PDA

View Full Version : Why do people complain...


Tuolumne
11-29-2008, 14:06
about having to change a digital camera's battery every 300 shots or so but don't complain about having to change a roll of film every 36 shots, usually at the most inopportune times? Just curious about your thoughts on this anomaly of the digital vs. film zeitgeist.

/T

gb hill
11-29-2008, 14:13
Because it takes longer for a film photographer to go through 36 frames than a person machinegunning (don't they call it chimping)? through 300 frames. At least it is for me. On a 24 or 36 roll of film I try to make every shot a great one. Though I usually fail miserably, thats for another thread.

Tuolumne
11-29-2008, 14:17
With any digital camera I have owned in the past 3 years, I can do a day of travel shooting on one battery charge. I only rarely need a second battery, although I always carry one. Is the ratio of digital snaps to film snaps really something like 10x1 for most people? (Not to mention the fact that I was being conservative on the digital side. Many digital cameras will take well over 300 shots before needing a fresh battery.)

/T

sojournerphoto
11-29-2008, 14:32
I can shoot a whole holiday using 1 battery and possibly only one big card on the 1Ds3. Even the 5D probably only requires a couple of charges. There again, I don't machine gun and until I saw a newspaper photographer at work today (5 frames where I'd have taken one) I've never really come across this. What I do do though is shoot a few 'digi polaroids' to check exposure.

gb hill
11-29-2008, 14:43
I don't machine gun digital photo's. I don't even own a digital camera. I was refuring to how people with digital camera's tend to shoot, shoot, & shoot. Yes I know some are quite disiplined and I like alot of work done on both film & dagital & don't disrespect digital. Go to flickr & you will find thousands of meaningless photos all shot on digital. My flickr photos may be meaningless to you also but I haven't uploaded 1000's either which reinforces my point.

ruby.monkey
11-29-2008, 14:45
300 shots per set of batteries? Really?

Someone needs to start buying batteries made after about 1980.

mh2000
11-29-2008, 14:48
when your battery dies on most digitals you are dead, if you run out of film you can often stop at the next drug store and pick up some (at least where I live).

I don't complain, as long as I get more than a 100 shots I'm good... and that is for a whole vacation!

Keith
11-29-2008, 14:49
It is odd ... I noticed people mentioning the fiddlyness of changing memory cards and batteries in the M8 a while ago ... the fact that you have to actually remove the base plate ... how hard is that after all. I remember one night at a gallery opening I was photographing I shot 350 exposures over a one and a half hour period ... the light was very difficult and I was having to do a lot of bracketing and a fair bit of chimping to make sure I got the shots that mattered ... especially with the M8's sensitivity to incorrect exposure at high ISO's. It involved one battery change and one memory card change which was quite good as it gave me a chance to sit down for a minute and get my breath back.

I tried to visualise doing the same thing with a film camera and around ten film changes and while I know it could still have been done adequately with a good metered M body ... it would have added a fair bit more difficulty to the evening.

I might add that the battery change was for insurance ... I probably could have gone through the shoot without it but it was better to be safe than sorry.

bmattock
11-29-2008, 15:01
I do tend to shoot more when I shoot digital - a lot more. And yes, I get into modes where I just hammer away. Mostly events, where the action is moving and flowing and things are changing quickly. I get around 600 shots to a set of CR-V3 rechargeable batteries, by the way, not 300.

I have shot as much as 1200 shots - sometimes even more - in the course of a day. Of course I could not afford to do that with film.

That does not mean that I have to shoot that way. Sometimes when I am shooting digital, I don't hammer away sequentially, I take my time and use the skills I have learned over the years to make the best photo I am able to make.

I find advantages to both methods, at times.

Sometimes, by hammering away, I take risks that I would otherwise not take on an off-the-cuff shot that I might otherwise have held fire on - and find out later that it is amazingly good. Sometimes by taking four or five shots of person passing by, I find that most of them are not acceptable for whatever reason, like eyes closed, head turned, awkward position, etc, and maybe one of them is a keeper - if shooting film, maybe I'd have gotten the one winner - and maybe not.

Over all, and over time, I have come to the conclusion that for me, I get about 1 in 15 or so shots I like and consider worthy of a second glance - that doesn't make them all masterpieces, but they have, in my humble opinion, some degree of merit.

That is 1 in 15 whether I shoot film or digital. Whether I go slow or go fast.

So shooting lots does not increase my 'hit rate', but having more shots increases the number of photos I consider acceptable.

