I just happened to be glancing through the review section of Saturdays Daily Telegraph when I read an amusing review for the new Nikon D700. The bit that caught my eye was.

"Nikon has effectively replaced the SLR's traditional film back with CMOS digital sensor that is the same size. As a result, your photos look alot more like old style film pictures- sharper and more vibrant"

If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know what is. But why are they trying to invent the wheel, don't they know someone already did. Highly amusing all the same

It does not surprise me. Digital phoptography is more related to video than to photography.

Everyone I know whose photographed professionally in the film days, and made the switch to digital due to our clients needs, will admit that till now digital has not match film.

The high end "full frame" sensors have nearly match, and soon in the not so distant future will surpass what film is able to record. My statement doesn't mean I don't like film, because I do. Many people are writing Photoshop actions to give a 'film look and feel' to digital files right now.

Just as there is still room for tintypes and wet plate photography, there will be room for modern film along side the digital technology that can not be stopped.

Nikon is only acknowledging what is known. I've never shot video, I teach B&W film photography on the college level, and when I do shoot digital for my clients, I have never thought any differently with a digital camera verses my film camera when solving the photographic problems a job offers.

Personally, sounds like a poorly written review aimed at people who don't know much about cameras. Doesn't sound like it came from a camera mag. Would you buy a camera based on a review from Consumer Reports?

It says nothing more than that the writer is a moron, and doesn't know the front end of a camera from the back end, digital or film. Things like this reflect poorly on photography as a whole.

just another crappy marketing blurb, bullshit to those who know, tries to impress those who don't

The industry has re-invented the wheel Kenneth so they can keep selling photographic equipment in an already saturated market, like the car industry does with this years must have model, and the record industry did with CDs.

It does not surprise me. Digital phoptography is more related to video than to photography.

"phoptography", is this a typo?

can you expand on this statement?

what does this statement have to do with the article?

Kenneth, as I don't think has been pointed out yet, the text you quoted reads like a really stupid press release, written by a stupid and ignorant advertising copywriter and copied word for word by an equally stupid and ignorant reporter. I've worked with such types in both fields, they really exist.

Anyway, that there are idiots says nothing about digital technology. If you want calm rational discussions of what can and can't be accomplished with digital, look on the French large format forum.

Ben, what did the recording industry do with CDs? I ask because I have more than one CD of the same classical piece and can tell you with a straight face that all the "duplicates" I have are worth having. People have been questioning the need for, e.g., one more recorded performance of a warhorse, e.g., Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, for decades. And for decades the incremental recording has sold ... One could equally well question why old recordings are resurrected. But then, I recently bought one such, the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas as recorded in the mid-50s by the French pianist Yves Nat and don't feel that I wasted my money. Try the set, you might like it.

Cheers,

Dan

Marketing drivel, diarrhea of the corporate mouth.

This is just the copywriter crap we here in advertising every minute of every day. Just throw in all th buzz words you can research..EC

What does this say about digital technology?

Don't know and don't care. As far as I am concerned digital is good for two things, non-important snapshots and video clips.

Kenneth, as I don't think has been pointed out yet, the text you quoted reads like a really stupid press release, written by a stupid and ignorant advertising copywriter and copied word for word by an equally stupid and ignorant reporter. I've worked with such types in both fields, they really exist.

Anyway, that there are idiots says nothing about digital technology. If you want calm rational discussions of what can and can't be accomplished with digital, look on the French large format forum.

Ben, what did the recording industry do with CDs? I ask because I have more than one CD of the same classical piece and can tell you with a straight face that all the "duplicates" I have are worth having. People have been questioning the need for, e.g., one more recorded performance of a warhorse, e.g., Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, for decades. And for decades the incremental recording has sold ... One could equally well question why old recordings are resurrected. But then, I recently bought one such, the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas as recorded in the mid-50s by the French pianist Yves Nat and don't feel that I wasted my money. Try the set, you might like it.

Cheers,

Dan

They got the public to buy again recordings they already had on vinyl, marketing is about making the public dissatisfied with they already own and buy more stuff.

Ben, thanks for the explanation. I don't want to debate CD versus LP record, but I have observed that if treated well CDs don't wear as fast. In fact, they don't wear at all. Diamond styli, however, are hard on vinyl.

I've read that some CDs become unreadable with age. I'm not sure whether that's true of home-burned or factory pressed, in any case I haven't encountered it yet with factory pressed. None of the LPs I bought in the '60s and '70s sounds as good as when new.

I don't understand why, as long as your playback equipment works, you don't play and enjoy your old LPs. I mean, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to replace them with CDs.

Cheers,

Dan

I don't understand why, as long as your playback equipment works, you don't play and enjoy your old LPs. I mean, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to replace them with CDs.


The same can be said to people who ditched their film gear for video still cameras.

Well, Andy, its nice to know that you understand why I still use my ancient (mainly) film gear. No guns were held to my head. I can't speak for others, though.

But it isn't fair of you to impugn people who use digicams instead of film. Both approaches to capturing images have merits. One has to choose the appropriate tool for the job at hand and for ones preferences. Earlier in this thread I referred to the French LF forum. galerie-photo.info bills itself as a site for high resolution photography. Its leading lights, e.g., Henri Gaud, who works to a higher standard than nearly anyone else in the known universe, shoot digital as well as film.

Back when I was burning a lot of film deciding which of the high performance macro lenses I'd accumulated were actually good enough to use -- not all were, alas -- I greatly envied a friend who was doing much the same with a D70. He got roughly the same answers I did, but the incremental shot cost him less than it cost me. On the other hand, I didn't have all that money sunk in a D70.

Cheers,

Dan

Ben, thanks for the explanation. I don't want to debate CD versus LP record, but I have observed that if treated well CDs don't wear as fast. In fact, they don't wear at all. Diamond styli, however, are hard on vinyl.

I've read that some CDs become unreadable with age. I'm not sure whether that's true of home-burned or factory pressed, in any case I haven't encountered it yet with factory pressed. None of the LPs I bought in the '60s and '70s sounds as good as when new.

I don't understand why, as long as your playback equipment works, you don't play and enjoy your old LPs. I mean, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to replace them with CDs.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan, Please don't get me wrong, I don't have an axe to grind about CD players I have two, and I still play vinyl on my turntable the points I was making were more about how industry making consumer goods has to be self perpetuating to survive.

Ben, thanks very much for the clarification.

Its actually durable goods in general. The old has to wear out or the new has to be better enough to justify scrapping the old and replacing it. As for example, my perfectly good thirty year old refrigerator that isn't as efficient as the best new ones.

I've often thought it unfair that under the US' tax code businesses are allowed to depreciate capital goods and households aren't.

Cheers,

Dan

None of the LPs I bought in the '60s and '70s sounds as good as when new.
If you have a lot of vinyl you might consider investing in something like a VPI record cleaner. You'd be amazed how the vinyl sounds when all the crap has been cleaned out.