Which camera, an ordinary Digital or an SLR Digital, that is the question

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Derrick Fawsitt, Feb 4, 2005.

  1. Up to now I have been persuaded that the best Digital camera was an SLR
    Digital. A friend tells me that provided you don't want to change lenses
    you don't need an SLR, if so, which cameras would you buy right now.
    Can someone comment on that please, thank you.
    To assist anyone kind enough to help me here, can I add the following
    comments I made to a previous post in another Newsgroup which might
    explain my question better...

    In reply to the following comments from a very kind poster..

    "Before declaring that the recommendation to keep your SLR Contax was
    inappropriate, take a look at the price of a digital SLR that will
    deliver the same quality of image".

    I replied thus..
    "Yes, I agree but I am repeatedly told the digital revolution is
    catching up and that my Contax is now virtually UN-saleable at anything
    other that a give-away price. However, and this is the best answer to
    your comments above, what good is this extra quality if it becomes too
    expensive to use it and as a result it simply "does not get used". A
    good analogy is that of LP records, while they have in some ways a
    superior sound to CD's, the monopoly and prevalence of the newer format
    means that "LP's are not played as much, (if at all), in my opinion
    there is not much use in having them on the shelf if they are not going
    to be played.

    In relation to my Contax, I recently got a burst of enthusiasm in that I
    would make a speciality of Black and White (Monochrome), photography
    only to discover 1. the cost of developing my prints and 2. the scarcity
    of people willing to do it. Yes I got recommendations of company's and
    persons willing to process my films and even a way of doing it using
    Colour and printing them as B and W, but neither way avoided prohibitive
    costs. So you see, my Contax remains on the shelf while I use my little
    Cannon Ixus regularly with my PC.
    So much for your very kind and no doubt well intentioned advice which I
    do greatly appreciate. However, do you now have a solution for my
    redundant Cannon other than trading it in at a give-away price against a
    Nikon?"
    I hope that explains my question, I will now go on the side and hope
    someone advises me as to the best course in my circumstances.
    End of quote.
    Over to you....
     
    Derrick Fawsitt, Feb 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Playing LPs costs nothing. If you have them, it's completely up to
    you how often you play them. No analogy.
     
    Laurence Payne, Feb 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Depends if you have to replace your player.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Feb 5, 2005
    #3
  4. I don't agree, both are now "old" formats and are being less and less
    used generally, (notice I said generally), therefore while the quality
    is still undoubtedly better, to be realistic, in everyday use the newer
    technology is now dominant and it makes more sense to "go with the
    flow".
    Having said that, and with thanks to the previous two posters for at
    least taking the trouble to respond to me, (however much I disagree with
    them), I am disappointed with the answers to my comments as such. I was
    directed here from a different newsgroup with the advice that my queries
    would be betted addressed here, so far, the "juries still out" as far as
    I can see.
    Regards,
     
    Derrick Fawsitt, Feb 5, 2005
    #4

  5. i use film and digital.
    i use film , 35mm slide , when i want a picture that can be enlarged
    beyond a3+.
    i use digital for instant pictures which will be printed on a3+ paper.

    there is still a place for both , but my canon eos300d has more usage
    than my canon eos500.

    advantage is that lenses work on both bodies.
     
    Gary MacKenzie, Feb 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Derrick Fawsitt

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    And what has any of your message got to do with video ?...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Feb 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Derrick Fawsitt

    Tony Morgan Guest

    I didn't respond because your post is off-topic here (didn't you notice
    the "video"?). Since others have picked up the ball, I might as well put
    my 2-pence worth in.

    Your suggestion that digital photographs are cheaper than still-printed
    photos is incorrect. Try doing the sums (24 photographs proofed at (say)
    5x4 plug (say) five enlarged to 10x8).