I try to use the appropriate method for any given photographic situation. I may be wrong, but this works for me.

And yes, I have many thousands of photos in Flickr. I have my reasons for that.

bmattock
11-29-2008, 15:06
when your battery dies on most digitals you are dead, if you run out of film you can often stop at the next drug store and pick up some (at least where I live).

Yeah, if the battery dies on my laptop, I'm stuck. So I guess paper is better.

Technology sucks, doesn't it? Everything about it is terrible. Maybe you'd better log off and write us a letter instead.

;)

Steve Bellayr
11-29-2008, 15:15
Because with digital the camera dies and you need to replace the battery. With the digital camera that I had the spare battery was very heavy. The camera was heavy. I was able to shoot only 125 frames on the camera if the battery was fully charged. (I also needed to carrry a charger wherever I went.) Four rolls of 36 exposures weighted less that a spare battery. Of course, things have changed since I have switched over. The worst part was grabbing the digital after a few days or a week and found that both batteries were discharged. With a film camera the battery went dead every 5 years.

That has been my experience back about 3 years ago. I know things have changed. It is ca comfort factor. I am more comfortable changing film because with film I am forced (or trained) to think before every shot. With digital I did not have to think. It is different not better or worse.

yanidel
11-29-2008, 15:17
50% of times I go out, I need to change the battery once.
There are way bigger issues in my life, like my cellphone needing to reboot every two days for no reason ;)

Keith
11-29-2008, 15:24
Im no digital fan boy but I'm with bmattock ... digital camera battery hysteria is just that!

sojournerphoto
11-29-2008, 15:33
I spent 7 months in southern and east Africa carrying 30 rolls of Kodachrome 64 in my rucsac alongside my AE-1 and a few lenses. That's about 1,000 frames - or a 5D with 1 16Gb card and a means to charge the battery. Having said that - if I went today for the same (non-photographic) reasons I'd take a new G1 or even a GX100 and a couple of big SD cards.

Mike

Al Kaplan
11-29-2008, 15:33
I've always carying a camera, somtimes slung over my shoulder, sometimes in my hand or dangling from my wrist. Sometimes I don't go "click" for days. Today I shot a few frames of the interplay of my shadow on the pavement with the shadow of a barricade, not my usual style for sure, but the forced perspective of the 21mm lens intrigued me. It was a cloudless day with very clear air so the shadows were nice and contrasty.

I doubt that I'd shoot more if I had digital. I had some ideas for using the shots on my blog and the text I'll write is as important as the pictures, but the photos don't have to be great art, only fun to look at. Or I might process the prints by flicking drops of Dektol on the paper, letting it run this way and that across the surface. The randomness of the developed parts of the image, the grey streaks caused by bromiding of the developer sitting too long on the paper, are kind of neat. Some of the people in the art community think my prints like that ARE great art. Go figure!

bmattock
11-29-2008, 15:41
Sports and reportage photographers learned years ago to make maximum use of film and motor winders. I remember seeing Nikons with adapters to allow 250-shot rolls of film or whatever it was, with massive battery-packs to power the winder, and that sort of thing.

They knew then what the digital press-and-pray crowd knows now - that sometimes things move too fast for even the best eye to capture, so you get your exposure and your composition as right as you can and you hammer away until you're out of film (or battery, or memory space).

For certain uses, it is optimal. For others, perhaps less so - but so what? If someone wishes to take 300 shots of a daffodil, what of it?

The only thing that amazes me is the same thing that always amazes me - that a person who simply does not shoot that way feels that it is wrong to shoot that way.

Is there some special place in heaven where all the film users who eschewed digital cameras will be able to go and stick their tongues out at the rest of us, as we burn in the lake of digital fire?

Tuolumne
11-29-2008, 15:45
/|\ That was funny!

/T

Al Kaplan
11-29-2008, 15:54
Years ago a friend of mine had a new motor driver on his Nikon F and was shooting a pro baseball game. The motor drive was the latest in new technology at the time. It was the end of the ninth inning. One frame shows the batter sliding in towards home plate, and the baseball is still in the air, not quite to the catcher's mitt. The next frame shows his feet sliding in the dirt past home plate and the ball is visible in the mitt. The photographers who didn't use motors got the photo of the ball in the mitt just before the batter's feet touched home plate. The batter was out, but being locked into the timing sequence of the motor drive caused my friend to miss the shot. Ain't bursts great?

Kin Lau
11-29-2008, 16:00
With a film camera the battery went dead every 5 years.

