Megapixel wars?

[Rex914]

Not to rain in on the flood of new cameras, but I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed so far at what's been announced. It looks like the megapixel wars are here to stay. Every manufacturer except for one has announced a compact 3x zoom 6/7 megapixel model or something along those lines. What does this prove? The consumers lose out and get suckered into buying a higher megapixel model instead of a lower one that actually takes BETTER pictures and has better features. What do you think?

[Duke]

I agree. A lot of the time with my A75 I am taking photos of buildings at 640x480 to post on an internet skyscraper forum. I've got much more need for extra optical zoom than for extra megapixels. I'm sure that the majority of pictures taken never get out of the electronic medium so what is the need for 7MP?

[dwig]

yeah, but my car has more horespower than yours ...


... Just as hp is not a measure of the usability or even performance of a vehicle, an increase in MP will not automatically make better pictures. There is value in having more resolution than you need. Quality holds up better when you edit if you edit at a higher than final resolution and downsample as a last step.

IMHO, the race is quite justified up through 4-5mp. Going to 7-8mp for advanced users seems justifiable, but most average users will never gain from such increased resolution and will only be burdened by the larger data files.

[print-digital]

I agree as well, just because I have a Pentium 4 and yours has Pentium 3, it does not mean that my PC will be any better than yours in the long run - it could fall down in several other areas such as memory or storage space.

An increase in MP alone will not make a great camera, it needs to have a host of other features to complement the large increase! Its just a question of educating the general public who at the end of the day drive demand for these megapixel monsters with out knowing the reason why.

[Rhys]

Most people would be happy with a 1.3mp image as most never print to more than 6x4. I've seen people nipping into Boots with their digital camera, popping the card into Boots machine, printing all their photos and then formatting the card. And they have the latest 6 megapixel camera. All they're doing is 6x4s!

It's very much a case of advertisers convincing people they need more than they really do.

I standardised on 3 megapixels. 3 will do me an A4 print very nicely; an A3 at a pinch. In fact, I might just take a memory card with a nice photo to Staples to have it printed to A3 or bigger just to see what the difference is.

[Digideb]

I'm surprised at how many digicam users don't print pix. That's my favorite thing to do & I find 2- 5x7s fit nicely on one page when I use my "Photo Wizard" for printing.
Although my little Olympus has 6 MPs I didn't choose it for that reason. I had already read that's not a good reason to select a camera. I chose my camera mainly for size, sturdiness & outdoor shots, especially super macro. The C-60 had the best macro capabilities of all compacts (I could afford) & I've been able to make some nice prints. I also like to email pix, but achieving a nice quality print is the ultimate result for me.
Only problem now is, I'm lusting after the new, nicer printers! :)

[Rhys]

I'm surprised at how many digicam users don't print pix. That's my favorite thing to do & I find 2- 5x7s fit nicely on one page when I use my "Photo Wizard" for printing.
Although my little Olympus has 6 MPs I didn't choose it for that reason. I had already read that's not a good reason to select a camera. I chose my camera mainly for size, sturdiness & outdoor shots, especially super macro. The C-60 had the best macro capabilities of all compacts (I could afford) & I've been able to make some nice prints. I also like to email pix, but achieving a nice quality print is the ultimate result for me.
Only problem now is, I'm lusting after the new, nicer printers! :)

Many 35mm photographers never printed their photos - they did transparancies instead, which they'd then project at slide shows.

I don't print many pictures. I don't see why I should waste storage space on paper prints (which are expensive) when I can view them on my PC and can even email them to friends.

[Digideb]

I guess I must be an oddball in digicam world. As an average camera user, I wasted so much film & developing costs getting snapshots the "old fashioned way"(with lots of "duds"), it's a thrill to select & print a desired image all on my own.
As hard as it is to believe, I actually still have friends & family that don't have a computer. Even my online friends have been so impressed with my "glossies" I've "snail mailed" them, that they consider them suitable for framing. (despite my objections) :o
In fact, it was the direct connection from taking the picture to the final print that really sparked my interest in digital photography. :D

[Rhys]

I guess I must be an oddball in digicam world. As an average camera user, I wasted so much film & developing costs getting snapshots the "old fashioned way"(with lots of "duds"), it's a thrill to select & print a desired image all on my own.
As hard as it is to believe, I actually still have friends & family that don't have a computer. Even my online friends have been so impressed with my "glossies" I've "snail mailed" them, that they consider them suitable for framing. (despite my objections) :o
In fact, it was the direct connection from taking the picture to the final print that really sparked my interest in digital photography. :D

Yes. You prune out from the photos you take, those that you really want to print. I take the process a stage further - I print out only the really spectacular photos. The rest are simply saved on disk.

