PHOTOgraphic Film Review, January Issue

Discussion in 'Photography' started by me, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. me

    Jeremy Guest

    WHY have you cross-posted this frivolous inquiry to all those newsgroups?
    The fact that you gave virtually no information about what lenses you own,
    what type of photography you are contemplating, how large your budget is,
    etc. makes me suspect that your question was insincere.

    WHY, for example, would you ask about a recommendation for a DIGITAL camera,
    in FILM newsgroups?

    Might this be our resident troll having a few laughs?
     
    Jeremy, Feb 12, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. me

    format Guest

    I have been wondering the same question myself...and did a bit of
    checking....on mostly point and shoots.....
    Based on features and ease of operation....the Panasonic...DMC-FZ20 looks
    pretty good.....Leica 12x zoom...5 megapixels...Image Stabilizer.....
    Not sure of the pricing compared to other cameras...seems not bad in the USA
    but am sure it will be quite a bit more here in Canada....
    The SLRs look good....but beyond my needs and budget....ie Nikon and Canon.
    Merv
     
    format, Feb 12, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. me

    ThomasH Guest

    You are right, they have indeed several nice comprehensive
    film tests! Thanks for the link.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Feb 12, 2005
    #43

  4. You're going to be very disppointed if you switch to digital.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Feb 12, 2005
    #44
  5. me

    piemanlarger Guest

    Yes, disapointed you did not do it sooner, as was i.


    Pieman
     
    piemanlarger, Feb 13, 2005
    #45
  6. me

    Dirty Harry Guest

    No doubt, my photography has improved 100 fold since I got a digital...now I
    want a second one, thinking of a 20D...currently have a 300d but want some
    more speed....or just a bigger buffer really...

    www.harryphotos.com
     
    Dirty Harry, Feb 13, 2005
    #46
  7. me

    UC Guest

    No, I mean compared to film images, which are much, much, much
    superior....
     
    UC, Feb 13, 2005
    #47
  8. me

    grol Guest

    Any Nikon dSLRs with ISO50 or ISO100 yet? Not sure what Canon's ISOs are at.
    200ISO minimum seems silly.
     
    grol, Feb 13, 2005
    #48
  9. me

    Donald Link Guest

    25 years! This is longer than most marriages.
     
    Donald Link, Feb 13, 2005
    #49
  10. me

    jjs Guest

    And someone going into digital today can expect to obsolete their cameras
    every two years for the next ten years.
     
    jjs, Feb 13, 2005
    #50
  11. I doubt they will be.

    You will be if they switch. That I'm sure of.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 13, 2005
    #51
  12. Medium and large format... maybe in terms of resolution. 35mm? Not
    quite.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 13, 2005
    #52
  13. The D70 is still 200 minimum... same with the Pentax which uses the same
    sensor. But the Minolta 7D (same Sony sensor again) does have ISO 100.
    The marketing departments must be fighting with the engineers again.

    The Nikon D2x will have ISO 100, but I don't think the high ISO
    performance is going to be that great. Plus, it's nearly five grand.

    Canon is at ISO 100 on their consumer dSLRs and 50 on their pro dSLRs.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 13, 2005
    #53
  14. me

    BillB Guest

    Not quite. It depends on what is meant by 'obsolete'. It's true
    that every two years might bring noticeable changes. But the better
    digital cameras today can produce images nearly the equal of current
    film cameras. With your 2-year obsolescence rule, one might
    reasonably expect film cameras to be surpassed by digital in 4 or 6
    years. Would that then make film cameras obsolete? Not really, if
    they still perform adequately and deliver the image quality you
    want.

    For that matter, I recently bought a new digital camera. My old
    one is has a 3.3 mp sensor and is about 3 years old. The new one is
    only 4 mp, and I would have gotten last year's 3 mp version if the
    new one hadn't just been released. I don't consider the old camera
    to be obsolete. I still use it, and although they don't produce an
    image that is quite as good as my Nikon film camera, they're not too
    far off, and for the intended purposes both of these cameras do what
    I need. I'll probably get a new Nikon DSLR in a year or two, as
    long as it has no problems accepting my old Nikon lenses and (as
    I've mentioned before) it has some kind of option to allow the use
    of AA alkaline or NiMH batteries, as my current Nikon SLR does.
     
    BillB, Feb 13, 2005
    #54
  15. me

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Nikon, not that I'm aware of. Canon's minimum is 100 on the 300D and
    20D.
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 13, 2005
    #55
  16. me

    piemanlarger Guest

    I have a Minolta 7d which goes from ISO 100 -3200.

