5, Informative)

    by junklight ( 183583 ) <mark.junklight@com> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:25AM (#13276819) Homepage
    They are not really forcing them off the shelves - its simple economics - Dixons are totally mainstream and 35mm film has become non-mainstream. Therefore they aren't going to sell film cameras anymore.

    Not really news - we all know digital camera's are mainstream now.

    • Re:Force? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Slashdotted ( 665535 )
      Ahh, but listen as the old people are shuffled off the stage.

      I have a luddite friend (1st grade teacher) who boasted she didn't have a CD player, and she didn't have room for a laptop. Rabbit ears were her adjusted, Lou Reed played on a record, and she once took weeks finding just the right cord for her phone.

      She'll call your laptop quaint and hi-speed a luxury as she pays Ma Bell line-insurance on behalf of her landlord. Silly VOIP.

      It's stage right Ma'am, and I find your taste in antiques curious.

      • Re:Force? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) *
        Well, analog camera has one big advantage over digital camera: independent of power. I'm European, and if I leave this continent (heck, I only need to go to swiss or italy) I will be confronted with numerous different plugs and/or voltages and/or frequencies.

        My wifes digital camera comes with one plug and I have no idea if the adapter does different Voltage/Hz. Probably it does, but it most certainly has to be recharged at least every day.

        My analog camera has one battery that lasts for years. Who do yo

        • Re:Force? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jedidiah ( 1196 )
          The one that has the less exotic battery.

          My digicam will take AA's. That rather beats those odd little "N" batteries (or whatever they're called) that tend to be in analog cameras.
        • Oh, film cameras have more advantages than that.

          1. Very wide exposure latitude. You can mis-expose a shot and it will almost always be salvageable later. With digital, if the shot is even slightly mis-exposed you lose highlights or shadow detail permanently.

          2. Cheap media. If you're going to Tibet for the trip of a lifetime and plan on taking a few hundred shots, it's much cheaper to take 'em on film.

          3. Automatic backups. Once you get your prints, you still have the negatives.

          4. Cheaper cameras. A 35mm SLR
          • 2. Cheap media. If you're going to Tibet for the trip of a lifetime and plan on taking a few hundred shots, it's much cheaper to take 'em on film.

            Really? Let's see... 512MB SD card (200-300 pix from a 3-4 MP camera) from an online vendor is currently about $30.

            A Kodak 4-pack from your local discount store is maybe $10. You'd need three of 'em. Total: $30. But you'd need to buy more for your next trip.

            I'd say the pricing is a wash. If anything, the fact that the card is not a recurring expense makes digital
      • Good point in some respects. However, at the same time, with companies like Canon IIRC playing silly buggers with their RAW file formats (e.g. taking legal action against open-source programs that allow you to download/modify the raw data from the camera because they make money off their own poorly-designed software that does the same thing), can you be guaranteed that your camera will be properly supported in 5 or 10 years time under the next version(s) of Windows?

        Yeah, I'm sure you'll be able to copy th

  • Overpriced high street.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by MountainMan101 ( 714389 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:26AM (#13276821)
    Dixon's cater for the "must buy now" category, not the well thought out purchase. People won't buy an SLR in Dixons, but they might buy a compact digital on the spur of th moment.

    It is worth noting, for our foreign readers, that Dixons are a terrible chain of stores selling overpriced electronic goods. The staff are all salesmen they don't have any one who actually knows anything (eg difference between RAM and HD, or Mac and PC). Prices are usually between 50% and 100% more than online (eg Amazon).

    So basically, no one would really mind if the whole chain just upped and died.
    • Sounds like Circuit City.
      Not Interesting
      Not Informative
      Not Insightful
      Maybe Funny
      • Ehh, Circuit City's sales people are usually tards but their prices aren't too bad. Yeah you can usually find it lower but they pricematch and have a generally good selection on some items (TVs in particular.) If you know what you're shopping for you can sometimes find a deal.

    • Re:Overpriced high street.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:35AM (#13276836)
      Thats kinda of a bit harsh to say that all the staff are salesmen that don't know anything.

      I worked at Dixons for a while - started just as a saturday job, but I did know what I was talking about, especially when it came to the difference between a Mac and PC, or RAM and HD. It's also unfair to match a store based retailer to online only retailers (eg Amazon) and to say the prices were 50-100% more is stupid. Oh and incidently, when I bought my AMD64 3200+ (the 1MB L2 not the 512K) I bought it from PC World, cheaper than online (granted I had my staff discount - but that was only 10% so the 50-100% doesn't quite follow suite there).

      I'm not saying Dixons do things the right way, but they are a business, and as uk based retailers go, quite a successful one.

      Oh and people do buy SLR's in Dixons, in my store we had a photographic specialist and he knew his camera's. Incidently, dixons started out in photography, way back in the day.

      • Re:Overpriced high street.... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Thats kinda of a bit harsh to say that all the staff are salesmen that don't know anything.

