Newbie

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Born Loser, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. Born Loser

    Born Loser Guest

    Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
    help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
    about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
    of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
    765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
    lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765
    appeals to me. However, after reading and surfin' numerous
    publications and web sites, including (but certainly not limited to)
    Pop Photo, Consumer Reports, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, I have
    come to the following conclusion. This is where I hope you guys can
    set me straight.

    HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
    CAMERAS for the following reasons:

    NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
    abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
    MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
    levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
    need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100) . Less than
    accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
    these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?

    PERFORMANCE: Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
    camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
    performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
    and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
    sure it really isn't). The speed with which photos can be taken with
    digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.

    RESOLUTION: I understand that one cannot make a direct comparison
    between digital and 35mm cameras in terms of resolution. I have read
    a source that did just that claiming that 35mm camera's (as a group)
    have a 30 MP equivelant. Although the difference between 30 MP and 4,
    5, or 8 MP's may not (due to mathematics and technology) literally
    translate into 4, 6 or 8 times the resolution, the difference has to
    count towards quality in some way.

    QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
    scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
    updated 8 MP's?

    I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and hope to
    post more once I get off the ground with digital
    Born Loser, Aug 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Born Loser

    Charlie Self Guest

    Born Loser asks:

    >
    >HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
    >CAMERAS for the following reasons:


    Your basic hypothesis is wrong. SOME digitals do perform as well as comparable
    35mm cameras.

    >NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
    >abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
    >MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
    >levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
    >need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100)


    Depends. Noise levels are not necessarily unacceptable above 100 ISO...my
    Pentax has a low ISO equiv. of 200, shoots cleanly at 400, and hasn't been
    tried above that. But it's an SLR.

    > Less than
    >accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
    >these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?


    No.

    >Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
    >camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
    >performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
    >and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
    >sure it really isn't).


    Yeah, every non-DSLR I've used seems to have some shutter lag, a lag that
    almost seems to depend on camera cost. More expensive cameras have less lag.
    EVFs do blank out for a long time--it doesn't just seem long, but, IMHO, after
    going back to SLR viewfinders from several EVFs, EVFs in their current state
    suck.

    >The speed with which photos can be taken with
    >digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.


    With non-SLRs, yup.

    >So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    >observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    >the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    >that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    >in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    >camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    >to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    >or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    >distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.?


    Yeah, you're wrong to believe that. Shoot at 200 and produce acceptable photos.
    Shoot at 400 and find most acceptable.

    And a lot depends on the non-SLR camera you select. You will be limited in
    frames per minute, but you'll also have a long lens and a nearly wide lens and
    a lot of good response and photography...check out some real photo sites for
    proof.

    Charlie Self
    "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
    Devil's Dictionary
    Charlie Self, Aug 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Born Loser

    Jim Guest

    "Born Loser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello rec.photo.digital. members.
    > QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    > observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    > the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    > that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    > in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    > camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    > to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    > or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    > distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
    > scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
    > updated 8 MP's?

    The actual photos that I obtain with my Nikon D70 compare quite favorably
    with those from my Nikon N90s. There is no difference in speed between the
    two cameras. The minimum ISO for the D70 is 200.

    As for printing, I seldom make prints smaller than 8x10. If there is a
    difference between those made with the D70 and those made with the N90s, I
    can't see it.

    Perhaps those reviews were discussing the cameras which use the very small
    sensors. From what little I have read, those cameras are afflicted with
    sensor noise and less than satisfactory optics. I have only used a Nikon
    Coopix 800 which is OK for prints about 4x6 or 5x7.
    Jim
    Jim, Aug 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Born Loser

    RustY © Guest

    "Born Loser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm

    CAMERAS for the following reasons:

    My observations are............

    NOISE: Is the same as Film I would say 400ASA Film is quite noisy but only
    about the same as my DSLR set to 400ASA - Though if I'm set to 400 ASA it's
    either persisting it down or about to start so the pics aren't too great
    anyway.

    PERFORMANCE: Again, is the same - though I only manage about 3 frames per
    second on continuous.

