What Cameras do you use?

I just have to put in my usual complaint about digital cameras. If I was going to invest $450-$500 (like the post a little bit up) in a camera, I could get a nice used SLR that would take much better pictures than a digital, have all sorts of attachments (since I have so much money left over, at this point), and it will be more reliable, and more upgradeable in the future.

Unless you take pictures to put directly on a website, go for film. If you happen to take a really nice pic with a digital, you'll be kicking yourself 'cause you can't blow it up. I would take a $50 35mm and a scanner over any (reasonably-priced, not one of those $20k jobs) digital camera, any day.

--JB

------------------
e_utopia@hotmail.com
 
Yea, JB, film does give better definition if you enlarge quite a bit, but you never get the instant gratification with film that you get with digital. I have been into SLR's for years and just recently picked up a Nikon Coolpix 950 when they went for ~$450 at accompany.com. It does quite a job and makes it easy to trade pix with family and friends world wide. Can be done that same day; and that's difficult if not impossible with film.
smile.gif
It's also quite possible to get quality 8x10's with the newer 2+ megapixel digitals and that will get better as time passes.

------------------
do it right the FIRST time . . .

ralph
 
JB,

Don't think about the lenses as an attachment for the camera (SLR) think about the camera (body) as being an attachment for the lens system.

I love my old Olympus OM system, I bought the OM-2 body for $150 and OM-1 body for $100 both used. Lenses are another story. I have over a thousand dollars tied up in lenses which means that I am pretty well committed to the OM system.

Also, remember that an film camera requires film. $12 to $15 a roll at least. I won't even guess at the amount of film I have burned over the years.

I figure that the digital camera that doesn't use film has paid for itself several times in the past 6 months in savings on film alone. I will admit that I didn't realize how fast the thing ate batteries but it is still a big savings.


Mike
 
I was actually referring to attachments such as auto-winders, fancy flashes, etc. Most digital cameras have only one lens (obviously there are 'digital SLR' cameras, but most will be getting a single-piece unit), so I only considered one lens in that. As for the film, I guess I just forgot to mention that; for me the added quality is worth the price, but I should have included that as another 'point' for digital.

As for 2+ megapixel being 'film-quality' (not that that claim was made here, but many adds do claim that), a 35mm negative has the equivalent of approximately 20 megapixels, so the quality is off by an order of magnitude (sorry, I'm an engineer; that means 'by a multiple of ten').

Basically, my point is that both types have their place (and I will probably get a digital in a few years, just for convenience), but that people should be well-aware of the limitations of digital photography. I know a lot of people who are very unhappy with their 'state-of-the-art' digital cameras, which they got to replace filme cameras which cost a fraction of the digital's price tag and offered more control of picture quality. Caveat emptor, I guess.

--JB

------------------
e_utopia@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by e_utopia (edited 04-25-2000).]
 
I hate to chime in but my old 4x5 would fall apart if I didn't. Digital is nice for quick images but stay with film if you ever want really good enlargements. Either way, shoot alot and then try to figure out what you need to do to improve each shot. A good photographer is like a good knife maker, they may be happy with a given product but then they try to out do themselves on the next one.

------------------
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=243110&a=1810458]Terrill Hoffman Knife Photography
 
I agree with the point about film still having the best resolution. It will be a few years before digital can easily reach film's quality. In additon, film prints have better quality than high quality print output. Another benefit. The equipment is cheaper than the digitals that come closest to film cameras. So why do we bother with digital camers? They're pretty much point and shoots that you can extract the images from immediately. The fact that they don't have comperable resolution isn't particularly important since the Monitor is the limiting factor for most of us. They allow us to take lots of shots and see the results within minutes, if not seconds. This means that you can make your mistakes and learn from them quicker. Now that's the real advantage! http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=414191&a=3054169&p=19784878
is the third image I took with my Kodak 290. That's a pretty good job for shooting objects like knives. It took me months of effort to learn to shoot reasonable pictures with my old Nikon. While I'll shoot film for something that I want to print at 8X10 or larger I can snap lots of silly pictures to sort for printing with the digital and I will certainly use the digital for images to pipe across the net.


Take care,

Mike
 
I do construction work. Slate roofs, with jobs sometimes several thousand miles away.

Digital cameras really came into their own a year or to ago when I working in Colorado on a big project. If I was at home the General contractor could call me up and tell me that there was a design problem somewhere on a new roof they were building. They would take three or four digital pictures of the area and email them to me. Five minutes later I was looking at the pictures. I could load the files into my software, draw lines and arrows, make notes on the photograph and email them back. We could do in fifteen minutes what would have taken three or four days otherwise.

I haven't given up on my 35mms, I just find that I don't use nearly as much film any more.


Mike


hso, that is a Very good photograph, I'm impressed.

MNH
 
I just happen to work in retail and sell many different brands and models of digital cameras. My favorite so far is the Nikon CoolPix 950 (which currently has a $100 rebate from Nikon) so you should be able to pick one up for about $630 after rebate (from a legit dealer). It can focus down to 0.8" so you can get very close up detailed shots. The new CoolPix 990 will be even better, but will probably have a $850-900 price tag. The Sony Mavica series also offer excellent close up capability, and plenty of resolution for posting pictures on-line. I would recommend the FD-83, FD-88, or the new FD-90.

------------------
-Wade in PA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top