    I've got a Pentax LX with assorted lenses, as well as a Bronica up in
    the attic that haven't seen the light of day for, maybe, three years.
    Though my interest is in video, my interest in still photography was
    re-awakened following the BBC Voices initiative (I've still got some
    pictures on the BBC website, e.g.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northeast/sites/in_pictures/pages/rhyl.shtml?1
    5)

    When I was asked to produce 10x8s to hang in the BBC Voices exhibition,
    I was unable to oblige since the photos were taken with the still-photo
    facility on my camcorder. I was unwilling to have my name below a
    pixillated exhibit :) Anyway, it re-awakened my interest in still
    photography.

    I then looked around at the various options that would permit me to
    produce 10x8s (or better 12x10s). Since I rarely go out without my
    faithful Sony DCR-TRV30 video camera, I didn't want anything large to
    hump around. After much investigation, I settled on a Sony F88. Small
    enough to slip in my pocket, but able to take good photographs under
    most conditions and (most importantly) able to get "hanging-quality"
    prints, since it has more than 5 mpx resolution. Another factor was to
    allow my wife to pick it up and "snap" without being intimidated, while
    giving me enough override controls to be useful in all situations.

    One thing did trouble me, though, was (as on most digital cameras) the
    non-wide characteristic of the wide setting of the zoom. Fortunately,
    the F88 offers an optional click-on WA attachment with gives remarkably
    good results. I bought one of these, though it was quite expensive.

    In retrospect, I'm pleased with my choice. I'm glad I didn't go the
    digital SLR route.

    Still, buying still digital cameras depends on your expectations and
    requirements. I'll just say that the F88 was the very best choice for
    me. Horses for courses, as they say.
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Derrick Fawsitt

    Mike Scott Guest

    Perhaps the OP has noticed there isn't a specific uk digital stills
    group? Is there need of one? - uk.rec.photo.misc seems rather non-specific.

    Can anyone say where the charter for this group can be found please?
    Google seems to have failed me for once :-(
     
    Mike Scott, Feb 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Quite so, and if I have upset anyone by coming in on this NG with a
    question about still photograph, can I point out that its "still"
    photography, (pun intended, can't help it ;-))
    In any case not only could I not get satisfaction from the
    "professional" websites, but I was actually directed here by one of
    them, (which shall be nameless).
    Finally, the responses now to my query are starting to be really
    interesting for which I must thank you all.
     
    Derrick Fawsitt, Feb 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Derrick Fawsitt

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Well, seeing that digital stills are not affected with regard to location as
    video is, how about the following groups for starters ?

    It is listed at http://www.usenet.org.uk/, along with all the other uk*
    charters or search this group using google groups with the word charter as a
    search term.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Feb 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Derrick Fawsitt

    Trev Guest

    A lot sniped
    As most SLR film or digital just use the one zoom lens and Fixed lens
    Digital compact camers with the same range can fit in the pocket and be
    avalabel any day What diferance does it make.

    Mind what I would Like is a Digital with the Screen on top with pop up sun
    shade like a medium format. That little Rollie 35 slr 3008 or something
    would be Ideal Design
     
    Trev, Feb 5, 2005
    #11
  12. How do you "go with the flow" if you have a collection of music on
    vinyl? Don't kid yourself it's higher quality. But it might be
    good music. No-one's forcing you to junk it, though the way some
    people talk, you'd think they were :)
     
    Laurence Payne, Feb 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Derrick Fawsitt

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Of course you do, you compress it ever further and bung it onto MP3....NOT.

    But some people do / are :~(
     
    :::Jerry::::, Feb 6, 2005
    #13
  14. Derrick Fawsitt

    Trev Guest

    A better one
    http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

    But was thinking more of a Rollei 2000f /3003 we bit more compact but
    squire, would that make it a 1/3 rd size Bronica SQ
     
    Trev, Feb 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Derrick Fawsitt

    Trev Guest

    HE he! I have a Digital camera but I never got round to a Autocue 35 mm Slr
    And was very happy with my XE1 and XGM Minoltas. Still play my Vinyl's on a
    connoisseur BD1 with SME arm but will never replace either with like.
    Will not dump my old stuff but when the time comes That I can no longer use
    them the modern alternatives beckons
     
    Trev, Feb 6, 2005
    #15
    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.