    RESOLUTION: - Just look at the prints - I doubt if you can spot the
    difference between film and digi - and if you did you'd probably prefer the
    digis.
    RustY ©, Aug 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Born Loser

    Big Bill Guest

    On 16 Aug 2004 08:02:59 -0700,
    (Born Loser) wrote:

    >QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    >observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    >the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    >that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    >in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    >camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    >to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    >or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    >distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
    >scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
    >updated 8 MP's?



    You seem to be comparing the current crop of point 'n shoot cameras
    with the best 35mm cameras available. You shuldn't do that.
    Instead, you should be comparing the current cameras with what you
    want.
    What is, exactly, 35mm quality? Is it what someone with $15,000
    dollars of equipment gets, or what the neighbor with a 25 year old SLR
    gets?
    What do you want to do with the pics you take? Email them to your
    friends/relatives? 7 - 8 MP is serious overkill.
    Make oversized prints to hang in a gallery? You're wasting your time
    looking at the current crop of point 'n shoots altogether.
    There are few current digitals with a 3 second shot-to-shot time; it's
    usually in the fraction of a second range, until the buffer is full.
    You'll take that long to recompose the shot.

    What I'm trying to say is that the only comparison that counts is the
    one that compares the camera in question to your needs/wants.

    Is digital ready for prime time? Obviously. Does it equal 35mm?
    Which 35mm? Yours? Mine? His? 8x10? 4x6? The real answer is: does it
    meet your needs/wants.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
    Big Bill, Aug 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Hi Born Loser

    I can't be assed reading all this stuff and the other posts

    If you prefer 35mm or medium format = hey fine with me dewd, live it up

    FWIW I find I have to replace my socks far too frequently these days.

    They were first blasted off when me an me m8s went mountain hinking

    The one with a didgicam had results burned to CD and displayed on widescreen
    TV using a DVD burner once we got back to base camp 1

    I had my rolls of 35mm tucked up safely away somewhere

    Blew socks off

    I then bought my own compact digicam = Blew socks off

    I then took up a 30-day free trial of Adobe Photoshop CS = Blew socks off

    If any1 discovers some socks innocently blowing in the wind.

    Please post a notice here - they may be mine :)

    But it is a big worls and conversion I seek not - if you luv it dewd, do it
    and be good at it

    have phun

    Arty

    "Born Loser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
    > help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
    > about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
    > of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
    > 765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
    > lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765
    > appeals to me. However, after reading and surfin' numerous
    > publications and web sites, including (but certainly not limited to)
    > Pop Photo, Consumer Reports, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, I have
    > come to the following conclusion. This is where I hope you guys can
    > set me straight.
    >
    > HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
    > CAMERAS for the following reasons:
    >
    > NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
    > abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
    > MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
    > levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
    > need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100) . Less than
    > accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
    > these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?
    >
    > PERFORMANCE: Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
    > camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
    > performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
    > and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
    > sure it really isn't). The speed with which photos can be taken with
    > digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.
    >
    > RESOLUTION: I understand that one cannot make a direct comparison
    > between digital and 35mm cameras in terms of resolution. I have read
    > a source that did just that claiming that 35mm camera's (as a group)
    > have a 30 MP equivelant. Although the difference between 30 MP and 4,
    > 5, or 8 MP's may not (due to mathematics and technology) literally
    > translate into 4, 6 or 8 times the resolution, the difference has to
    > count towards quality in some way.
    >
    > QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    > observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    > the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    > that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    > in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    > camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    > to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    > or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    > distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
    > scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
    > updated 8 MP's?
    >
    > I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and hope to
    > post more once I get off the ground with digital
    Arty Phacting, Aug 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Born Loser

    Ken Scharf Guest

    I have found that the prints made from my Olympus D590Z, even
    at 8x10 (though I usually print these at 4X5, or two to a
    sheet of paper) are as good as what I remember getting from
    my Nikon FA using 200-400 ASA print film.

    I now have an Olympus C5050, havn't used it enough to make
    any comments, but this camera should be much improved over
    the older P&S model!

    Note that I'm NOT a professional photographer, just a hobby
    user who takes his camera on trips with the family like
    everyone else. Clearly digital cameras are now good enough
    to replace 110 and 35mm point and shoot cameras, and low
    end 35mm SLR's. As for pro 35mm cameras, they are (or
    will soon be) and indangered species as digicams get better.