... and in it's dying breath took the camera with it by spilling it's corrosive guts all over the battery compartment.

bmattock
11-29-2008, 16:01
Years ago a friend of mine had a new motor driver on his Nikon F and was shooting a pro baseball game. The motor drive was the latest in new technology at the time. It was the end of the ninth inning. One frame shows the batter sliding in towards home plate, and the baseball is still in the air, not quite to the catcher's mitt. The next frame shows his feet sliding in the dirt past home plate and the ball is visible in the mitt. The photographers who didn't use motors got the photo of the ball in the mitt just before the batter's feet touched home plate. The batter was out, but being locked into the timing sequence of the motor drive caused my friend to miss the shot. Ain't bursts great?

It happens sometimes, but did you fail to note that most sports and reportage photographers eventually switched to the motor drives, because their odds of getting the shot were higher?

Likewise, the upcoming RED camera that may, if it lives up to the boasts, blur the line between video and still photography to the extent that sports and reportage photographers simply don't use still cameras any more.

Remembering the Ruby assassination of Oswald - one photographer got the shot, one was getting into position and did not - rued the day until he died (I read the story, he was literally a bitter and broken man over missing that shot). RED would have caught the whole thing, but of course did not exist then. A motor drive would have been most useful in that situation, but who knew?

ruby.monkey
11-29-2008, 16:06
when your battery dies on most digitals you are dead, if you run out of film you can often stop at the next drug store and pick up some (at least where I live).
When the world runs out of AA-size batteries, then I'll worry. Nowadays they're easier to get hold of than film.

Kin Lau
11-29-2008, 16:11
Years ago a friend of mine had a new motor driver on his Nikon F and was shooting a pro baseball game. The motor drive was the latest in new technology at the time. It was the end of the ninth inning. One frame shows the batter sliding in towards home plate, and the baseball is still in the air, not quite to the catcher's mitt. The next frame shows his feet sliding in the dirt past home plate and the ball is visible in the mitt. The photographers who didn't use motors got the photo of the ball in the mitt just before the batter's feet touched home plate. The batter was out, but being locked into the timing sequence of the motor drive caused my friend to miss the shot. Ain't bursts great?

The stupid mistake was to use an untested/unfamiliar piece of equipment for a money job.

Timing the motor sequence is just like learning the shutter delay and travel required to get it right.

Change the travel on the shutter button (like adding a soft release) on any of the other cameras, and they would have missed the shot too.

It was a stupid photographer mistake.. your friend should have known better.

Keith
11-29-2008, 16:22
8 frames in one second shot at 1/1000 means that 992/1000 of that second is not photographed.


Doh! ... well just shoot it all at 1/8 ... god doesn't anyone around here have any imagination? :p

Fred Burton
11-29-2008, 16:30
I also don't get the thing about people buying then dumping digital cameras because they just couldn't keep their finger off the shutter button. Pros shot lots of film when that's all they had. It would have been stupid not to do so. Especially back when slides were the thing for magazine reproduction, most pros bracketed like hell. If your mortgage is on the line, you don't leave things to chance.

I shoot digital just like I do film. Nothing changed when I started shooting digital. I think this "film is cheap, so shoot lots of it" semi-myth is somewhat to blame. Film is cheap if you are a pro getting paid to burn it, but it is very expensive if you are an amateur who has to pay for every press of the shutter. So amateur rarely really work a subject adaquately. Digital, in fact, levels the playing field between the pros and the amateur, and enables the amateur to shoot more like the pros without extra expense.

Just like in a gunfight, if you are paying the bills with a camera, there are no second place winners.

Thardy
11-29-2008, 16:30
Who gets 300 shots on a set of batteries? My P&S gets nowhere near that many.

kuzano
11-29-2008, 16:38
Because it takes longer for a film photographer to go through 36 frames than a person machinegunning (don't they call it chimping)? through 300 frames. At least it is for me. On a 24 or 36 roll of film I try to make every shot a great one. Though I usually fail miserably, thats for another thread.

Not exactly .... "Chimping" is the practice of looking at every image right after you shoot it. The term comes from giving 1000 chimpanzees 1000 Point and Shoot digital cameras. Without fail, every one of the 1000 chimpanzees, upon learning how to use the cameras on A or P, consistently looked at every picture after pressing the shutter. So, looking at every picture upon capture puts you in the company of the 1000 "Chimp" test subjects.

Interestingly, if you place human subjects who use digital cameras in the same room with the 1000 similarly equipped chimpanzees, it soon becomes impossible to tell the humans from the chimps. The telltale is that the chimps are usually the ones that are dressed and groomed better. The chimps also know the proper use of eating utensils.