I used to do all my own D&P with colour, black and white, infrared and slide films. I find the advantage with digital is in not having to use chemicals and the fact it's an instant medium.

[EAP]

I don't print photos much any more at all. I have my computer set to use a certain photo file as my screensaver. I put my favorite pictures in that file, especially at work. I love it when, during meetings in my office, people get totally distracted by the photos cycling through on my screensaver. Or I'll be doing paperwork and look up to see a favorite photo on my computer screen. I get to briefly daydream about where I was when the picture was taken. :) I also like to email photos to friends, and just joined an online hosting service (smugmug.com). I agree that megapixels are overrated for those of us who are not experts. I'd MUCH rather see a 3-5 MP camera with more than 4x optical zoom, rather than a 7 MP camera with only 3x optical zoom.

[Digideb]

Yes. You prune out from the photos you take, those that you really want to print. I take the process a stage further - I print out only the really spectacular photos. The rest are simply saved on disk.

I used to do all my own D&P with colour, black and white, infrared and slide films. I find the advantage with digital is in not having to use chemicals and the fact it's an instant medium.
I've heard some people claim that digital photography is cleaner for the environment due to the elimination of developing chemicals,etc. but I'm wondering if research has been done on this issue & whether manufacturing/disposibility have been factored into the equation.
Because of the cost of paper, ink,etc. I only select the best pix for printing,also.

[Geoff Chandler]

I think the priority should be lens quality first.
Then after that, depending on the user, what it does and then Megapixals.
Having said that - My 3MP camera is great for 90% of what I do - but sometimes I want to look at a small portion of a picture - but it's a bit too pixalated. When I have looked at some of the comparison sites and done the same on a test photo I find that it would be worth me getting a 5+mp camera for those occasions. Having bought it I would probabaly use it at 3-5MP most of the time. The trick will be knowing when I see a shot that will be better for me at 7mp.
Reasons for NOT using 7(or more) MP all the time:- Holidays, conservation of card space - and NO it isn't cheap in England! (esp XD cards). It can be a waste to use 7MP for a close up of a reletively large subject - where 3mp would be fine.
Do many people think like me??
Geoff

[Rhys]

I've heard some people claim that digital photography is cleaner for the environment due to the elimination of developing chemicals,etc. but I'm wondering if research has been done on this issue & whether manufacturing/disposibility have been factored into the equation.
Because of the cost of paper, ink,etc. I only select the best pix for printing,also.

With digital I get the feeling that more cameras are made and thrown away due to the fact that they're constantly upgraded - just like mobile phones. Look at the waste there!

35mm film puts some nasty chemicals out but they're mostly bottled and recycled by commercial companies who extract the silver. That's the chemicals from the highstreet processing labs anyway. I'd say we probably use more electricity with digital photography. 35mm was pretty well electricity free until AF came along so we have loads of electricity generating capacity going toward running digital cameras.

On balance, I'd say digital is probably just as bad for the environment as 35mm but in a different way.

[Rex914]

Have you guys also noticed that a lot of the new cameras have crept back up from semi-wide-angle to 38mm or even worse? I also notice that the higher megapixel cameras tend to stray towards 39-40mm starting length.

Not to pick on Nikon, but it's a perfect example.

Check the new X600 series (where x is 4, 5, or 7).

4MP - F2.9-4.9, 34 - 102 mm
5MP - F2.9-4.9, 35 - 105 mm
7MP - F2.9-4.9, 38 - 114 mm

Just food for thought.

