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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 20, 2002, 10:43 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

well i hope that something happens soon. somebody has to break the ice. if i'm going to relagate my F5 to semiretirement it has to be for a digital equivelent not these others at this point.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2002, 1:16 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default same old

Same discussion over and over.

Clearly, until one can buy a dSLR, with full frame, for a price nearer to a fiml SLR, the time for switching will not be here.

Whatever Lin says, the false magnification of all but the Zeiss means a loss of resolution.

Worse yet, the world of the dSLR will not be stable until we see full frame SLRs as a standard. Then, one may still want to pgrade ... as some do with film ... but the rational will be more subltel than (just) image quality.

Finally, it bewilders me why anyone would want to use ANY of the current generation of dSLR wedding cakes. These things are HUGE. If I want a large camera I also want a large frame size for the quality!

So, I personally will not buy a dSLR unti it is full frame, compact in size, has an adequate size battery compartment.

IDEALLY the dSLR would have interchageable backs so the buyer could purchase new backs as pixel density increases!
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2002, 1:23 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

Eric, I too had an Elan 7, the most recent in my series of some 20 SLR film cameras. I have now totally abandoned film for digital. I would make several points:

1. The cost of film and developing was
causing me to hold back in my shooting.
2. Storing slides for easy retrieval, review
and sharing was a real pain.
3. Lousy printing by even "good" labs was
infuriating.

I'm on my 4th digital camera in six months, and I sold my film gear. I am scanning all of my old negatives and slides onto CD's. The scanned images are probably better techical quality, but
the camera images are amazingly good.

1. I love the digital look, and the quality
of the images has amazed me.
2. I shoot like crazy, freed from the
thought of cost.
3. The quality of the images is far superior
to what the labs usually returned on
the first development.
4. It is wonderful to check out my images
on the camera screen and then on my
laptop the same day I shoot.
5. I save the original images to CD, then
save first pass adjustments to CD for
slide shows.
6. Organizing, retrieving, further
adjustment, and sharing with others is
a snap.
7. I do very little printing, but I love the
look of the prints I do get.

If you have ambitions to be a pro, or if you are fanatical about technical perfection, I don't know the answer to your question. But, if you plan to stay an ordinary serious amateur, I think it's a no-brainer decision for digital. That's just my opinion. I'm out for fun of discovery and beautiful pictures. I would never go back.
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2002, 12:48 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4
Default On all your replies

Hi all, I just wanted to thank you all for your replies on this matter and respect all your views and opinions. I can't shoot as much and am limited to what I shoot due to the " cost issue" in buying film and getting it developed. So, in my opinion and with all of your advice, I think it would be a great investment and learning tool to invest in the D-60. I can then go out and really shoot whatever my heart desires and learn from those shots so I can become a better photographer/artist. I have posted one of my photos for all to view. Thanks again. Respectfully, Erik
ERIK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2002, 10:25 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default no free lunch!

Don't believe this stuffola about free teles. If you wanna crop your 35mm frames, they will do better than the digital camera can possibly do. OTOH, at full frame .. your lens is being degraded when it si used on the digicam.

Buy the camera what fills the film!

Quote:
Originally posted by sjms
you know it seems that for the tele lover the dslr is a godsend. instant gratification for the owner of a 300mm that is now a 450. i shoot wide. my 20mm just turned into a 30mm. i'm losing ground here. so as an investment for me for now its a no-go



[Edited on 8-19-2002 by sjms]
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2002, 10:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

The D60 is a toy. Wait until you can buy a full frame camera. For the cost of the D60 you can have two cp5700's or better one with all the accessories you will needs ... flash cards, exztra batteries etc.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2002, 12:43 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default Hold on there - .....

Quote:
The D60 is a toy.

Quote:
Don't believe this stuffola about free teles. If you wanna crop your 35mm frames, they will do better than the digital camera can possibly do. OTOH, at full frame .. your lens is being degraded when it si used on the digicam.
Sorry Steve,
Neither of these statements are really correct.