That's "chimping".

There is also the practice of purchasing each new iteration of digital camera that comes to market in the hope that it will improve one's photography.

Those people are called "chumps".

Keith
11-29-2008, 16:39
Whatever happened to that Casio wondercam that was released recently that could shoot sixty frames per second at 6 megapixels? I've read nothing about it for quite a while!

bmattock
11-29-2008, 16:40
Who gets 300 shots on a set of batteries? My P&S gets nowhere near that many.

Time to step up, then.

I try to only buy cameras that take AA batteries or their equivalent. Most of them will allow me to use AA NiMH rechargeables that have a high rating, and even better, some let me use CR-V3 LiOn rechargeables instead, which a set of two (same as 4 AA batteries) in my Pentax *ist DS nets me around 600 shots.

Suggest trying Thomas Distributing for the new hotness in stored energy.

http://www.thomas-distributing.com/index.htm

bmattock
11-29-2008, 16:47
Whatever happened to that Casio wondercam that was released recently that could shoot sixty frames per second at 6 megapixels? I've read nothing about it for quite a while!

I presume you mean the two cameras they have:

EXILIM Pro EX-F1
EXILIM EX-FH20

Both are out now. The first is faster, the second (newer) has more megapixels.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/04/04/technology/personaltech/1194817119384/casios-high-speed-camera.html

http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/10/hands-on-with-c.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_casio_exilim_pro_ex_fh20.php

I suspect they are the vangard of what is to follow. At the moment, neither camera holds much interest for me, mostly because of the high price for a small sensor - but I will follow this new experiment in digital photography with some interest - if it attracts a following, it may be copied by other manufacturers, and may become something more along the lines of what I'd think was useful for me.

It may well be useful for some applications. I can imagine sports coaches and instructors loving it for disassembling swings, throws, etc - without breaking the bank of high-end equipment and with better resolution than digicam movies.

yanidel
11-29-2008, 16:49
I presume you mean the two cameras they have:

EXILIM Pro EX-F1
EXILIM EX-FH20

Both are out now. The first is faster, the second (newer) has more megapixels.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/04/04/technology/personaltech/1194817119384/casios-high-speed-camera.html

http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/10/hands-on-with-c.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_casio_exilim_pro_ex_fh20.php

I suspect they are the vangard of what is to follow. At the moment, neither camera holds much interest for me, mostly because of the high price for a small sensor - but I will follow this new experiment in digital photography with some interest - if it attracts a following, it may be copied by other manufacturers, and may become something more along the lines of what I'd think was useful for me.

It may well be useful for some applications. I can imagine sports coaches and instructors loving it for disassembling swings, throws, etc - without breaking the bank of high-end equipment and with better resolution than digicam movies.
I already struggled to go through the around 60 shots I took today with the M8 and select the keepers (90 minutes). Imagine 60 x 60 = 3600 shots to go through ....

Al Patterson
11-29-2008, 16:51
I have shot about 400 shots on two trips with CR-V3's, and they are still running strong. Now, my first digicam would suck the life out of a set of 4 AA batteries in 35 to 40 shots, so it held no advantage over film.

bmattock
11-29-2008, 16:53
I already struggled to go through the around 60 shots I took today with the M8 and select the keepers (90 minutes). Imagine 60 x 60 = 3600 shots to go through ....

Imagine if one of them was a shot like the Zapruder film's subject. I'll bet your perspective would change.

Horses for courses, sir.

yanidel
11-29-2008, 17:00
Imagine if one of them was a shot like the Zapruder film's subject. I'll bet your perspective would change.

Horses for courses, sir.
If this is the end goal, I prefer to go buy myself a lottery ticket, the odds are surely much better. I prefer hours in the street and to miss that shot than hours in front of the computer.

Rayt
11-29-2008, 17:02
How is this different from people who complaint about battery dependent cameras when threads about mechanical shutters, i.e., M6 v M7; R6 v R7, come up? People just have to get used to carrying spare batteries. I have been out in the field with dead cameras due to my own fault.

bmattock
11-29-2008, 17:09
If this is the end goal, I prefer to go buy myself a lottery ticket, the odds are surely much better. I prefer hours in the street and to miss that shot than hours in front of the computer.

Sour grapes, says I.

Kin Lau
11-29-2008, 17:17
Who gets 300 shots on a set of batteries? My P&S gets nowhere near that many.