        It's pretty much true. Anybody who knows anything gets pushed to management or tech support.

        It's also unfair to match a store based retailer to online only retailers (eg Amazon) and to say the prices were 50-100% more is stupid.

        It's perfectly fair - why on earth would anyone pay over £100 for a £40 hard drive? My friend wouldn't believe me every time I ranted at how vastly overpriced they were, until I act
        • They basically rely on morons walking into their catchy shops and buying something. The reason they're successful is because morons vastly outnumber informed consumers.

          Or, as my dearly missed Uncle Frank of Zappa fame once said:

          "The most plentiful element in the universe is stupidity"

          ...and it's rarely more plentiful than in the Dixons customer demographics. Sad, but true.

          John
    • Its also dixons that has bought macwarehouse in the UK.

    • Re:Overpriced high street.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:54AM (#13276880)
      The Dixons group is truly awful, especially as they essentially own the entire UK high street and out-of-town electronics market. PCWorld, Curry's and Dixons shops are all Dixon's group and are universally overpriced, with a poor selection and the most stupid staff on the planet.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @05:05AM (#13276919)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:True Dixons story (Score:2, Informative)

        by Ryan Amos ( 16972 )
        Sounds like Wal-Mart. They will accept almost anything for a full refund, literally. I remember reading about a case where a guy bought a knife from Wal-Mart, killed someone with it, then cleaned it off and returned it. I've seen friends buy DVD players/camcorders, use them for 3 days and return them missing cables and tapes. Most of the people working there are borderline retarded anyway, so I guess it's just cheaper to hire idiots than actually process returns correctly.

      • Re:True Dixons story (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tim Browse ( 9263 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:34AM (#13277488)
        Actually, she was probably doing you a favour. It's probably much easier to return an unopened unwanted item than it is one that a customer claims is not of merchantable quality. For a start, she probably wouldn't have to get authorisation.

        When shop staff offer me an easy way to get what I want like that, personally I usually go for it.

    • Then again the must buy now attitude can play into your hands, like i got my digital camera from dixons. It was the last one in the shop, display model, got £50 off the price and a 256mb XD card for free, all because it had a very minor scratch on the bottom of the case.

      Afterwards i checked online and i managed to get it about £30 cheaper than whats available online, and all boxed and bits included, just the slight scratch

      Thing is, Dixons have a hard time pushing display models, and you can

    • The sad part is that Dixons, Currys, The Link and PC World are part of the same chain. Everthing is marked up or just junk. To add insult to injury they attempt to rape you with an 3 year extended warranty when you buy something. Generally speaking I wouldn't touch anything they sell unless I new specifically what I wanted and could swallow the difference in price over mail order.
    • A couple of years ago when I bought a Sony NetMD minidisc player I thought "the Sony store will be the best place to go".

      So I went to the Sony store, they didn't know anything about the model I wanted (that they were selling). I asked "does it have a microphone input" and they'd say "no", then I'd say "what about this socket that says 'mic'" ...

      I went to Dixons to get a price check. The guy there knew all the features of the model and the next best Panasonic (IIR-the-brand-C).

      Still neither of them told me t

  • Im Shocked (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:26AM (#13276822)
    Dixons is seen as a dealer in electronics. If you wanted film technology, you would probably go somewhere else - perhaps where the staff know what "ASA" means?

    • Re:Im Shocked (Score:3, Informative)

      by MartinG ( 52587 )
      True, but this is still an interesting event in the history of Dixons because they started out as a camera shop.
    • perhaps where the staff know what "ASA" means?

      Isn't it ISO [wikipedia.org] in everywhere in the world apart from the US?

      • Not quite. AFAIK, it's ISO in the US too :)
        Still, ISO is officially basically the old ASA and DIN standards with a '/' in the middle, so knowing what ASA is would be nice if you're trying to sell stuff.
        • ISO is more often than not quoted without the DIN component; for most people it's pretty much the same as ASA.

          The only thing is that it reminds you that you're getting old if you inadvertantly say 'ASA' instead of 'ISO' and have to explain what you mean :)

          BTW, it used to be called 'ASA' in the UK too...
  • Dixons are always striving to present an image as being cutting edge. They don't want to be seen as catering for outdated or niche markets.

    This is probably why they did much the same with VCRs a couple of years ago as they are doing with film based cameras now.

  • Not surprising, actually (Score:5, Informative)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:33AM (#13276832)
    Take a look at the various kinds of camera.

    There is the SLR and the P&S, not counting the medium format monsters which aren't flying off the shelf with digital backs.

    Before digital came along, most people owned either a 35mm or an APS point and shoot pocket camera. SLRs were generally thought of (undeservedly in many cases) as "professional" cameras, so most people weren't interested.

    Now digital offers the same convenience as the old film point and shoots but with virtually unlimited shot counts. Whereas you could only get 36 shots in your old pocket camera, now you can get upwards of a 100 on a single battery charge. And the loss in quality is pretty minimal because you are using a pretty small, substandard lens to begin with. It is no surprise that digital has essentially eliminated the film P&S market.