[dwig]

Have you guys also noticed that a lot of the new cameras have crept back up from semi-wide-angle to 38mm or even worse? I also notice that the higher megapixel cameras tend to stray towards 39-40mm starting length.

Not to pick on Nikon, but it's a perfect example.

Check the new X600 series (where x is 4, 5, or 7).

4MP - F2.9-4.9, 34 - 102 mm
5MP - F2.9-4.9, 35 - 105 mm
7MP - F2.9-4.9, 38 - 114 mm

Just food for thought.

Yeah, thats why my current shopping list is down to one camera (CP8400, the only one that starts at 24mm equiv) with a couple of also-rans that start at around 28mm equiv. I've used a Nikon WA attachment on my elderly CP950 for long enough and I want to get away from the need for the extra "lens".

BTW, I believe that the 3 models you list actually have the exact same lens, the differences in 35mm equivalents come from the varying chip sizes with the higher resolution chips actually being smaller.

[Rex914]

Yah, now would probably be the best time to jump at an 8400 with the $100 rebate going on.

Hmm, 2 are the same but the 7MP is quite a bit different. But that's another thing that's disturbing. The more pixels they pack into smaller spaces, the noiser the images get. I rather have the clean picture from the 4-5 MP models than something noisy from a 7-8 MP model. That's one (small) factor that prompted me to go DSLR rather than settling for a top of the line all-in-one.

[PeteD]

The 8400 looks lovely, and all that, but at a high price!!

I like my little Caplio, which has 28-85 mm equivalent, I believe, and only cost me about 220 dollars. There is another in the range that does 28-105.

[dwig]

The 8400 looks lovely, and all that, but at a high price!!

I like my little Caplio, which has 28-85 mm equivalent, I believe, and only cost me about 220 dollars. There is another in the range that does 28-105.

Sort of. The Nikon CP5400 is 28-116 equiv and currently has a $200 rebate (in the US). Given the current street prices, the net ends up in the $220-250 range. Its 5mp sensor is about 50% larger than the 8mp sensor in the cp8400, by diagonal measure.

While its true that the smaller the individual CCD cells (not the whole chip, but the individual 1pixel cells) the higher the noise, given the same chip technology. I wonder which gives better sharpness, a 5mp image from a camera with a relatively large chip, or an 8mp image post-processed to reduce the noice to the same level as the 5mp image. The only really fair comparision would be to bypass the in-camera noise reduction by shooting RAW images and use the same RAW-TIFF conversion software and same noise reduction software. Reduce the 5mp image minimally, reduce the noice in the 8mp to match and compare the results for sharpness.

[D70FAN]

Sort of. The Nikon CP5400 is 28-116 equiv and currently has a $200 rebate (in the US). Given the current street prices, the net ends up in the $220-250 range. Its 5mp sensor is about 50% larger than the 8mp sensor in the cp8400, by diagonal measure.

While its true that the smaller the individual CCD cells (not the whole chip, but the individual 1pixel cells) the higher the noise, given the same chip technology. I wonder which gives better sharpness, a 5mp image from a camera with a relatively large chip, or an 8mp image post-processed to reduce the noice to the same level as the 5mp image. The only really fair comparision would be to bypass the in-camera noise reduction by shooting RAW images and use the same RAW-TIFF conversion software and same noise reduction software. Reduce the 5mp image minimally, reduce the noice in the 8mp to match and compare the results for sharpness.

You would also have to configure/design the anti-aliasing filters and lenses exactly the same as well, as these factors have as much or more impact on sharpness and contrast.

A well designed digital camera is much more than just a sensor.

[Rex914]

This is the pinnacle of Megapixel mania.

http://www.pma-show.com/concord/CONCORD_EASYSHOT_8MP.jpg

The Concord EasyShot 820z features a super-sharp 8 Megapixel CCD sensor, 3X zoom and large 2.4-inch color LCD for $250.

Uh, yes. We all remember what happened when they stuck a 5 Megapixel sensor into their camera and sold it for $150. Took pictures worse than a budget 2 Megapixel camera from 4 years ago. Not to mention that this looks like a red eye machine.

[ProblemSolver]

How about the best of both worlds? 10x zoom and 4 MP OR 3x zoom and 7 MP

OR HOW ABOUT.....

