Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 16, 2006, 10:12 AM   #11
mcdaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32

Wow. Thanks for the info, folks. Now, it's just deciding which camera and how much I can afford. Thanks again. Love this forum!
mcdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 10:13 AM   #12
Senior Member
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540

I use a Canon 20D and print on a Canon IP5200R (wireless) printer.

Under ideal circumstances (the right camera, the right film, the right light, the right settings, the right printer) film will outperform digital in terms of quality, no problem.

Unfortunately, not all circumstances are ideal.

By moving to digital, I pay no penalty for taking lots of shots.

I have the full photographic process within my control, and on average, get better results than film.

Also, I can change the ISO on the fly, and lenses on the fly. Much more difficult with film.

I also need to make a deadline for a local newspaper, so I'm often required to have the shots into the paper within 8-24 hours.

There's no way I'd wait for film developing.

I take about 10K shots per year. The film, developing and printing costs would be astronomical (like $3-4,000 US dollars per year).

The return on investment of digital versus film allows me to pay off my 20D, lenses and printer in about one year in comparison to shooting film.

-- Terry

terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2006, 5:49 PM   #13
Senior Member
Corpsy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879

McDaniel, I recently got the Panasonic FZ30, a fixed-lens ultra-zoom, for around $575. With the 12x zoom and built in stabilization I figured I wouldn't find a better deal.

If I had to do it again though, I'd probably go for the Konica 5D. For around $800, you can get that camera with a 28-300 zoom lens. Since you already have Minolta lenses though, you could probably use those and save $200.

The camera supports ISO 100-3200, and looks quite good at 1600. 3200 would still make good 5x3 prints. The important thing is that it has image stabilization built into the body. Usually you'd have to pay through the nose to get a lens to do it.

Having both stabilization and high ISO support makes the camera exceptional in low light, and though it's only 6mp, being a quality SLR means it captures more accurate detail than my 8mp FZ30 and will take far better shots in low light.


Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2006, 8:33 PM   #14
mcdaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32

Thanks for all of the replies. I still have decisions to make. So many choices! Love this forum and the responses. Great help.
mcdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2006, 10:45 PM   #15
Posts: n/a

I went to a group model shoot back in 2001 with a Nikon N80. I shot 10 rolls of film, each having 35 shots. After taking them & having dbl-prints processed (had to give the models their copies too), I sold my stuff & went digital within 2 weeks. I don't miss 35mm but still keep a 35mm Olympus Stylus Epic in my glove box for those times I need a camera.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2006, 6:52 AM   #16
Senior Member
Ronnie948's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721

No more film for Me, "EVER"
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.