    The SLR side of the coin is much more interesting. What we are seeing is a resurgence in popularity of the SLR in the form of cheap dSLRs like the Canon Rebel 350D and the Nikon D70. These are cheap, offer superior lens choices than the digital P&S class, and you don't need to swap out film every 24-36 shots. Add to this that digital sensors are quickly gaining ground on film technologies such that the quality of data from a digital sensor is equal to or better than the data off of a scanned negative.

    There are many reasons why digital is gaining popularity, the first is simply that it is so much less hassle to plug the camera into the computer than it is to take roll after roll to the photo shop. Also, the boom in blogging has got everyone becoming a photographer with little to no effort. And the cost is coming into the range that mere mortals can afford it.
    • Just a small note (and I say this as a happy DSLR owner): the "cheap DSLRs" you are talkng about cost as much or more than a pro body does for film. And for all the noise about the perceived smallness of bodies like the 350D, they are still quite a bit larger than most film SLRs.

      They are cheap and compact only in comparison to earlier digital models. On the other hand, you don't need to shoot all that much film before you recoup the cost.
    • I love my Nikon D70s - It goes where I go. I use an aincient AF50mm 1.8 lens (no Zoom for me) which lets in an awful lot of light. It's not the tiniest toy in the box, but it is certainly one of the most statisfying.
    • Theres more to the digital boom than this - I bought a Digital Point and Shoot camera in December for my wife prior to the birth of our first child. Since then it's proved itself invaluable - we'd leave film months/years before processing. Now we get results instantly.

      You can correct Red-eye (etc) on the computer & post the results back to the memory card to take to the shop for processing.

      You can burn the results to CD.

      You only process what you know is worth seeing.

      When one of us is shopping

    • Re:Not surprising, actually (Score:5, Informative)

      by uglyduckling ( 103926 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @05:10AM (#13276930) Homepage
      I'm pretty new to the whole photography thing (not taking pictures of family birthdays and holidays - I mean Photography) but I'm pretty sure that film cameras aren't disappearing anytime soon. Sure, there won't be much in the way of compact point-and-shoot within a couple of years, but 35mm (especially slide/transparency) and medium format will still be with us in 10-20 years' time, just like the vinyl record is still the tool of choice for most creative DJs.

      A friend of mine [hazelthompson.com] is a photojournalist, and she says that standard digital SLR is still not high resolution enough to be blown up to 6ft on the wall of an art gallery - for that, you need medium format or at a push 35mm slide film. Sure, resolutions will go up and up, but it's likely to be a few years before digital is good enough for artistic/professional photographers.

      Digital cameras also have some limitations inherent to the format. One example is chromatic aberration [dpreview.com] or 'edge fringing' which is coloured fringes (typically cyan or red) around the border between different coloured objects near the edge of the lens. It's caused by an interraction between the lens' properties and the CCD, and does not happen with film. Guess what - artistic and professional photographers don't want to have to touch these up in Photoshop because it's losing detail.

      Every format has its strengths and weaknessess, but as a very popular art form, traditional film photography is here to stay for a long time. As a consumer product, it's pretty much dead.

      • Re:Not surprising, actually (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gid1 ( 23642 ) <tom@@@gidden...net> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @05:31AM (#13276986)
        I heard Lord Litchfield [wikipedia.org] on the Today programme [wikipedia.org] a few months ago talking about digital cameras, and the fact that he hasn't used film in *years*. It was a pretty interesting interview. Of course, there are some reasons to still use film: very large blowups, interesting effects, etc., but he was saying that for almost all jobbing professional photography, digital is best. *shrug* All an opinion, but a pretty weighty one.

        [Incidentally, it might not have been Lord Litchfield, he might not have been talking about digital cameras, and I might have misheard pretty much everything he said. The Today programme is the radio show that wakes me up in the morning, and so I'm not exactly firing on all cylinders at that time... I think I got the gist of it, though]

      • Re:Not surprising, actually (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        >Digital cameras also have some limitations inherent to the >format. One example is chromatic aberration or 'edge fringing' >which is coloured fringes (typically cyan or red) around the >border between different coloured objects near the edge of the >lens. It's caused by an interraction between the lens' properties >and the CCD, and does not happen with film.

        Not true. Chromatic abberation is entirely a function of the lens. It is an inability to focus different wavelengths of light to the

      • This is not informative, contains errors of fact. (Score:5, Informative)

        by panurge ( 573432 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:19AM (#13277085)
        No way can you blow up 35mm at a push to 6ft. In fact, even 6 by 7 is hard pushed except under studio conditions (heavy tripod, no wind, and a Mamiya 67 is one heavy lump of metal. And even so, the grain will be part of the impact of the picture.) To get 6ft gallery quality you need at least 5 by 4 (inch) and that is serious specialised gear. I have used medium format since 1966, and I sold all my gear (mainly Mamiya and Bronica) four years ago because I was no longer doing studio work, and in the field (where most people work) with hand held conditions, wind, vibration etc. there is simply nothing to be gained over digital.