My Fuji F10 gets about 700 on a single charge. There's no optical VF either, so the rear LCD is on all the time.
I used only a single battery on a 1month trip across Canada and conditions ranged from 0C to 40C.

My EOS 1Dm2 does about 2000 shots on a single charge. The 20D sits in the trunk in this sub-zero temp and is fine with a single battery for weeks.

mh2000
11-29-2008, 17:19
I thought that the term "chimping" came in the early days of digital (while it still seemed magic) and newbies would look at the image after each shot and go, "ooh, ooh, ooh..." like a monkey.

mh2000
11-29-2008, 17:23
I already said that *I* wasn't complaining... technology is great, I have DSLR... and a scanner for my A/D conversions.

:)

Yeah, if the battery dies on my laptop, I'm stuck. So I guess paper is better.

Technology sucks, doesn't it? Everything about it is terrible. Maybe you'd better log off and write us a letter instead.

;)

bmattock
11-29-2008, 17:38
I already said that *I* wasn't complaining... technology is great, I have DSLR... and a scanner for my A/D conversions.

:)

I do the same, which apparently confuses and confounds the anti-digital film-snobbery crew. I shoot and process my own B&W and scan the results. I shoot digital. I take my time and shoot all manual settings on both, or I activate auto-everything and hammer away - depending on a variety of factors, including what I feel like doing at that particular moment.

The haters have a problem with this. If I like digital, I must therefore hate film. If I use film, I must therefore agree with them that digital sucks.

How dare I think for myself and use whatever I prefer in whatever manner I choose!

gb hill
11-29-2008, 18:35
Not exactly .... "Chimping" is the practice of looking at every image right after you shoot it. The term comes from giving 1000 chimpanzees 1000 Point and Shoot digital cameras. Without fail, every one of the 1000 chimpanzees, upon learning how to use the cameras on A or P, consistently looked at every picture after pressing the shutter. So, looking at every picture upon capture puts you in the company of the 1000 "Chimp" test subjects.

Interestingly, if you place human subjects who use digital cameras in the same room with the 1000 similarly equipped chimpanzees, it soon becomes impossible to tell the humans from the chimps. The telltale is that the chimps are usually the ones that are dressed and groomed better. The chimps also know the proper use of eating utensils.

That's "chimping".

There is also the practice of purchasing each new iteration of digital camera that comes to market in the hope that it will improve one's photography.

Those people are called "chumps".
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure what chimping is. Makes good sense. LOL about the chumps. That's a classic!

tbarker13
11-29-2008, 19:09
I guess I worry about it because I do like to shoot a lot when i've found a particular location/project that I'm really enjoying.
My film camera is all manual so I can shoot until I decide to stop, or until I run out of film.
With a digital camera, it may not be up to me to decide when I have to stop.

I think it's neat that some photogs go out and shoot very deliberately, keeping frames to a minimum. Neat, but not for me.
I got into the hobby through a photojournalism degree. I learned a way of shooting that works for me.
The world of photography is full of great images taken by photogs who have used both approaches. Wasn't it Winogrand who left behind (when he died) more than 2,000 unprocessed rolls of film and tens of thousands of unedited images?

bmattock
11-29-2008, 19:35
With a digital camera, it may not be up to me to decide when I have to stop.

Really. Your camera controls you? Amazing.


I think it's neat that some photogs go out and shoot very deliberately, keeping frames to a minimum. Neat, but not for me.


I agree, but I also think it is neat that photographers do what makes them happiest and don't worry about what other photographers do to make themselves happy.


I got into the hobby through a photojournalism degree. I learned a way of shooting that works for me.
The world of photography is full of great images taken by photogs who have used both approaches. Wasn't it Winogrand who left behind (when he died) more than 2,000 unprocessed rolls of film and tens of thousands of unedited images?

I've heard it was a lot more than that.

But if he had listened to the experts on RFF, he'd have been told that he 'shoots too much' and should cut down a bit.

If he had dared to shoot digital (and it had been available in his day with the quality it has today), he'd have been dismissed as a dilettante, a mere dabbler, not to be confused with a Real Photographer (tm).

I like your approach - use what works for you. That's why I switch back and forth - it all works for me in one way or another, depending on circumstances. Specialization is for insects.

Silva Lining
11-29-2008, 19:42
Specialization is for insects.

And Finches , according to Darwin :D

Al Kaplan
11-29-2008, 19:44
I need to get in the darkroom and do some developing and printing. There are about 2 dozen rolls to develop, at least twice that needing contact sheets, and a couple of pages of notebook paper listing negatives to print. Plus tha half shot rolls in five cameras! Just the thought of it is a turn-off. It surely is a good incentive to shoot less.

tbarker13
11-29-2008, 20:40
Really. Your camera controls you? Amazing.