10x zoom AND 7MP??

[ReF]

while these megapixel wars are bad for most consumers, at least it drives down the cost for those of us who buy high resolution cameras because we feel the need for the extra Mp's. there probably will also be less instances where people say "i wish there was a bit more detail here." i might be imagining things but it seems that high resolution/small chip images are actually getting a little cleaner. the G6 for example seems to have noise under control. this seems to be happening pretty slowly though.
one final thought, for those of use who take multiple panoramic shots simply to increase resolution and detail of the final image, wouldn't it be great when the day comes when cameras have so much resolution that all we need to do is take one wide shot?

[Jredtugboat]

I've heard some people claim that digital photography is cleaner for the environment due to the elimination of developing chemicals,etc. but I'm wondering if research has been done on this issue & whether manufacturing/disposibility have been factored into the equation.
Because of the cost of paper, ink,etc. I only select the best pix for printing,also.

This is a whole product life cycle analysis. Rhys might well be right that the product life cycle of any given digital P&S is quite a bit shorter than its film counterpart.

On the other hand, to be fair, you'd have to count in all the manufacturing and disposability issues with the film camera's film as well as the camera itself. Over time, I can't imagine who would win in the better-for-the-environment war.

[Rhys]

This is a whole product life cycle analysis. Rhys might well be right that the product life cycle of any given digital P&S is quite a bit shorter than its film counterpart.

On the other hand, to be fair, you'd have to count in all the manufacturing and disposability issues with the film camera's film as well as the camera itself. Over time, I can't imagine who would win in the better-for-the-environment war.

Let's look at the factors:
Film cameras:
Longer life in general
Use of batteries - containing lithium, cadmium, sodium hydroxide etc
Use of film, hence paper (containing cadmium), chemicals.
Disposable cameras as well, containing PCBs etc.

Typical use: a 35mm camera user will keep the same camera for 10 years or more and will go through maybe 20 rolls of film per year.

Digital cameras:
Shorter life before replacement.
Much use of electricity from rechargable batteries - does the electricity come from a sustainable resource?
More and different memory cards needed almost every time the camera is upgraded.
Use of CDs/DVDs when archiving. Replacement copies of CDs/DVDs every few years.
Loads of electricity used, running computers to view the photos.

It seems to me that there's more waste in terms of redundant digital cameras than with 35mm cameras, given that they don't have a long product-life cycle and given that they don't generally last more than about 3 years in general use.

I'm more of the opinion that film presents less of a threat to the environment because of lower usage and because it's more the chemicals that are disposed of than the plastics.

[Rex914]

Correct me I'm mistaken, but you're assuming that digital cameras simply die on average after 3 years and that they get thrown into the trash? And that's assuming that the camera simply turns inoperable which is a minority of cases.

If it doesn't die, I don't think the average person would toss the camera. There's something called stowing it away as a backup. People don't toss old things unless it's a huge bulky computer. Cameras take up no room at all, so there's no incentive to toss one simply because it's outdated.

[Rhys]

Correct me I'm mistaken, but you're assuming that digital cameras simply die on average after 3 years and that they get thrown into the trash? And that's assuming that the camera simply turns inoperable which is a minority of cases.

If it doesn't die, I don't think the average person would toss the camera. There's something called stowing it away as a backup. People don't toss old things unless it's a huge bulky computer. Cameras take up no room at all, so there's no incentive to toss one simply because it's outdated.

A lot of people - oddly enough - toss things out when they get the latest version.

[gary_hendricks]

Not to rain in on the flood of new cameras, but I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed so far at what's been announced. It looks like the megapixel wars are here to stay. Every manufacturer except for one has announced a compact 3x zoom 6/7 megapixel model or something along those lines. What does this prove? The consumers lose out and get suckered into buying a higher megapixel model instead of a lower one that actually takes BETTER pictures and has better features. What do you think?

I agree. I was speaking to a friend that day, who went 'Your camera is 5 megapixels? Wow it must be high-end and very good'. Megapixels are not the measure of how good a camera is.