        As for chomatic aberration, it is a lens property and nothing at all to do with interaction between lens and media. It is harder to control as focal length gets shorter, that is all. Cheap short focus long range over compressed lenses will have aberration. Fact of life. Good quality lenses with limited zoom range and sufficient physical volume to give the designer freedom can have good correction. The highest quality Leitz 35mm lenses were all fixed focal length, but when Leitz started producing varifocal lenses it was an admission that lens design had moved on and new options were possible.

        It's sad, because like many people I enjoyed the physical process of developing and printing, watching the 20 by 16s come up under the safelight. And for certain art purposes film may be around for a long time, though I guess almost entirely B&W. But let us not pretend that 35mm had huge reserves of quality that digital cannot match. It was, after all, invented as a cheap way of doing photography under difficult conditions. The little waterproof Pentax I now use for snapshots is the heir of the Leitz tradition, not the SLR.

      • No technology that was the size of film photography ever, ever went away completely.
        LPs were "killed" by CDs, yet enthusiats and some DJs are still using them for various properties - including superior sound - that the CD don't hold.
        But for the vast majority of music listeners, who were playing thier LPs on a $150 stereo and never cleaning the pickup, CDs are better.
        Same thing goes for photography. Some enthusiasts and artists will keep on using film, although probably not 35mm. The rest of us will be usin

        • Re:Congratulations, you've stated the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:08AM (#13277186) Homepage
          LPs were "killed" by CDs, yet enthusiats and some DJs are still using them for various properties - including superior sound - that the CD don't hold.

          Uh, the only people I know that use LPs are the same kinds of folks who buy $70 monster fiber optic cables and $1000 harmonically-aligned speaker stands. For some folks their wallets are just that much bigger than their sales-resistance. And, it always feels nice to be one of only 100 people in the country who knows that all the PhD engineers out there are wrong.

          Film will just be the new LP for a while, and pretty soon the big market will be for $1000 archival-quality, radiation-proof, chromatically-aligned, and otherwise buzzward-compliant film-canisters to carry it around in.

          Sure, film is cheaper to scale up (but how many people are shooting medium format outside of the professional photo community?). However, my understanding is that even medium-format is starting to get competition from ultra-high-res sensors that are themselves getting much larger.

          It is just simple physics. If you capture more dpi in a CCD than you have grain-per-inch on film (or whatever the stat is called), then you can reproduce the image onto any media you want digitally, no matter what the guy wearing crystals and magnets says. In almost every area of science CCDs have replaced film for precisely this reason. It is just recent news that they've gotten cheap enough for consumers to afford. When was the last time somebody used film in a telescope, autoradiograph, or X-Ray crystallography experiment? (Granted, the latter two are tending to use image-plate technology which have many of the benefits of CCDs but are cheaper. They are still digitally scanned.)

          Nothing wrong with film, and I'm sure it will always have some uses. However, except for a few niche areas most of those uses will be by the same sort who currently use LPs...
      • You're not really comparing apples to apples here... although I'm not disputing the argument that film will be around for a long time (hell, even Black&White film is still around).

        >> she says that standard digital SLR is still not high resolution enough to be blown up to 6ft on the wall of an art gallery - for that, you need medium format or at a push 35mm slide film.

        Ok... but you wouldn't do that with a 35mm film camera either. There ARE medium-format digital cameras (equivalents) with 20MP or m
      • apples to oranges. Blowing up a 3MP digital snapshot to 6ft you'll certainly notice it just doesn't have enough resolution to make that look good. (not if intended to be viewed up close anyway)

        But the thing is, neither does a 35mm film camera.

        A professional SLR-digital camera has 10-20 megapixels these days, and optics equally good as those on a film-SLR.

        Yes there'll be people using film 10 or 20 years from now, like there's people using vinyl.

        It won't be because the film is *better* in any measurab

      • > Sure, there won't be much in the way of compact point-and-shoot within
        > a couple of years, but 35mm (especially slide/transparency) and medium
        > format will still be with us in 10-20 years' time, just like the vinyl
        > record is still the tool of choice for most creative DJs.

        Vinyl records have clear advantages for DJs over CDs. Film doesn't really have any advantages at all over digitial. Pretty much everything about digitial photography is better.

        > she says that standard digital SLR is still

  • Compacts only (Score:5, Informative)

    by Armchair Dissident ( 557503 ) * on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:39AM (#13276849)
    It should be noted that Dixon principally sell compact cameras, and I think in respect to compacts they're right. Nobody is going to put something like Fuji Velvia into a compact camera, they're going to put the ISO 400 print film made by Boots. There is no advantage to using film on a compact camera over using a modern CCD, and the total running cost for digital - in that market - is significantly smaller.

