digital cameras - how far we've come

[hornadylnl]

So now I'm starting to download my vacation pics into my desktop. We took just over 1700 pictures on our 2 week vacation. If we still used film cameras, that would have been 70 rolls of 24 exposure film. Even at $2 a roll, that's $140 in film alone. IIRC, it was around $4-5 to get a 24 exposure film developed. That would be over $400 just for pictures. Obviously we wouldn't have taken so many pictures if we were using film.

Now, you buy a decent digital camera for under $100 and a 2 gig memory card for $10-20 and you can take over 1000 high res pics. We'll get some prints made but obviously not all of them. But who needs a photo album now when you can just play it back on an ipad?

Man, I'm getting old.

 

[repeter1977]

So now I'm starting to download my vacation pics into my desktop. We took just over 1700 pictures on our 2 week vacation. If we still used film cameras, that would have been 70 rolls of 24 exposure film. Even at $2 a roll, that's $140 in film alone. IIRC, it was around $4-5 to get a 24 exposure film developed. That would be over $400 just for pictures. Obviously we wouldn't have taken so many pictures if we were using film.

Now, you buy a decent digital camera for under $100 and a 2 gig memory card for $10-20 and you can take over 1000 high res pics. We'll get some prints made but obviously not all of them. But who needs a photo album now when you can just play it back on an ipad?

Man, I'm getting old.

Isnt it interesting how far technology has come. My phone has more power, memory and speed then my first computer. And yep, with the removable memory cards, you can talk almost unlimited photos, and just delete out the ones that you dont want later, without wasting any money, just some time.

 

[hornadylnl]

I remember when 14k was fast for a modem and how long it took to download a simple message board page. Smart phones are amazingly faster from just about anywhere in the country. Although probably my biggest complaint of my entire trip was how crappy AT&T's signal was inside Disney World. The northern parks (Magic Kingdom and Epcot) were the worst.

 

[Brandon]

My camera takes 3 pictures a second for some many seconds before it takes a break to write it all to the memory card(s). You can easily rack up a couple thousand pictures in a matter of an hour or 2. Takes a while to go through the ones you might want to keep and print. But I really do not miss the wait for the film to be developed just to find out the picture you took wasn't all that great because you had your thumb in front of the lens or the wrong setting.

 

[hornadylnl]

Oh, and anyone else remember the monstrous VHS video cameras that cost around $1000? Now, our little digital cameras will do video.

 

[KLB]

Don't forget that now you can just print your pictures at home with your personal printer, and they look just as good as the ones from the shop. Make as many copies as you want, enlarge, shrink, crop. Amazing how far we have come.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Brought back about 7 rolls of 24 from vacation once. The guy that picked up film from that drug store was apparently high or something; he walked in, went to the bathroom, then left. Because of the delay we got them for free. That was pretty major.

 

[Dave Doehrman]

Now, you buy a decent digital camera for under $100 and a 2 gig memory card for $10-20 and you can take over 1000 high res pics. We'll get some prints made but obviously not all of them. But who needs a photo album now when you can just play it back on an ipad?

Man, I'm getting old.

My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica that I paid $759 for back in 81 or 82. It stored pictures on a 3.5" floppy inserted into the camera. The camera would record 55 images on a floppy so the overall picture size was around 63K. It was OK for quick reference pics, but when I went on vacation or wanted good photos, I carried my 35mm film camera. Now, you can hardly find good 35mm film.

 

[tmfinney]

My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica that I paid $759 for back in 81 or 82. It stored pictures on a 3.5" floppy inserted into the camera. The camera would record 55 images on a floppy so the overall picture size was around 63K. It was OK for quick reference pics, but when I went on vacation or wanted good photos, I carried my 35mm film camera. Now, you can hardly find good 35mm film.

I remember using a Sony Mavica when I was in high school for my computer applications classes. This was about 11 years ago for me and I remember when a 1 gig card, for the newer digital cameras that professional photographers used, cost about $9,000.

Now it's amazing that my cell phone has a better camera than the first one I ever bought.

 

[williamsburg]

My first 'camcorder' was something like this

and remember when cameras were 110 not 35mm or digital?

Now it all fits in your hand.

Anyways. Now I feel old.

 

[hornadylnl]

My dad had a Sony digital camera that used a 3.5" floppy but it was sometime in the late 90's, I believe.

 

[littletommy]

Back in the early 80's when I first started doing home recording, it wasn't even imaginable to record something, and then burn it to a CD. Now, just like photos, it's just a matter of having a few minutes to sit down with the laptop, and it's done. Pretty damn cool!

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

35's been with us for a long time, but yeah, I had a 110. It was one of various ways to "make things easy", in other words keep the heathens' fingers off the film. My dad had one of the first Polaroids, the one where you'd have to wipe the waxy thing on the exposed film. That was the first step to mass market amateur porn, where you wouldn't have to either find an "understanding" developer to print your photos or do it yourself. I shot, um, a few of those. Nature photos, you know, birds, bees, that kind of thing. Yeah.

 

[atvdave]

and Kodak which was the leader in the photo industry is now bankrupt.

 

[hornadylnl]

My digital camera is a couple years old. It takes about 5 seconds before its ready for the next pic of the flash is on. Are the newer cameras better about that?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

You can get one as fast as you want, just costs some more. I have one that will do HD video at 720p.

 

[MrSmitty]

Yep, that's why I'm a welder...........before, I was a film processor/printer Processed C-41 and B&W film, printed B&W photos the old school way 3 trays, developer, stop bath, fixer, then wash and dry.....dang I miss that...

 

[hornadylnl]

Yep, that's why I'm a welder...........before, I was a film processor/printer Processed C-41 and B&W film, printed B&W photos the old school way 3 trays, developer, stop bath, fixer, then wash and dry.....dang I miss that...

I did all of that in graphic arts class in school. I got a Pentax K1000 for a graduation gift.

 

[Brandon]

My digital camera is a couple years old. It takes about 5 seconds before its ready for the next pic of the flash is on. Are the newer cameras better about that?

I got mine back in '04 or '05 (the one that takes 3 pics a second for so many seconds in a row before it has to pause). Back when CompUSA was still around.

 

[hornadylnl]

I got mine back in '04 or '05 (the one that takes 3 pics a second for so many seconds in a row before it has to pause). Back when CompUSA was still around.

Non flash pictures are fine. I only have a delay if the flash is used.