But the manufacturers are deluding the public into thinking that's the case! :mad:

[Jredtugboat]

Let's look at the factors:
Film cameras:
Longer life in general
Use of batteries - containing lithium, cadmium, sodium hydroxide etc
Use of film, hence paper (containing cadmium), chemicals.
Disposable cameras as well, containing PCBs etc.

Typical use: a 35mm camera user will keep the same camera for 10 years or more and will go through maybe 20 rolls of film per year.

Digital cameras:
Shorter life before replacement.
Much use of electricity from rechargable batteries - does the electricity come from a sustainable resource?
More and different memory cards needed almost every time the camera is upgraded.
Use of CDs/DVDs when archiving. Replacement copies of CDs/DVDs every few years.
Loads of electricity used, running computers to view the photos.

It seems to me that there's more waste in terms of redundant digital cameras than with 35mm cameras, given that they don't have a long product-life cycle and given that they don't generally last more than about 3 years in general use.

I'm more of the opinion that film presents less of a threat to the environment because of lower usage and because it's more the chemicals that are disposed of than the plastics.

I don't believe that you can make the blanket statement that film cameras have a longer life "in general". If we are talking about the MTBF of film cameras versus digital, then you need to provide the stats (because I certainly don't have any, but I'm not making any claims with respect to that).

The question we are examining here is,

"Over the life cycle of a given digital camera versus an equivalent film camera, whose environmental footprint will be larger?"

Factoring in the consumer's willingness to change/upgrade is an extrinsic factor that has nothing to do with the life cycle footprint of any given camera--film or otherwise.

Therefore, I take issue with your following claims:

"Film cameras: Longer life in general"
"Digital cameras: Shorter life before replacement."

For the reasons cited above.

Further, I believe the argument can be made that processing and printing digital camera photos results in a smaller footprint based on the fact that the consumer is a good deal more likely to pick-and-choose which photos are processed. Conversely, the typical film consumer does not print contact sheets and make processing and printing decisions based on the "pick of the litter" that you and I can when processing and printing our digital photos. (I don't have data on that, but I'm sure that the stats are readily available--just count the pct. of consumers that print contact sheets versus those who do not--someone out there must keep track of these stats.)

Similarly, your point that

"More and different memory cards needed almost every time the camera is upgraded."

smacks of a canard--more and different film is used every time a film camera is "upgraded". You could also make the claim that my recent purchase of a Lexar 80x 512mb card is an upgrade not limited to my G2; indeed, I bought it with my future dSLR purchase in mind. Whereas, using Velvia versus store-branded film represents a one-time only "upgrade".

As far as computer usage goes, I think your analysis would be made more complex by the fact that the average computer is on for x hours a day and would be on anyway for a y percentage of that time when devoted to viewing, storing, and backing up photos. Please note, this is a complete supposition on my part--I have no access to data that supports the idea that a computer used to view, process, and store photos would likely be on anyway for other tasks such as listening to music or browsing the world wide web.

Finally, your analysis would be more complete if you included

"Much use of electricity from rechargable batteries - does the electricity come from a sustainable resource?"

in the "film camera" column as well. Surely, just as there are digital shooters who buy single-use batteries, there are film shooters who buy rechargeable batteries in lieu of single-use batteries.

[ReF]

A lot of people - oddly enough - toss things out when they get the latest version.

yup - the worst part is when people toss out perfectly good and sometimes expensive products whether it be electronics or furniture when they could very VERY easily give it to a less fortunate person that they know or donate it to a charitable cause. instead they add it to our already gigantic mounds of trash. sad as it is to say it, but A LOT of people just don't use their brains!

[Jredtugboat]

Correct me I'm mistaken, but you're assuming that digital cameras simply die on average after 3 years and that they get thrown into the trash? And that's assuming that the camera simply turns inoperable which is a minority of cases.

If it doesn't die, I don't think the average person would toss the camera. There's something called stowing it away as a backup. People don't toss old things unless it's a huge bulky computer. Cameras take up no room at all, so there's no incentive to toss one simply because it's outdated.

I think you're absolutely right. I have a collection of used cell phones that illustrates your point exactly: five cell phones from over seven years' use, that on occasion I have had to dragoon into service when the latest one packed up on me.