    Of course, the argument over whether this is true for SLR's is a different matter. I recently traded my old Minolta SLR film kit for a Canon 300D (thanks to Canon bringing out the 350D, the 300D dramatically dropped in price). It's great - but not when using a non-digital lens (chromatic aberation and all that jazz) - and until that problem is solved there will always be a huge market for file SLRs.

  • Well duh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )
    Digital cameras are stupendous for everyone who wants to take pictures. You get the results instantly instead of having to wait and pay $$$. And let's see an old-fashioned camera take a movie. Only "photographers" *cough* artists *spit* need or want film cameras. Film also has many, many negative effects on the environment due to creating the film and the toxic chemicals needed to develop it.

    But the greatest advantage of a digicam is being able to take pictures of naked girls. Some may advocate a vid

    • I believe even the photographers are switching to digital en masse since that way they can publish there images faster (demand driven by magazines, newspapers adn customers alike: A full blown lab for high quality photoprinting is too expensive, so if you want to publish fast on non standard or larger sizes, digital is better, a printer is a lot cheaper than a photography lab). The new digital camera's also have high enough resolution to do this (Expensive, not for sale at dixons). The photographers are eve
      • One problem is that fewer and fewer people care about quality.
        Even professionals realize that when they get the same money for a "digital shot that could have been better" as for a super-high-quality large negative photo (that nobody notices), they just as well might make the switch.

        So while there will always be a niche for very high quality, it will become smaller and smaller all the time.

      • Re:photographers (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:38AM (#13277118) Homepage
        It's worth bearing in mind that "photographers" are not a homogeneous mass.

        For example, someone producing portraits to be blown up to large size on high-quality media might be unhappy with the fact that digital still isn't as good as (e.g.) medium/large format film.

        On the other hand, photographers at a football (soccer) match- in the UK at least- have favoured digital (to the best of my knowledge) for quite a few years now; even though until recently, it was far more expensive and lower in quality than the equivalent film cameras. Why?

        Simple; newspaper publishers want the paper (containing photos and reports of the match) to be on sale outside the stadia by the time the match is finished and the fans are hitting the streets again. A football match is 90 minutes long with 15 minutes at half time. You can see that this is going to be logistically difficult if you're using film.

        In fact, I doubt it's trivial even if you're using digital, but that at least gives you some much-needed flexibility; as much in the transmission of pictures as in their production. I would assume that doing it this way allows pictures to be taken some way into the second half of the match, transmitted, and dropped into the layout digitally, still leaving time for the printing and delivery.

        Nowadays, most photographs taken on a professional Digital SLR will look as good as ones taken on a film camera when printed at normal size on low-quality newsprint; so frankly, cost and minor quality issues are far less important than the convenience of digital.

        As I said, two quite different photographic styles; or rather, businesses.

  • is mom and dad archiving their digital photos? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @04:45AM (#13276865) Homepage
    When I see people everywhere shooting digital point and shoot cameras I really wonder what they are doing with all the files. Are they burning them to CD? buying hard drives? I know this has been said a million times before, but what will be the equivalent of an old shoebox filled with family snapshots look like 50 years from now? I have a feeling when a lot of people want to take a look back at that trip to disneyland when they were a kid the images will either be gone or stored on a medium which is obsolete. I doubt most people shooting with digital cameras realize how fragile their images are without care over the long term. With today's emulsions you can put your slides in a sleeve, throw them in a dark drawer, and they will still look pretty good in a couple decades. Can you say the same for a memory stick or even a cd? Is their a business opportunity for digital banks which will provide longevity of digital information so people don't need to worry about it?
    • A 6"x4" print from a digital picture costs ~15p - from the number of people in the photo print shop I was in the other day, getting favourite photos printed out is fairly common.
    • I get the good ones printed. In a lab, on photographic paper that's supposed to be good for 100+ years. The rest I don't care that much about, but I have two copies on separate hard drives, and a several on CD/DVD backups. As I upgrade hardware, my photos all get copied over, there's about a Gig and a half of them now, I'm well within current storage technology. Digital Video on the other hand, I can only afford to keep long term on DVD and tape, as you're looking at 12Gb/hour there.
    • When I see people everywhere shooting digital point and shoot cameras I really wonder what they are doing with all the files

      That's a very good question. home burnt CDs are none too archival, nor are DVDs.

      Perhaps someone will invest a system where by one could take these digital images and convert them into an archival storage form that can last 100 years or more... perhaps some form of celluloid film that is very high resolution per volume that has proven it self very resistant against aging.
    • You seem to have a sig line implying that you are (or is... or whatever the kids are saying in Riverdale these days...) a Mac user, so you should know the answer to these questions:

      Plug camera into Mac.

      Loaded photos into iPhoto and give film rolls semi-descriptive names. (Eg. "Trip to Disneyland")

      Periodically copy your hard drive's "Pictures" folder onto a backup medium.

      Done.