    I have got superb quality 15x10 inch prints at ISO 800 on it, far better
    than I would get with Film. I am loath to use any other ISO rating at the
    mo!
     
    piemanlarger, Feb 13, 2005
    #56
  17. me

    Fitpix Guest

    I also noticed a nice gain in contrast when I upgraded to the 20D from
    10D.....fwiw
     
    Fitpix, Feb 13, 2005
    #57
  18. me

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mikey, you're disappointed with people switching to digital, but they arent'.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 13, 2005
    #58
  19. me

    Kitt Guest

    I fully agree with you on the need for megapixels being way overrated.
    I recently had a reason to have an 8x10 made of a local scene to
    compare to an artists painting of the same scene. I had taken the shot
    a few years ago when our 2mpxl Kodak was brand new. I was simply
    amazed at the quality. Sure, if you walk up to the wall with a loupe
    and examine it, you'll probably find it's not done on ISO 64
    Wonderfilm, but it sure won't be obvious at viewing distance.
    Regarding the normal use I get from a digital shot, which is for wall
    paper and CD slide shows for the relatives, you'd be hard pressed to
    tell me which ones I did with the D70 and which ones I did with the
    three megapixel Canon S1 IS.

    As far as a new camera coming out every two years, that would be
    different from film cameras in what way?

    Another comment regarding your battery requirement. I felt the same
    way when I bought the D70, but I made the concession since it did meet
    my other requirement of a CF card. Boy, am I glad I did. The lithium
    battery in the D70 lasts two to three times as long as the ones in the
    Canon. I went to EBay and picked up a couple generic ones for about
    $14 a piece, which is only a couple dollars more than the cost of the
    four fast rechargeables for the Canon. I'm tickled to death with the
    Lithiums and with the three that I have, I'm guessing I'm good for
    somewhere between two and three thousand shots without recharging and
    you get a free quick charger with the camera. They also take up half
    the space of the AA's and I don't have to keep an eye on which ones go
    with what set anymore. Point is, if an old dog like me can change his
    mind in spite of my bull headedness, you might want to rethink the AA
    requirement. ;o)
     
    Kitt, Feb 13, 2005
    #59
  20. me

    BillB Guest

    Film cameras are free to add most of the whiz-bang options you'll
    see on digital cameras. But I was referring to the fact that the
    resolution of digital cameras keeps increasing (number of pixels and
    sensor size can be increased), while film cameras (at least the 35mm
    ones that are generally assumed to be the practical standard) are
    limited to the 35mm's physical size. New 35 mm film may be
    introduced with finer grain/higher resolution, but the improvements
    will be slight increases vs. digital's larger jumps. Unless special
    unwieldy backs are available for some film cameras, they'll be
    limited to the same old 20 or 36 exposures per roll. The flash
    cards used by digital cameras have far surpassed this, and will
    continue to grow, faster than memory space needed per image. So
    today's cameras that can (with large cards) store hundreds of high
    resolution images on a single card should routinely be able to store
    thousands of images on a single card in a few years time. Not that
    I'd need that. I find hundreds per card more than adequate.

    Nope. I'm too stubborn where batteries are concerned. Lithium
    batteries are superior in some respects to NiMH AA batteries, but
    they have disadvantages too. One that I've mentioned before is that
    people can still use a 45 year old Nikon F to take pictures. New
    film cameras have more features, but the old F's still take fine
    pictures. 45 years from now, even though the D70's will be pretty
    obsolete, they could still take good pictures. But will you be able
    to find a compatible lithium battery for it 15 or 20 years from now?

    Another factor is that when I travel, cameras are only one of
    several electronic devices I bring along that use rechargeable
    batteries. I like to always have a spare battery pack for each
    device whether they're cameras, radios, CD or MD players and
    flashlights. Some people would add things such as GameBoys. If I
    bring along 3 devices and they all use AAs, I only have to bring
    along one small charger instead of 3. And the chargers for the
    proprietary NiMH and lithium battery packs also tend to be much
    larger. And instead of bringing 6 battery packs (one and a spare
    for each device), I can bring fewer, maybe just the equivalent of 4
    battery packs, since the one spare can be shared by all devices.
    It's unlikely that more than one spare set would be needed, since
    I'd hardly be using the other devices while I'm busy with the
    camera.

    But just as some people trade in their cars every year or two,
    while others hang onto them for many years, decades even, cameras
    are no different. For those that like the idea of completely
    switching to a new camera every couple of years, selling, trading in
    or burying their old cameras negates much of the advantages of using
    AAs, and for them, lithium battery's advantages greatly outweigh
    their drawbacks.

    As for lithiums taking up half the space of AAs, that may be true,
    but the DSLR I plan on getting is far larger and heavier than any of
    the digital cameras I currently use. Some of the cameras sold today
    that use 4 AA batteries seem like tiny toys when put side by side
    with the larger DSLRs. For me the slightly greater size (only 2
    AA's worth if the DSLR would have used lithiums instead of 4 AAs) is
    hardly worth considering when you think of other things that might
    increase the size and weight of the DSLR to such a greater degree,
    such as a *BIG* lens, or a more powerful flash on a bracket.
     
    BillB, Feb 14, 2005
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.