Steve'sDigicams

mark754 · May 12, 2003, 9:17 PM

I just returned from vacation with a friend who has a Canon G3. I was very impressed with the quality of the pics compared to my old 2 mp Canon.

Frankly, for the kind of pictures I take, I don't see much reason to use my old Nikon film SLR anymore and I'm thinking of getting a 4 or 5 MP camera and using that exclusively. Being average in my photo skills, I found that I took better pictures with the Canon than with my SLR. At this res level, is there any noticeable difference in film vs. digital at, say, 4 x 5" print sizes or even 8 x 10?

Have you guys converted fully to digital or do you still use a film SLR for 'important' shots (family portraits, important events, key vacation shots, etc.)?

One thing I'm also not sure about is the current photo printer/ink technology. Pics printed on my current inkjet printer fade after a year or so. Do prints made from the new dye-sublimination (sp?) printers last as long as prints made from film?

gibsonpd3620 · May 13, 2003, 9:52 AM

I have a 35mm camera and it dust continues to grow. I move to digital several years past and do not plan on returning to 35mm cameras. I am not a professional photography and the digital provides those pics I want for memories.

Printers: I have the Hi-Ti 630ps and it makes excellent pics. The last process in developing the print is a protective coating that is suppose to last forever. Hi Touch imaging will be introducing the 640ps and it will accept more media types.

rych26 · May 13, 2003, 11:21 AM

Forever is a long, long time, Phil.

I find myself using my digicam almost exclusively because of the versitility of storage, printing, emailing, and posting...

I have a Canon i950 inkjet photo printer...it makes wonderful prints and on quality paper they are supposed to last 25 years...I'll let you know. :lol:

gibsonpd3620 · May 13, 2003, 1:07 PM

rych26

Forever is what they say but it is also relative. I am nearing 60 (a few more months) and my forever may not be all that long.

normc · May 13, 2003, 1:21 PM

Hey....I'm almost 72....I have five digital cameras and in the last 6 months purchased a Leica C3 and a Leica Minilux which I am using to shoot slides. I know I will not live forever but it sure is going to seem like it.

normc · May 13, 2003, 1:25 PM

Hey....I'm almost 72....I have five digital cameras and in the last 6 months purchased a Leica C3 and a Leica Minilux which I am using to shoot slides. I know I will not live forever but it sure is going to seem like it.

The poll is nuts....it's like the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?"

gibsonpd3620 · May 13, 2003, 3:02 PM

normc

You are my inspiration. My mother in law is 83 and still manages her 1500 acre farm. She is also active with email and internet searches for family geneology.

rych26 · May 13, 2003, 6:07 PM

My Dad is 79...getting married this Friday.

marokero · May 14, 2003, 6:55 PM

I've converted to digital completely, and do not plan on going back to the film camp. Cleaning up scanned negative images is too time consuming, specially when the negative has scratches... But if the scan is pretty clean, and it comes from a 120 negative (~30 megapixel resolution), then I can make two page spreads (14" x 22") easy, something I'd rather not do with my current 6 megapixel images. But soon, newer/faster models and higher res digital SLR's will become affordable enough that I can once again upgrade and remain in the digital camp.

checklg · May 15, 2003, 8:49 AM

I've converted to Digital because -

1) I can take 128 photographs of a bird without worrying about film costs or "will it come out ?".
2) The end image size is adequate.
3) It gives me end to end control over the process (I do my own printing).

I'd still go back to film for a long mountain trip though (e.g. Nepal). There are lots of places without electricity, and I also found that my entirely mechanical Rolei kept going when my electronic stopped (about 4000 metres).

View Poll Results: Digicam exclusively, or do you still also use a film camera?
I use a digicam exclusively	26	83.87%
I still use a film camera for 'important' photos due to superior image quality	5	16.13%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

May 12, 2003, 9:17 PM	#1
mark754 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 4	Digicam exclusively, or do you still also use a film camera? I just returned from vacation with a friend who has a Canon G3. I was very impressed with the quality of the pics compared to my old 2 mp Canon. Frankly, for the kind of pictures I take, I don't see much reason to use my old Nikon film SLR anymore and I'm thinking of getting a 4 or 5 MP camera and using that exclusively. Being average in my photo skills, I found that I took better pictures with the Canon than with my SLR. At this res level, is there any noticeable difference in film vs. digital at, say, 4 x 5" print sizes or even 8 x 10? Have you guys converted fully to digital or do you still use a film SLR for 'important' shots (family portraits, important events, key vacation shots, etc.)? One thing I'm also not sure about is the current photo printer/ink technology. Pics printed on my current inkjet printer fade after a year or so. Do prints made from the new dye-sublimination (sp?) printers last as long as prints made from film?

May 13, 2003, 1:21 PM	#5
normc Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 394	Phooey Hey....I'm almost 72....I have five digital cameras and in the last 6 months purchased a Leica C3 and a Leica Minilux which I am using to shoot slides. I know I will not live forever but it sure is going to seem like it.

May 13, 2003, 1:25 PM	#6
normc Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 394	Phooey Hey....I'm almost 72....I have five digital cameras and in the last 6 months purchased a Leica C3 and a Leica Minilux which I am using to shoot slides. I know I will not live forever but it sure is going to seem like it. The poll is nuts....it's like the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

May 13, 2003, 9:52 AM	#2
gibsonpd3620 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,585	I have a 35mm camera and it dust continues to grow. I move to digital several years past and do not plan on returning to 35mm cameras. I am not a professional photography and the digital provides those pics I want for memories. Printers: I have the Hi-Ti 630ps and it makes excellent pics. The last process in developing the print is a protective coating that is suppose to last forever. Hi Touch imaging will be introducing the 640ps and it will accept more media types.

May 13, 2003, 11:21 AM	#3
rych26 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 116	Forever is a long, long time, Phil. I find myself using my digicam almost exclusively because of the versitility of storage, printing, emailing, and posting... I have a Canon i950 inkjet photo printer...it makes wonderful prints and on quality paper they are supposed to last 25 years...I'll let you know. :lol:

May 13, 2003, 1:07 PM	#4
gibsonpd3620 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,585	rych26 Forever is what they say but it is also relative. I am nearing 60 (a few more months) and my forever may not be all that long.

May 13, 2003, 3:02 PM	#7
gibsonpd3620 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,585	normc You are my inspiration. My mother in law is 83 and still manages her 1500 acre farm. She is also active with email and internet searches for family geneology.

May 13, 2003, 6:07 PM	#8
rych26 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 116	My Dad is 79...getting married this Friday.

May 14, 2003, 6:55 PM	#9
marokero Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 769	I've converted to digital completely, and do not plan on going back to the film camp. Cleaning up scanned negative images is too time consuming, specially when the negative has scratches... But if the scan is pretty clean, and it comes from a 120 negative (~30 megapixel resolution), then I can make two page spreads (14" x 22") easy, something I'd rather not do with my current 6 megapixel images. But soon, newer/faster models and higher res digital SLR's will become affordable enough that I can once again upgrade and remain in the digital camp.

May 15, 2003, 8:49 AM	#10
checklg Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 659	I've converted to Digital because - 1) I can take 128 photographs of a bird without worrying about film costs or "will it come out ?". 2) The end image size is adequate. 3) It gives me end to end control over the process (I do my own printing). I'd still go back to film for a long mountain trip though (e.g. Nepal). There are lots of places without electricity, and I also found that my entirely mechanical Rolei kept going when my electronic stopped (about 4000 metres).