      Now, iPhoto may or may not be the be-all end-all of photo storing, but if there isn't a way to open and convert jpg's into your format
    • Abslolutely spot-on. Rob Andrew (a pretty famous rugby player) was on the radio a couple of months back appealing for the person who burgled his flat to give him his laptop back; it had all his personal photos from winning the Rugby world cup (i.e. irreplaceable). When asked why he didn't get them printed off, or have a back-up he mumbled about moving house, too much stuff already, taking too much time.

      I've been working with digital imagery (satellite) for the last 15 years; formats have gone from dedic

    • In my case, the files first og on my computer. There they're indexed with Kimdaba, including a flag for if they're "printworthy" or not.

      Irregularily (basically whenever I feel like it) I'll order prints of the ones that are worthwhile. For me that's maybe 1/3rd of the pictures.

      I don't see how this is very much different from earlier. I don't have the hassle of film and development, and I know I can still order perfect copies from perfect digital file 50 years from now (assuming I'm still alive).

      I can

  • The reason i look for specialist shops is exactly that i need to get my hands on things that other shops don't have. Then again, I don't know if supermarkets etc. in Britain also pull 35 mm film off their shelves?
    • Dixons isn't a specialist shop - it's a highly generic, bland electronics goods shop that generally sell the top brands in the most popular categories of electronic goods only, most of them in expensive high street locations. If you have specialist needs (and film cameras have become a specialist need), then there's a huge variety of specialist chains catering for specific types of electronic goods.

      If you want a camera specialist shop in the UK, for instance, Jessops [jessops.co.uk] is available pretty much everywhere.

  • It amazes me that norms have gone digital (Score:4, Informative)

    by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @05:01AM (#13276903) Homepage
    How are the people that are buying digital cameras from Dixons using a digital camera? The software that comes with Windows XP is bad, the software that comes with the camera is worse and Googles excellent offering is hidden away, and involves a knowledge of web searching and software installation.

    My Dad, who though far from computer illiterate, uses the software that came with his FujiFilm SLR. The camera is excellent, but the software is so bad, that it takes him 20 minutes to find the picture he wants, and he keeps a paper index to give him an idea of when he took the photo so he can find it by date. He doesn't do any photo editing, because its too complicated (the guy runs a primary school, and uses computers on a daily basis... he's not stupid) and getting the pictures to print well is an effort.

    My completely computer illiterate girlfriends mother really struggles to use iPhoto. And why wouldn't she? In order to get the pictures off the camera she has to find the right wire, make sure its connected in the right socket, makes sure the camera is on (this always confuses her) and then has to eject the camera before she can disconnect it. She has mastered albums, but can't do keywords. She can't burn a CD of her favourites to take down Boots to get it printed without my help.

    I'm no expert, in fact I would shudder to call myself a novice when it comes to digital photography, but they are fascinated that I can put together a DVD of the trip we've just taken in iDVD and iPhoto even though most of the work is done for me by the Mac, or that I can type 'Zoes birthday' in Spotlight an be provided with every picture from Zoes birthday instantly.

    I always thought the advantages of digital photography were having a searchable library of of all my pictures, and being able to email them to friends, and take out the odd bit of red eye. It turns out the reason people by digital cameras is that they can take over hundred photos without changing the film (great for holidays), can see those photo immediately and delete them if they're bad (perceived reduction of cost), and continue to just hand the camera over to the guy at Boots and get the pictures back an hour later. For this they are willing to pay over £100 for a camera that has a lower picture quality, artifacts and dead pixels, than a £20 35mm film. Norms are funny arn't they?
    • My Dad, who though far from computer illiterate, uses the software that came with his FujiFilm SLR. The camera is excellent, but the software is so bad, that it takes him 20 minutes to find the picture he wants, and he keeps a paper index to give him an idea of when he took the photo so he can find it by date. He doesn't do any photo editing, because its too complicated (the guy runs a primary school, and uses computers on a daily basis... he's not stupid) and getting the pictures to print well is an effort
    • In order to get the pictures off the camera she has to find the right wire, make sure its connected in the right socket, makes sure the camera is on (this always confuses her) and then has to eject the camera before she can disconnect it.

      Are you seriously suggesting that putting a cable into the only socket on the camera that will take it is a difficult and challenging task that is beyond the ability of "norms" (a somewhat derogatory way of describing people..) If this is really a gripe that is so difficul

    • My completely computer illiterate girlfriends mother really struggles to use iPhoto. And why wouldn't she? In order to get the pictures off the camera she has to find the right wire, make sure its connected in the right socket, makes sure the camera is on (this always confuses her) and then has to eject the camera before she can disconnect it. She has mastered albums, but can't do keywords. She can't burn a CD of her favourites to take down Boots to get it printed without my help.

      If she finds those task
    • It turns out the reason people by digital cameras is that they can take over hundred photos without changing the film (great for holidays), can see those photo immediately and delete them if they're bad (perceived reduction of cost), and continue to just hand the camera over to the guy at Boots and get the pictures back an hour later.