    I doubt that medium format and plate film view cameras will
    EVER be replaced by digital, but these have always been
    the field of a very few professional (and dedicated!) group.
    Ken Scharf, Aug 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Born Loser

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Born Loser" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > NOISE:


    You can push film further than digital, but also at the
    cost of much noise. Chromatic aberration is said to
    be worse with digital - but it varies from camera to camera
    and over the range of focal lengths. I rarely notice any with
    my Canon S30 with 3:1 zoom. My guess is that most
    quality digitals will produce images that look as good as
    film unless a) shooting conditions are extreme, or b)
    blowups are extreme.

    > PERFORMANCE:


    There are four numbers of interest:

    1. Time between camera on and camera ready.

    The cameras typically store the lens in a compressed
    position that has to be opened. The longer the lens, the
    longer this takes. Long lens cameras can take 5 seconds.
    Short lens cameras can take 2-3 seconds. Fixed lens
    cameras can be very quick.

    2. Time to focus and set exposure.

    One second more or less, is not uncommon. Auto-
    everything film cameras have a similar lag.

    3. Time to take the shot after setting exposure.

    Typically, you can press the button half way down to
    get focus and exposure set. Then watch and, at the
    right moment, press the rest of the way. The lag
    there is often in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 seconds. Some
    are faster. 0.1 or 0.2 aren't bad, even for action shots,
    but film cameras are faster.

    4. Time between shots.

    The camera has to digitize the image and write it to
    the memory card. 2 seconds or so is not uncommon.

    Some cameras have a burst mode that allows you to
    accelerate this for short bursts, e.g., 5 shots in two
    seconds.

    For real high speed action photography, film has
    a decided advantage. For other cases, the photographer
    can generally do pretty well with digital by thinking out
    what he has to do.

    > RESOLUTION:


    Except in expensive pro quality cameras, the light
    sensors have a smaller area than the film size of a 35mm
    camera. Therefore, for a given resolution in lines/mm,
    I would think the actual sharpness would have to be
    less in digital. However there are other factors limiting
    resolution, including the number of lines/mm that the
    film and/or the digital sensor will resolve.

    In practice you'd have to look at the images
    to see if the difference is perceptible to you. To my
    eye, digital images look very sharp.

    Note that, if resolution is critical, perfectionists will also
    stay away from 35mm, using larger film sizes instead.

    As for the 30MP equivalent of 35mm film, I find that
    very hard to believe. I saw a photo in Pop Photo from
    an 8mp camera that was clearly sharper than one taken on
    35 mm film.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    You have listed all of the perceived disadvantages of
    digital as compared to film. I think some of them are
    real - though whether they are significant to you depends
    on what you shoot and what appeals to you.

    But you also need to consider the advantages of digital
    as compared to film. These include:

    No more film cost.
    No developing cost.
    No darkroom time and cost.
    Instant feedback on the LCD display of what your
    shot looks like. If you have a laptop with you,
    for example on a trip, you can see your images
    on the large screen each night instead of waiting
    until you get home and get them developed.
    No film loading in the field. A 256 MB card can
    take 280 or so 3 MP images before it has to be
    dumped out to a computer.
    No degradation of image quality over time (so long
    as you keep backing up your files.)
    No more physical boxes of negatives, contact sheets,
    or prints. A single 160 GB hard disk can store
    160,000 1 MB digital images. A single CD can
    store 700 of them.
    Easy distribution.
    Post shot editing that goes miles beyond what anyone
    can do with film, and is orders of magnitude easier to
    do.

    When I was shooting film, I was very careful about not
    wasting film on shots that I wasn't sure would "come out"
    right. Now I shoot anything I want, whenever I want,
    knowing it doesn't cost me a penny.