Unless you have the D60 and have used it, you really shouldn't couch this anything other than an opinion. The D60, far from being a "toy," produces better images than any 35mm color film camera I've ever used. It produces better images than my F5 Nikon, better than any of my Canon 35mm film cameras and the 1.6 crop factor is exactly what it appears to be, an excellent advantage for users of telephoto lenses. There is no degredation of image quality - quite the opposite because you are using the best part of the circle of definition and discarding the peripheral part of the images where distortion is generally found.

Comparing the D60 with the Nikon CP5700 is comparing apples with grapes - they are totally different animals. As nice as the little Nikons are, images from the D60 are magnititudes better in every respect.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2002, 1:14 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

Stephen, you broke my heart! I hope you're just trying to get a rise out of the other posters. I've had 20 film SLR's and 4 digitals (C4040, E-20, CP4500, and D-60) over my 30 years in photography.

I have been respecting your informative posts for a long time, but now I am shocked. Surely you jest. The E-20 and D-60 are fantastic cameras and are not even in the same ballpark as non-SLR's. They're practically different mediums.

While I totally respect what other people seem to be doing with non-SLR's, I cannot believe that any serious shooter would actually prefer one except as a second carry-around for times when you don't want to lug a real outfit.

Sorry, but I trust you will sober up soon because I value most of your posts.

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2002, 2:24 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default dSLR too big and too many $$$

Bob,

Unfortunately I do mean it. Obviously, all things being equal and enuff $, then a dSLR would be nice to have. However, it seems to me that for now they are a very specialized or toy-like pour chase.

Here are some thoughts about who should own one:

Professional Photographer

This depends a lot on the sort of photography.

If high resolution is important, obviously 4X5 is better than 6X6 is better than 35mm film is better than 35mm digital. A pixel or grain is a pixel or grain.

The only advantage of ANY digital camera here is to avoid the nuisance and cost for film AND the value of instant feedback,

If ease of use is important, esp in photojournalism, the the digicam SLRs are ONLY useful in situations where a huge mass of camera is not important ... e.g. set ups like news conferences or sporting events. Even here the advantage over film is minimal ... one can export a digital image a lot faster than a film image and one can know what one has gotten.

For other types of photography, I simply do not see ANY value in dSLRs. Here are some of the issues.

VS FILM

Lower resolution, this is esp true when one uses a small chip, throwing away a good part of the resolution on the lens.

VS PROSUMER

1. Cost

The dSLR technology is VERY unstable. It is obvious that the full frame cameras are coming, either as a smaller format camera (my choice) or as full frame 35mm.

Unless you work for daddy Warbucks, a dSLR will be obsolete every two years.

In contrast, at 5mpix, a prosumer digicam is probably at least going to be useable for 4-5 years, newer camera will be nicer but the Minolta 7i, cp5700, oly20N will make as good pictures in 5 years as whatever one can buy then (unless the "new" SLRS appears).

2. Image quality

With all all due respect, a lot of the talk about prosumer vs dSLR is hyped.

a. there is NO advantage of having a less than a full frame camera. dSLRS (except Contax) degrade the quality of the lens by not being full frame.

b. claims that larger chips have better sensitivity may or may not be true. I have not seen objective tests.

c. claims that larger chips have other OPTICAL qualities, may, however, make sense as physics. Diffraction is the limiting optical property and the diffraction limit for light optics is around .2 mm.

I am not an optics scientist, but this DOES seem to be a real issue. If I am correct, then diffraction will appear as a problem at about 200 pixels per line in a 2 cm chip. Of course this would effect any film or chips. I would like to see objective data.

3. ease of use.

I am an "equivalent" photographer, a follower of Minor White. I want to have as little between me and my imagination/seeing as possible.

I would not buy a dSLR of the current genera simply because I do not want to carry anything that big and intrusive.

Bottom line:

I have not seen objective evidence that the current dSLR generation is better at image making than the current top prosumer cameras. Where there are differences, e.g. in size of image buffer allowing rapid shooting, these are electronic preferences of the manufacturers.

I would very much like to see a side by side comparison.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2002, 2:32 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. We are obviously coming from two totally different perspectives, so there is no point in trying to "reason" it out.

Let's just agree to totally disagree. I really do like most of your posts. (BTW, of course film is technically better. So what?)

Bob

:P
Robert Eastburg 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 9:19 PM.