Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 5, 2003, 12:30 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

I do not have the years of experience that some of the people in here have, however I can say just by seeing the results my Nikon 5700 puts out on screen and paper (I have done 13x19 prints on my S9000) that it equals and exceeds similar photos done on a film SLR.

I'm sure there are many film SLRs that blow my 5700 out of the water but, in terms of 13x19 prints and lower I'd really like to see a difference in quality. Soon, in about a year I'll get a D100 or equivilent but, until I get consistant business the 5700 will work fine.
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 11:00 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2
Default

Thank you all for your advice. I didn't expect so many replies

I'll probably wait a year to buy a digital camera. I'll go with a Nikon 35 mm for now.
StrangeloveDr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 8:47 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
Default

If you are going to "make do" with a Nikon 35mm take a serious look at the used models people have traded in for their new Digicams. There are some great deals out there in the larger camera stores which accept trade-ins. You should be able to find a reputable store that will give you a decent warranty & customer service program.

Good Luck Susie

Nikon CP5700,Nikon F2 etc
susie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 9:09 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by susie
used models people have traded in for their new Digicams.
My local camera shop & digicam specialist has just sprouted an 'eruption' (as ornithologists say) in the window of S/H Olympus OM-10s, for 69 ukpounds each, with various lenses.

When I can get a s/hand Nikon for the price of a big digital memory card, I shall treat myself to one in which to use up my left-over film stock in style
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2003, 9:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 121
Default

You guys want to know what I have used for the past 4 months? I was using an Oly D-370, then I found my dad's Minolta SRT 101. I shot about 15 rolls of film since then and have gotten some very nice pics. Unfourtunatley, I have probably spent over $200 on film and development. I also spent about $100 on the camera itself, buying 3 lenses and 3 filters, a cap, and a shutter cord.

I will still use the Minolta for certain shots, but I am quickly realizing that I could have easily bought a digicam for that price. Now, before I spend another $200 on film, I am going to buy one. I plan on buying a Canon A70 due to all the manual features, the 3x zoom, and the 3.2mp. I will still use my Minolta for certain shots, like exposures longer than 15sec, and for the 400mm zoom I have on it.

Dan O.
Melboz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2003, 9:23 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

I was looking to get a longer lens for my SLR (300mm zoom). I figured I could get an Olympus C-7x0 with a 38-380mm lens for around the same price...it may not be as good, but I don't care that much for the pictures anyways, and the important thing is running the camera only cost a pittance. I've shot more with digital in the 11 months I've had the Oly, compared to 20 years with my SLR.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2003, 11:07 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

I had my first camera (a Brownie Cresta) at age 8 and my first enlarger at age 11. For me, photography has always been a hobby with two halves - one half behind the camera, the other sweating over a developing dish.

Some darkroom skills always eluded me - I never had the sureness of touch to be a successful retoucher and financial constraints meant that producing my own colour prints was never an option (I did process my own trannies).

Digital photography has meant a huge expansion in what I can do. With a copy of Photoshop or Paintshop Pro I can do things no photo finisher could have matched 20 years ago. Many of the shortcomings of my digital images - such as optical distortions - can be fixed simply in software. I can create panoramas and correct perspective on architectural photographs in moments.

For absolute photographic quality there is still no contest - it has to be medium-format film. But most of us compromised years ago when we switched to 35mm (I even flirted with APS because it was so easy to scan). Going digital is one more compromise most of us have chosen to make.

Here's what worries me a little. I still have (and used until very recently) my 16-year old Yashica SLR. It's heavy, tactile, a pleasure to hold and use. It makes that lovely clunk with its focal plane shutter. On holiday, lugging it up mountains kept me fit for years. It's mint and I would never have considered "upgrading" it to the latest EOS.

However, in the case of digitals, camera-owning seems to have become an end in its own right. How often do we read in these forums threads like "my model xyz is 6 months old and only has 3 widgets - what shall I upgrade to?". Or "I bought my 6051 at Christmas but they've just brought out the 6052. What's a 6051 worth on eBay?". Then there are those signatures that include lists of equipment that look like the inventory of a medium-sized camera store.

I suspect that photography is in the process of splitting into two very different activities. One for people who like to take and manipulate images, the other for people who collect cameras and delight in their precision and cleverness.

Digital camera technology is advancing at such a rate that any new camera is "obsolete" in less than 12 months. If you feel the need to keep up by buying a succession of new cameras, what does that do to the price of each display-quality print you hang on your wall?

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2003, 11:51 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3
Default

>Digital camera technology is advancing at such a rate that any new camera is "obsolete" in less than 12 months.<

Yes. To me buying a camera is a bit of a 'marriage'; I know people who won't trade their ancient K1000s for anything. The idea of people throwing their cameras aside for this year's fashions seems so unsavory to me!

I find this to be one of the last few points which still scare me away from going totally digital. I had my beloved Superprogram for nearly twenty years, and knew every little button, quirk, and scratch on that camera. It was wearing out, but I was sad to see it stolen while working in Mexico.

I'm now looking at several digital models such as the 5400, but I'm leery on spending so much money on something that may be unsupported in software, parts, accessories, or support in ten years. Anyone tried to find a 5-1/4" drive lately?

Any thoughts on the looong-term use of digitals?

Ken:>
Moldy Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 3:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

I was about to start a new thread about this and found this one first so I will post here.

I keep reading here and there that digital is still not as good as film. However, my own experience is the opposite.

I have never had an expensive camera - I am not a photographer, just like to take snapshots now and then. My most expensive film camera is the one I have now - a P&S 35 mm camera priced around $100 one year ago. Last December I got my first digital camera - a 3.1 MP priced at a bit less than $300.

Looking at 4x6 prints produced by both cameras, the digital camera produces by far better results than my film camera. The sharpness and level of detail in the digital pictures is far better than in the pictures printed from film.

What is it then? Or is it just that my $300 digital camera has better optics than my $100 film camera?
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 4:25 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luisr
What is it then? Or is it just that my $300 digital camera has better optics than my $100 film camera?
At least part of it is that some digicams apply digital post-sharpening by default, so the sharpness is an optical illusion (but so what, if it looks good).

Film processors could fight back by offering optional sharpening as well, but they'd have to invest in filmscanning equipment.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:50 AM.