    I suspect that, if you get a digital camera, you'll like it.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Aug 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Born Loser

    ECM Guest

    (Born Loser) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
    > help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
    > about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
    > of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
    > 765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
    > lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765


    >***SNIP***


    > QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
    > observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
    > the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
    > that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
    > in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
    > camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
    > to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
    > or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
    > distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
    > scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
    > updated 8 MP's?
    >
    > I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and hope to
    > post more once I get off the ground with digital


    I was a dedicated SLR owner up until about 5 weeks ago... I'm now a
    convert because of the freedom I feel I get from my digital - an
    Olympus C-5060. I snap away like a fool with the digital, but I can't
    afford to be too snap-happy with the SLR - too expensive. The result
    is I'm getting some truly fantastic pictures that I was missing
    before; I was not confident (or rich!) enough to take a picture I
    thought "might" work - I was way too conservative. Now with 100,000
    use cycles per flash card - I'm FREE!

    Shaggy Dog story:

    I still own a Nikon FM-20 from the 70's; it works well. Recently I
    compared the pictures from it to what I was getting on my new Oly
    C-5060WZ; I went on a weekend camping trip in Idaho.

    With the Nikon, I used Fuji Reala at 100 ISO and Kodak Royal Gold at
    200 ISO. The lens is the original Nikkor; an awesome lens. I own a
    good Sigma 70-300mm zoom also; it's a bit worse for wear, though.
    Replacing it would cost only a little less than what I spent for my
    Oly C-5060....

    The Oly C-5060 was used at ISO 80, full automatic (aperture, speed,
    auto-flash, autofocus). The pictures were stored at super-HQ jpg
    (compressed about 2-3:1). I used an old Minolta external flash with a
    large diffuser for fill-in with both cameras.

    I took a day of photos with the SLR, then a day with the digital. I
    took a total of 52 pics with the SLR (2 complete rolls), but 119 with
    the Oly - several times I took 2-3 shots of the same thing with a bit
    of exposure adjustment applied, or the same subject with and without
    flash.

    I developed the film at a good local shop, printed on 4X6 Fuji paper.
    Cost US$19, plus US$6 to put the photos on a disk (at 1024X756). Took
    2 days. Add $7 for the two rolls of film - $32 total. Of these 52
    photos, ~20 were good pictures, the rest were the usual crap - out of
    focus, subjects (kids) moving too fast, misjudged the exposure
    correction, etc.

    I selected about 20 of the best images from the Oly's output, adjusted
    color/contrast/redeye, cropped a few down, etc; burned them to a CD-R
    (~$0.10) all in a matter of 1 hour. I took them to Walmart for
    printing on 4X6 Fuji paper - US$3.70 (ie. $0.17 each); done in 1/2
    hour. $4 total.

    I showed the results to friends/family; I know, not scientific - but
    the point is, what LOOKED better. Universally, the Oly's output was
    chosen as the best. Clear, sharp, colors BETTER than Fuji Reala (! -
    arguably the best color film you'll find unless you go to a
    professional shop). The subject matter was also much more interesting
    with the Oly - the SLR is a manual focus; I'm fast on the focus ring,
    but not as fast as your typical 4-year-old, and I missed a bunch of
    good shots. I suppose a good autofocus SLR would have caught a few
    more, but I've tried a Minolta AF SLR in the past, and I was
    underwhelmed by the focus speed and accuracy.

    I didn't blow any of these photos up, but I have in the past - I saw
    NO jaggies, etc. except when I blew one up to the equivalent of about
    24"x30" (ie. a small 1/3 frame crop blown up to 8"x10"), but 11"X17"
    was fine. Not so with my 35 mm output - a definite graininess is
    apparent even with ISO 100 film at 11"X17". Before I basically "gave
    up" and went digital I was watching the internet for a medium format
    (6X4) camera!

    My point?... go for it! digital is FREEDOM! They've really come a long
    way from the crap of 5 years ago.... The only thing I really miss is
    the fast, beautiful lens I have on the Nikon SLR - f1.4-22 compared to
    f4.8-8 on the Olympus. Couple a "slow" lens like that with an ISO of
    80 - and yes, I use fill flash a lot. You might want to look around
    for a faster lens if this is really important to you.

    Budget for a 5 to 8MP compact digital camera (like the Olympus C-5060
    or 8080, the Canon G5, Nikon 5700 or 8700, etc.) and pay attention to
    the reviews. Unless you've been working in a studio you'll get as good
    or better pictures. And you won't feel a twinge in the ol' pocketbook
    every time you push the shutter release!