Well, if my camera has no juice, then it sure does.:D

bmattock
11-29-2008, 20:51
Well, if my camera has no juice, then it sure does.:D

See, here's the part that everyone seems to have trouble understanding in these 'wars'.

First, I bring spare batteries. Mainly because I'm not an idiot, which I am forced to presume anyone who claims to be flat out of luck if they run out of batteries is.

I hate to point fingers or make outlandish claims, but here is a thought - if one knows one is going to be shooting a lot of photos and one fails to bring enough (batteries, film, recording media, etc) then, yes, one is a low-grade, blithering, idiot and pointing the finger of blame at the item one was too stupid to remember just makes one look even more pathetic.

Imagine if I claimed that cars were stupid because they run out of gasoline. The correct response to such a claim would be, "Fill the tank, zipperhead."

Second, spare AA batteries, which I try to make sure my cameras take, are available at far more drugstores than color print film these days. So again, not sure what kind of booger-eatin' morons cannot find AA batteries at a drugstore. "The camera dies and you can't get more batteries, so digital cameras are dumb," they cry. Apparently because they prefer wooden torches to flashlights - you just can't buy batteries, so flashlights are dumb too. I suppose they leave their cars abandoned by the side of the road when the lead-acid battery goes out after six or seven years, too.

Third, I also shoot film. Duh. Just because I pack a digital camera does not mean I don't have room for a film camera and a couple rolls of film. Imagine that, film boys. I can do both. I know it scares you, but try to calm down and imagine it.

So I guess I just don't have these awful problems that the film baboons seem to think anyone who shoots digital is doomed to.

Jason808
11-30-2008, 08:37
an EL-E3 battery and another card takes up less space in my bag (or in a ziploc bag in my pocket) than two rolls of film. I get about 800 shots out of my D80 or about 1500 out of my D70. When I first started shooting digital I realized my problems were memory, not battery. I run out of card space well before I run out of battery. I've shot sports and events and NEVER was concerned about running out of power. If I'm preparing for some shoot in the middle of nowhere and I don't have spares, or the proper equipment for such a shoot then I've either planned poorly or had a significant disaster, which may likely be a bigger deal than just not being able to shoot pictures. If I have a grip attached, I can get cards and batteries at darn near anywhere I shoot in the 'States. Even the small town drug/grocery store has cards and AA's.

These old wives' tales just don't hold water anymore unless you fail to prepare or are caught in a situation you didn't plan to be in in the first place. In that case, it's merely luck, not a fault of the technology.

40oz
11-30-2008, 09:44
I hate to be the voice of reason here, but I can look at the counter and see how many shots I have left on a roll of film, but there isn't a battery meter that can accurately predict how many shots are left.

Get back to me when you find a digital camera that doesn't need a battery at all. Until then, people are going to have good reason to gripe that their camera depends on a battery. Pretending that there is no issue is a fine self-deception, but understand that not everyone lies to themselves to justify purchases. That doesn't make them stupid - it's the other way around, IMHO.

antiquark
11-30-2008, 10:29
I've never complained about batteries, but it's disingenuous to say that you can walk into a corner store and buy batteries, or that it's trivial to carry spares.

AFAIK, every dSLR uses a specific battery pack. I have never walked into a corner store and seen a Nikon EN-EL9 battery sitting on the shelf.

And say I planned far in advance for a 20 day trip in the jungle (for example), and calculate that I'd need 10 batteries. The EN-EL9 goes for $40: does that mean I have to spend $400 on batteries? In the old days a pair of watch batteries ($10?) would last for months. (And the cost of a battery for a Nikon D3 would be much greater.)

In the old days batteries were something you could basically forget. Today, it's as important as film was back then. Maybe it's just a shell game, film's out of the picture now, but now we have to deal with batteries.

Al Kaplan
11-30-2008, 11:27
My meters (a pair of Weston Master V's) don't need batteries either.

gb hill
11-30-2008, 11:57
And yes, I have many thousands of photos in Flickr. I have my reasons for that.

Your missing the point entirely. I know people personally that will download their whole memory card on flickr. They have 8 photos in a row of the same thing. I have friends who shoot digital only speak of how crazy this is. These are the one's I'm talking about. I couldn't care less how many photos you post on flickr.

gb hill
11-30-2008, 12:05
I'll say this for digital. At least you wont ever have to worry about developing a roll of film only to find the whole roll unexposed. This happened to me yesterday with a roll of T-Max I shot in downtown Winston Salem. Now I have to figure what happened to my Yashica. Now that was something to complain about.