Certainly, when I stop using the G2 it's going to a worthy cause, such as a digital newcomer like my sister, or my dad. As you say, it takes up very little room and will be good for years to come...

[Jredtugboat]

yup - the worst part is when people toss out perfectly good and sometimes expensive products whether it be electronics or furniture when they could very VERY easily give it to a less fortunate person that they know or donate it to a charitable cause. instead they add it to our already gigantic mounds of trash. sad as it is to say it, but A LOT of people just don't use their brains!

Sad, but true. However, peoples' ignorance or unwillingness to donate is an extrinsic consideration in our examination of the environmental footprint of a given camera's production and use.

[Jredtugboat]

I agree. I was speaking to a friend that day, who went 'Your camera is 5 megapixels? Wow it must be high-end and very good'. Megapixels are not the measure of how good a camera is.

But the manufacturers are deluding the public into thinking that's the case! :mad:

This is a good example of what I refer to as "Star Trek accounting": in any given episode, the narrative line is driven by reference to some easy-to-understand quantification ("Captain! Shields down to 37%!")

What is harder to judge with respect to a camera's worth are things like its optical quality, dynamic range, buffer speed, tonal fidelity, burst rate, et cetera.

Manufacturers have instead decided to concentrate (in the consumer market, at any rate) on "megapixels" as it is, like the Star Trek scenario, one easy-to-remember quantification that suggests quality. Sad, but true.

My G2 shoots at 4 effective MP and is just great at everything I need it for--printing up to 8 x 10. I could even go larger than that, except that my printer cannot handle, and interests do not lie in, printing anything larger.

[Samuel Lo]

I think you're absolutely right. I have a collection of used cell phones that illustrates your point exactly: five cell phones from over seven years' use, that on occasion I have had to dragoon into service when the latest one packed up on me.

Yes, you still keep them and finally? They are in the drawer for years and finally all are gone. (to trash?)

[QUOTE=ReF]yup - the worst part is when people toss out perfectly good and sometimes expensive products whether it be electronics or furniture when they could very VERY easily give it to a less fortunate person that they know or donate it to a charitable cause. instead they add it to our already gigantic mounds of trash. sad as it is to say it, but A LOT of people just don't use their brains!

Can we have a campaign that collecting our "outdated" Digital cam and donate to our nearby charity body or schools before you store them for years?

[ReF]

the way i see it, it comes down to too many factors

Film: chemicals to develop film and prints, energy consumption in making film, film canisters, and disposable camera bodies, waste from film canisters and disposable bodies (or are these recycled???)

Digital: material and energy to produce tons of new camera bodies each year (who knows what happens to older, out of date digital cameras?), energy use associated with rechargeable batteries and being on the computer doing something related to digital photos, lots more extra one-time-use batteries going in the trash from those who don't use rechargeables, digital cameras consume more energy than film cameras (think about how long batteries last in a film camera vs digital), material in LCD screens is bad for the enviroment(?) when it reaches the landfills(not completely sure, but in California there is now a tax/diposal fee when you purchase an LCD monitor. there wouldn't be such a tax if these material aren't harmful to the enviroment, right?)

we really don't know for sure which causes more waste/pollution. just how bad for the enviroment are those film and print developing chemicals? again, none of us are sure. there probably are a lot more factors that i didn't think of.

i don't really think it's a matter of how much waste/pollution/enviromental impact a particular format produces in the life cycle of a camera, but rather how much waste/pollution/enviromental impact is caused by each format as a whole in a year, or what ever time span you prefer.

[Rhys]

Sad, but true. However, peoples' ignorance or unwillingness to donate is an extrinsic consideration in our examination of the environmental footprint of a given camera's production and use.

It depends. It can be hard to find somebody who needs/wants something when one wants to get rid of it.

I've dumped a ton of stuff down charity shops recently. Having said that, the charity shops don't have a clue when dealing with electronics/electrics and just toss them in the trash as well as toy guns etc (toy guns are very non PC in Britain at the moment, which is a shame because aside from denying children the cowboys & injuns games it means that people don't have the ability to recognise when somebody's trying to hold up a shop/bank with a water pistol/cap gun etc).