      You forgot one of the big advantages: You can "process" the images at any time, regardless if the film is finished or not. Either you're taking lots of pictures and have to swi
    • Indeed, but why bother to even install this software.

      I just recomend people use a card reader.

      That way you don't have to install useless software that sits in the system tray and triews to install loads of trial version of software you don't want or care about.

  • Price hike (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AgeOfUnreason ( 889145 )
    Although it seems that Dixon pulling out of the 35 mm market doesn't seem that significant but if other retailers start to follow suit then I can see that 35 mm camera (esp. SLR) will rise in price. Ok Digital prices will drop but for pro photographers and amateurs who still like use 35mm format they will be the losers as they have to pay the extra price. Ok a lot of pro photograpers (magazine and newspapers) use use digital because its easiar and quicker to get into print. However for the more artistically
    • Things change. It may be that you have seen analog technology all your life and so you see something disappear that "has always been there and should forever be there", but probably your father has seen 8track coming up, and your grandfather saw 35mm come into existance.
      Now you see both of them (practically) go extinct. But this is how progress is made.

      Try to go shopping for a super8 filmcamera. Or a vinyl recordplayer for use in the home.
      They have been replaced by new products.

      New products are not alway
    • ...for example on cannon I think the multiplier is 1.6 great for zoom but tribble for wide angle unless you buy a 10 mm lens!!

      IIRC it's not a multiplexer persay but rather the fact that the ccd array isn't 24mm x 36mm. The only camera I knew about that used a full sized ccd array was the Contax N1, a camera that didn't sell too well.

      But you know the cost of a 10mm lens? You know the field of view is over 180 degrees horizontal... or rather resulting in a circular image being shown on the film plane. 10.
      • All SLR's have problems with ultra wide angle lenses. The best to go here is a Voigtlaender 15mm with a dedicated body which you can pick up on EBay for about $250. Very nice little toy that.

        Rangefinders such as Voigtlaender are making a ocmback in the film world and their wide angle lenses are pretty damn good.

  • This also just in... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I found some other interesting articles along the same theme from the popular news publication entitled "DUUUHHH..."


    The automobile replaces the horseless carriage.


    Pocket calculators replace adding machines.


    Electronic spreadsheets replace accountant's ledger.


    Pointless drivel replaces meaningful articles on Slashdot.

  • 35mm is going the way of the Vinyl (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeedleSurfer ( 768029 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:54AM (#13277157)
    It's going to be everywhere except in your hands. Vinyls aren't dead, at all, skratch artists almost can't do without them, I own Final Skratch from Stanton and despite all the phoney claims it doesn't hold its own against a real vinyl, even if it comes really really close, and until some technology comes along that truly make the vinyl obsolete we'll see tons of them under dj's hands.

    35mm pictures will be everywhere, in magazine, large displays and so on but all the while consummers won't be able to procure the films and material to themselves easily.

    Lets face it, for consummers digital is way more convenient, not better, convenient. If digital was better marketing wouldn't compare it to analog they would simply show it. Digital technologies have never been strong because they were good, they always caught up because they were convenient but professionnal will drop convenience really fast if it can produce better results. Think high end studio recording, we stuck to analog reels for very long until digital finally became so good that we could embrace its convenience but not at the expense of quality, not even 5 years ago spliccing was still common in studio. Therefore I don't think 35mm is dying, as much as vinyls aren't dead, they're just hidden from "normal people"( ;) ) probably until digital has more resolution than 35mm films (around 22megapixels it seems).
  • Maybe almost 10 years ago I remember reading something... somewhere... about this cool technology to turn any 35 mm camera into a digital camera. Basically it was this thing that looked like an ordinary 35 mm film canister, except instead of having a tongue of film sticking out, it had a rigid piece of plastic or metal which was fixed in place (which contained the CCD). You just plopped it into any 35 mm camera where the film would normally go, and voila, instant digital camera. No need to toss away your

    • Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The technology was flawed. The main problem is getting the CCD in the right position, all cameras are created different with slightly positions of the frame. Film can handle this by its very nature, however it proved too difficult to create a generic digital system for every type of camera. The second problem is coupling the device to the film winder and getting the camera to recognise it, especially when there are cases like my camera where the film is wound on first and then wound into the canister as eac
  • I think the interesting thing is that before digital, you'd never see someone go out and spend $300 on a camera. But slap digital in front of it, and people will easily drop $300 or more. Same goes for PDAs and cell phones. 20 years ago, nobody would have spent more than $10 on a phone or an address book. But make it into a computer, and all of a sudden, people want to spend hundreds of dollars on these items. I realize the new items offer a lot of new functionality over the ones their replacing, but w
  • Digital camera are a great thing for the digital camera makers/sellers. Unlike old camera you can't upgrade them by using better film. In a sense they are picture taking computers. Conversly its not a good time to be a film maker.