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 12:23
I've never complained about batteries, but it's disingenuous to say that you can walk into a corner store and buy batteries, or that it's trivial to carry spares.

AFAIK, every dSLR uses a specific battery pack. I have never walked into a corner store and seen a Nikon EN-EL9 battery sitting on the shelf.


Walgreens and Snyeder's, among others, carry some of the most common ones (usually Energizer-branded). Not to mention places like Proex and Ritz or Best Buy or Target or Wal-Mart, which are everywhere.

And say I planned far in advance for a 20 day trip in the jungle (for example), and calculate that I'd need 10 batteries. The EN-EL9 goes for $40: does that mean I have to spend $400 on batteries? In the old days a pair of watch batteries ($10?) would last for months. (And the cost of a battery for a Nikon D3 would be much greater.)


Totally, utterly ridiculous and disningenuous. As if you wouldn't have to spend far more than that on film for an equivalent number of shots.... and as if you wouldn't have generator capability.

I shoot a lot more film than digital, but this battery stuff is, as Bill put so fine a point on, just ****ing stupid. Each of those $40 batteries and a $10 1GB memory card to go with it gets you as many shots as $75 - $150 worth of film, depending on what you're shooting. It's cheaper and far less bulky, so frankly, this is again nothing but a big ****ing joke.

Now, you can legitimately talk about a reliance on camera electronics in very particular corner cases... but that's why you carry a mechanical backup. And, frankly again, a mechanical camera is a lot more likely to develope a problem (or give you blank rolls from now until kingdom come) than one that is electronic. :P. And that's a completely different discussion.

antiquark
11-30-2008, 13:00
Walgreens and Snyeder's, among others, carry some of the most common ones (usually Energizer-branded). Not to mention places like Proex and Ritz or Best Buy or Target or Wal-Mart, which are everywhere.

This may come as a shock to you, but not every place on earth is littered with Walmarts, Targets, etc.

and as if you wouldn't have generator capability.


Tell that to this guy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raul/440339137/in/set-75598/

To quote:
"[It's] hard to properly convey the feeling you get after you've been walking in the mountains for days, often totally alone."

Maybe he was feeling exhausted from lugging his generator. :)

Actually the photographer, Raul Gutierrez, likes to use a manual Nikon with film for his far flung travels. Check out his photostream, some really great stuff, esp. from Asia.

tbarker13
11-30-2008, 13:01
See, here's the part that everyone seems to have trouble understanding in these 'wars'.

First, I bring spare batteries. Mainly because I'm not an idiot, which I am forced to presume anyone who claims to be flat out of luck if they run out of batteries is.

I hate to point fingers or make outlandish claims, but here is a thought - if one knows one is going to be shooting a lot of photos and one fails to bring enough (batteries, film, recording media, etc) then, yes, one is a low-grade, blithering, idiot and pointing the finger of blame at the item one was too stupid to remember just makes one look even more pathetic.

Imagine if I claimed that cars were stupid because they run out of gasoline. The correct response to such a claim would be, "Fill the tank, zipperhead."

Second, spare AA batteries, which I try to make sure my cameras take, are available at far more drugstores than color print film these days. So again, not sure what kind of booger-eatin' morons cannot find AA batteries at a drugstore. "The camera dies and you can't get more batteries, so digital cameras are dumb," they cry. Apparently because they prefer wooden torches to flashlights - you just can't buy batteries, so flashlights are dumb too. I suppose they leave their cars abandoned by the side of the road when the lead-acid battery goes out after six or seven years, too.

Third, I also shoot film. Duh. Just because I pack a digital camera does not mean I don't have room for a film camera and a couple rolls of film. Imagine that, film boys. I can do both. I know it scares you, but try to calm down and imagine it.

So I guess I just don't have these awful problems that the film baboons seem to think anyone who shoots digital is doomed to.

Yeah, my M8 loves it when I shove AA batteries inside it.
Frankly, I don't get the "war" comment. Is there really someone out there who's getting worked up over this?

I do enjoy your rather simplistic view: "If you run out of something you need, you are an idiot."
But there is such a thing in life as "the unexpected." Now maybe you carry every piece of gear you own at all times. I don't. I carry what I think I will need, plus a little extra. And 99 percent of the time, that's more than enough.