I did dump a laptop in the trash, I'll have to admit that. It had stopped working and after removing the hard drive and trying to sell it as parts for a couple of months. I rapidly tired of being insulted by the kind of good-for-nothings that think everything should be free and given to them. In the end, though it could possibly have been got working again, I tossed it into the trash.

My friend in Brussels posted his camera to me after it broke - just in case I could fix it. After reassembling it, I found that some of the lens mechanism was missing. He suggested I sold it on ebay but it's so much easier to toss it in the trash than to waste money advertising something nobody will buy and then tossing it in the trash, having paid for advertising.

I agree that some things can be sold or donated but the vast majority of things are better tossed in the trash.

[Jredtugboat]

It depends. It can be hard to find somebody who needs/wants something when one wants to get rid of it.

I don't think it depends--if you're trying to figure out 'How many units of pollution did it cost to create this thing, ship it, use it, and process its images over its lifecycle?' then whether or not I throw it in the trash after a year or 8 years isn't an a consideration intrinsic to that question, it's extrinsic.

I should point out that it's not totally useless to think about whether or not I'm likely to throw it out after 1 or 8 years, but I don't think it adds much to the quantifiable debate, for the reason that I don't think that anybody has very reliable data on how long the camera is kept and used before being thrown out--whether it's film or digital.

On the other hand, I think a lot of data must reside out there, with the manufacturers themselves, on how much each given camera actually pollutes throughout its manufacturing cycle. After all, they are created in factories which are audited both internally and externally.

Mr. Lo's query as to whether or not we, as photographers, could collect these cameras, for isn't such a bad one.

I'm a 5th grade teacher in Brooklyn, and have introduced students to photography through my own stuff, books, and BBC's "Picture of the week" section on its website. I'm considering hacking around trying to find people who'd like to send us their old 1-2-3MP point and shoots for classroom use....hmmm....maybe (I take it you like in the UK) that could be something worthwhile on your end too, eh?

I should say, despite my disagreement on the terms of your argument, I do share with you the revulsion of seeing so many perfectly good electronics going into the back closet or the trash, never to be used again, because of someone's conception of the unit's "obsolescence".

[Jredtugboat]

the way i see it, it comes down to too many factors

Film: chemicals to develop film and prints, energy consumption in making film, film canisters, and disposable camera bodies, waste from film canisters and disposable bodies (or are these recycled???)

Digital: material and energy to produce tons of new camera bodies each year (who knows what happens to older, out of date digital cameras?), energy use associated with rechargeable batteries and being on the computer doing something related to digital photos, lots more extra one-time-use batteries going in the trash from those who don't use rechargeables, digital cameras consume more energy than film cameras (think about how long batteries last in a film camera vs digital), material in LCD screens is bad for the enviroment(?) when it reaches the landfills(not completely sure, but in California there is now a tax/diposal fee when you purchase an LCD monitor. there wouldn't be such a tax if these material aren't harmful to the enviroment, right?)

we really don't know for sure which causes more waste/pollution. just how bad for the enviroment are those film and print developing chemicals? again, none of us are sure. there probably are a lot more factors that i didn't think of.

i don't really think it's a matter of how much waste/pollution/enviromental impact a particular format produces in the life cycle of a camera, but rather how much waste/pollution/enviromental impact is caused by each format as a whole in a year, or what ever time span you prefer.

I agree with you that we probably don't really know how much pollution units are created as there are so many factors.

For example, some more forward-thinking "Green" analyses tend to focus on the pollution that the unit will cause over its lifecycle, rather than some delimited (and arbitrary) unit of time, like a quarter, a year, or a decade. So, if you will, this is the "whatever time span [I] prefer"--at some point, we have to make a decision about which metric we're going to use when analysing these things, and this is mine.

Further factored into these analyses are things like promotion costs--from air time on television to inking and printers' costs for traditional media adverts. Both film and digital cameras have to be evaluated on an equal basis here, as both consume their share of consumables in their promotion (as well as their construction and shipping).

If you think about it that way, the chain of pollution stretches back to the moment the Thing is thought of, and gets staggering rather quickly.