    Peace! And good luck!
    ECM

    PS: Sorry about the long post, but I thought it might help....
    ECM, Aug 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Hi Ken

    I am a mere novice in photography be it medium format, 35mm or digital

    I understood that in medium format there are bellows lenses which are quite
    handy for study work - are they expensive items?

    Thanks in advance

    Arty



    "Ken Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:pQaUc.140$...
    > I have found that the prints made from my Olympus D590Z, even
    > at 8x10 (though I usually print these at 4X5, or two to a
    > sheet of paper) are as good as what I remember getting from
    > my Nikon FA using 200-400 ASA print film.
    >
    > I now have an Olympus C5050, havn't used it enough to make
    > any comments, but this camera should be much improved over
    > the older P&S model!
    >
    > Note that I'm NOT a professional photographer, just a hobby
    > user who takes his camera on trips with the family like
    > everyone else. Clearly digital cameras are now good enough
    > to replace 110 and 35mm point and shoot cameras, and low
    > end 35mm SLR's. As for pro 35mm cameras, they are (or
    > will soon be) and indangered species as digicams get better.
    >
    > I doubt that medium format and plate film view cameras will
    > EVER be replaced by digital, but these have always been
    > the field of a very few professional (and dedicated!) group.
    Arty Phacting, Aug 17, 2004
    #10
  11. (Born Loser) writes:

    > Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
    > help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
    > about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
    > of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
    > 765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
    > lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765
    > appeals to me. However, after reading and surfin' numerous
    > publications and web sites, including (but certainly not limited to)
    > Pop Photo, Consumer Reports, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, I have
    > come to the following conclusion. This is where I hope you guys can
    > set me straight.
    >
    > HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
    > CAMERAS for the following reasons:


    It depends on what your frame of reference is. Quite frankly, my 2 megapixel
    Olympus C-2100UZ is giving me much better 8x10 and even 11x14 prints than I
    ever got from my two low end SLRs in the 70's through the 90's, where I mostly
    printed 4x6s that I got from dropping off film at the drug store. In fact,
    after I left my junior high school darkroom, I don't recall making any prints
    other than 4x6's, and now I routinely make 8x10's.

    One thing that digital gives you include pictures are mostly free until you
    print them out after you have paid for the camera and memory cards. This
    allows you to get away from the mindset of making that one shot count, instead
    you can try the shot from different angles, and you can bracket your shot in
    case the metering is difficult. True on the other hand, you can also take
    2,856 identical pictures of your cat being cute.

    Another thing that digital gives you is instant review of the shot in the LCD
    monitor (or on the electronic viewfinder on some cameras). Granted you can't
    see fine details, but it generally is enough to judge whether the picture is
    acceptable or not. This for me was the biggest change in digital photography
    over silver halide. No longer did I have to wait until I went to the drugstore
    and hung around for an hour or so to see if the shot turned out. I can have a
    finished 8x10 print in roughly 20 minutes (hey, I have a slow printer) from the
    time I take the picture.

    A third thing that digital photography gives you is easier access to photo
    manipulation than dodging and burning (assuming you have your own darkroom), or
    having to scan in a negative so you can edit it on a computer.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Aug 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Born Loser

    greg Guest

    I won't comment on every question asked, but...


    "Born Loser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > PERFORMANCE: Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
    > camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
    > performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
    > and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
    > sure it really isn't). The speed with which photos can be taken with
    > digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.


    While that was true for many of the older DSLRs (the Canon D30 was very poor
    at this), newer models have reduced or outright eliminated this. For
    example, the Nikon D70 is instant-on, instant-shoot (no shutter lag), can
    shoot 3 shots-per-second at up to 1/8000th of a second at 6.1 megapixels.

    Not bad for a $999 camera.
    greg, Aug 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Born Loser

    Born Loser Guest

    I thank everyone for their advice concerning digital vs. 35mm. You were all helpful.

    Country
    Born Loser, Aug 23, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jaez

    Wireless Newbie

    jaez, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,855
  2. Ronbol

    advice wanted! newbie

    Ronbol, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,167
    Dick Kistler
    Jul 2, 2004
  3. No Spam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,970
    No Spam
    Jun 7, 2004
  4. Lee
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,050
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,393
Loading...

Share This Page