The reality for me is this: My M8 is always going to be more vulnerable than my M4. It's just easier to find a roll of film (especially if you are not picky about the type) than it is to find a fresh battery for an M8.
Not a complaint. Just a fact that I deal with.

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 13:10
This may come as a shock to you, but not every place on earth is littered with Walmarts, Targets, etc.


The point is, if you can find a place to get film, the chances that you truly can't find a place to either buy or recharge a battery is essentially zero. Zero. I'm not sure how anyone can seriously debate this.


Actually the photographer, Raul Gutierrez, likes to use a manual Nikon with film for his far flung travels. Check out his photostream, some really great stuff, esp. from Asia.

That's fine. It's his preference. It would be mine too. But this argument-from-authority attempt doesn't change the fact that spare batteries and memory cards are cheaper, smaller, lighter, and less susceptible to "problems" than film. Them's the facts, jack.

Tuolumne
11-30-2008, 13:26
I don't understand these references to the hypothetical trek across nowhere. How many digital camera owners will ever take such a trek? How many people who have posted here will ever take such a trek? Yes, you can concoct hypothetical situations where one might be legitimately concerned about digital camera batteries, but they are fanciful hypotheses. The complaint about digital camera batteries is a common one here. How many of the worriers are actually ever going to trek across nowhere? The concern seems overblown to the point of just being a convenient reason to state why one doesn't like digital. But instead of just saying "I don't like digital", it seems necessary to rationalize the dislike with a reason that just doesn't hold water.

/T

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 13:41
Are you that much of an insecure child that you have to resort to disguised profanity to make your point and insult others?

The board software disguises it. It's out of my hands, friend.

And when something is beyond normal stupid, then it needs to be described as such. You'll notice that, unlike you, I referred specifically to arguments, not people. Thanks for showing who you are, though.

Now, do you have a relevant counterpoint or are you just relying on your piety in the face of naughty words in lieu of an actual argument?

antiquark
11-30-2008, 13:47
And when something is beyond normal stupid, then it needs to be described as such. You'll notice that, unlike you, I referred specifically to arguments, not people.

Hey, I'm not the one who claimed you can find Walmarts and generators at any place on Earth! :D

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 13:52
Hey, I'm not the one who claimed you can find Walmarts and generators at any place on Earth! :D

Hey, I didn't either. I just claimed that you can find them if you can find a place to buy film. ;)

Keith
11-30-2008, 14:36
Just for something different ... and may the Leica gods strike me down for doing so ... but I bought a couple of M8 batteries off ebay for around $20.00 including post. No need to ask where they're made.

They seem to be good for around 50-100 less actuations than the genuine item and their standby time is not quite as good but so far they've given me no trouble.

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 14:44
Just for something different ... and may the Leica gods strike me down for doing so ... but I bought a couple of M8 batteries off ebay for around $20.00 including post. No need to ask where they're made.

They seem to be good for around 50-100 less actuations than the genuine item and their standby time is not quite as good but so far they've given me no trouble.

I have mouthfuls of those things for my pocket Canon digicam. After a couple years their ability to hold a charge falls off much faster than the Canon ones, but, when they cost less than 1/4 as much the economics are pretty simple. If I needed to power this camera for ten years, that'd be one thing... but I don't, so.

Keith
11-30-2008, 15:23
Oh, so you type out the complete expletive, wonderful! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? All that aside, I'm glad we have you to decide when we're being "beyond normal stupid". Just amazing how some internet punks can be so bold from behind a keyboard.... goodbye



Wow ... we heard that ****ing door slamming here in Oz! :p

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 15:23
Oh, so you type out the complete expletive, wonderful! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? All that aside, I'm glad we have you to decide when we're being "beyond normal stupid". Just amazing how some internet punks can be so bold from behind a keyboard.... goodbye

Maybe it's just because I'm a punk, but I couldn't find any salient rebuttal in this one either. Goodbye, indeed (I imagine you were stomping and crossing your arms when you typed that).

Keith
11-30-2008, 15:26
That's what I really like about this place ... we can argue about anything! :p

Gumby
11-30-2008, 15:31
That's what I really like about this place ... we can argue about anthing! :p

No we can't. I don't agree with you. :D

climbing_vine
11-30-2008, 15:39
No we can't. I don't agree with you. :D

That's mighty combative for a guy made out of green putty, lacking a spinal column. ;)

Gumby
11-30-2008, 15:44
Clay... not putty!

Keith
11-30-2008, 15:46
Well ... modeling clay actually. Get it right please!