    When in college I was using a 10 year old camera with great results. 10 year old digital camera is maybe 1 megapixel and probably doesn't have a zoom. As cameras get better and more functionality (12x image stablized zooms!) people want better ones. Film cameras features a

  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:02AM (#13277625) Journal
    35mm film cameras outsold Wet Plate Photography kits by a ratio of over 1,000,000:1

    The moral: If you don't feel digital cameras are as high a quality as film cameras, you really have to admit they come pretty close and will only get better. Even if they are not-quite-as-good-yet the extra flexibility and convenience more than makes up for it.

    Progress marches on. Quit bitchin'.
    =Smidge=

  • In defense of film... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cherokee158 ( 701472 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:33AM (#13277866)
    I recently purchased a very nice film SLR for 150 bucks new, because I wanted an SLR but was unwilling to pony up the equivelant of my monthly mortgage for one.

    I own a decent digital, as well, so I have come to know both breeds.

    I hate the digital. I hate its crappy, battery-sucking LCD viewfinder that is useless in bright sunlight. I hate its shutter lag that assures I always miss the shot. I hate its habit of saving power by shutting off every two minutes , assuring that I am still rebooting my camera whenever the next photo op occurs. I hate the fact that I need to carry twice my weight in batteries to every major event. I hate burrowing through menus using only two tiny buttons whose functions change at the whim of the camera's software developer in order to change simple camera settings.

    I LIKE my film camera. I like that it only cost me 150 bucks, so if I lose or break it, I won't be suicidal. I like that it has a clearly marked button or dial for everything I want to do, so that I can change settings with ease. I like that I can change film stocks when I want different results. I like that when I depress the shutter, it takes a picture RIGHT NOW, instead of later. I like that I can forget and leave it on, and my battery will still be good for weeks.

    I even kind've like waiting for my film to be developed (even if it's as long as a whole hour). Until that moment, EVERY picture I take is a potential pulizter prize winner :-)

    To bring them into the digital realm, I just have them dropped on Kodak CD's, which are high-res, cheaper than prints and look much better
    than scans of prints. I figure it is a small price to pay for actually getting the shots I want, and it's handy to have the stuff already archived on CD.

    Above all, I like being secure in the knowledge that ten years from now, my camera will still be working. I don't feel that secure with my digital, which will probably be a doorstop in a few years.

    The only benefits I see to digitals are increased picture capacity, the ability to review your photos on the spot and the means to make your own porn (the internet gets all the credit for the porn explosion in this country, but I think that people forget that a lot of porn sites owe their existence to a bunch of horny people who didn't have to sneak into a photo lab at night to build their websites).

    My take, anyway. Your mileage may vary. But I see a lot of money being spent these days on stuff that is more promises of a better world than a truly better one. Ten years ago, a 17 inch CRT monitor cost me 500 bucks. However, thanks to the magic of modern technology, I can now purchase a far less durable 17 inch monitor that can only be viewed from one angle for....drumroll...500 bucks! But, hey, they're lighter, right?

    Somewhere along the way, people stopped selling BETTER ideas, and just starting selling NEW ones. There is a difference...

    • Everything you say is true... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @10:00AM (#13278074) Homepage
      ...but the balance still tips towards digital for me.

      Even with shutter lag, even with battery issues, even with the damn thing turning off at just the wrong moment, I switched to digital 5 years ago, and haven't looked back. In a couple of years, I might buy myself a nice digital SLR to resolve some of those problems, but in the mean time, my little Canon will do fine.

      Why do I agree with all of your points and disagree with your position? The tipping point is the medium. The cost of good quality film, the cost of developing, the time it takes, and the likelihood that the film is going to sit on a shelf waiting for me to bring it to the developer is just enough for me to have to think about whether or not I really want to take that picture when it comes up.

      With digital, I don't even think about it any more. Once you've gotten over the barrier to entry, the marginal cost per picture is essentially zero. I went to Belize with a 1MB card and pretty much filled it up with pretty fish pictures. A lot of them were not so pretty. If I had been using an underwater film camera, I would have had to either be sparing with my pictures or climb onto the boat every few minutes, dry off the camera, open it, change the film, re-oil the seals, close it up, and go back down.

      With my digital in its case, I could just keep snapping and snapping. It did not matter that some of the pictures were bad. I could just throw them away.

      For me, I guess its that I am sort of a shotgun photographer. I take a lot of pictures and find the good one, rather than waiting for the perfect one and grabbing it right then. It may not be the afficianado's way, but if it takes me 500 shots to get that one picture of a lobster defending its home, or a shark slumbering under a patch of coral, It's worth it to me.

      I do miss long hours in the darkroom developing my own b/w pictures, but that, too, was an expensive habit, and while there's no digital replacement for the smell of the fixative, well, I have to admit that the end result I get with photoshop is a lot better than anything I was able to do in the darkroom.

      So Ansel Adams I'm not. But us average joes need digital in order to churn out a good number of great pictures.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close