View Full Version : digital slr cameras
dragonfly
29-Jul-06, 22:56
I've dusted down my old 35mm slr camera and having just received back the prints and i'm once again amazed at the quality of the pictures and that got me thinking about digital slrs, has anyone got one and what should I be looking for if I'm going to buy one??
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 00:53
My advice would be stick with film and check out www.APUG.org.
I have a Nikon D70 which is a great camera - a good site to check out is www.dpreview.com
What to look for?
Hmmm, how quick the auto focus works, is there any shutter lag would be a couple though the digi SLRs these days tend to be pretty free of this problem.
All the SLRs in the £500 - 700 area are good value. Get to somewhere like Jessops if you can and try out the various models.
Stick with film? What will they do when Kodak stops making it?.....
George Brims
30-Jul-06, 02:19
I have an HP945, which isn't an SLR (though it sort of looks like one) It has a zoom lens with an 8X range (plus up ot 7Xdigital zoom). If you want high quality and a versatile zoom range but the Canon and Nikon SLRs are out of your price range, this one is a good compromise. My only real complaint about it is that it's a bit slow at storing the pictures onto the memory card. This can be a nuisance if you're taking pictures of a social event, or small children.
Unfortunatley dragonfly, you won't be able to re-use your lenses from the film SLR on a digital one. As yet the chips in a digital camera aren't as big as the patch of exposed film on 35mm stock. Also there is some issue with the way light penetrates the surface of the chip, which means the light has to hit it at nearer to a right angle, rather than focusing in a cone which is OK for the slightly matt surface of film, so the lens designs internally are different.
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 09:38
Stick with film? What will they do when Kodak stops making it?.....
Erm... let me see... Fuji (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24617) still researching and manufacturing new film types... Ilford (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28014) still producing new materials and their business is booming as people get tired of poor digital facsimiles of black and white and go back to real black and white film and prints...Kodak (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26685) stated last month they will continue making film as it is still their major profit maker and they are losing money hand over fist in their digital section. Film is still widely available to buy and to have processed, here are just a few places:
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/
http://www.retrophotographic.co.uk/
http://www.aremdirect.co.uk/
http://www.aremdirect.co.uk/
http://www.novadarkroom.com/
Jessops? You might as well go to PC World! :lol:
Film is stll available in all formats from 35mm right up to the sheet film Ultra Large Formats of 16" x 20" and beyond.
As Dragonfly stated, they were "once again amazed at the quality of the pictures" from their 35mm SLR, I can only say they will be disappointed with results from digital because a 35mm frame equates to about a 22mega pixel sensor, you won't get that for £700!
And then there's the vulnerability of digital files. One corrupt hard-drive and all your pics are gone. You can back up to CD Rom, but latest advice is to back up CD roms every six to nine months, and to have at least two copies of every CD and hard-drive. You are also totally battery dependent with digital. And then there's the 'dead pixel/dust on sensor' problems with digital. Get a dead pixel it will affect every picture you take, with film you get a brand new perfect sensor with every crank of the film wind.
I use an Olympus OM-1, a Canon QL17 GIII and a Pentax SP1000. All work without batteries and all produce superb photographs, all are 25 years old or more and none of them are obsolete because they still do today what they were designed to do. I develop my own film and make my own optical enlargements in a darkroom. All materials I use are easily available and the end results are so much more satisfying than watching a heavily Photoshopped inkjet come out of a printer.
Spend £500 to £700 on a digital camera and in 18 months to 2 years it'll be yesterday's news because it'll be obsolete. New file types, new procesing software, etc. etc. Already the digital point and shoot market is strugglng because people are using phone cameras.
Dragonfly, if you want good photographs use film for the keepers and use a digital phone camera for snapshots. ;)
Erm... let me see...
It was an attempt at humour....
Jessops? You might as well go to PC World! :lol:
For a wide range of current cameras Jessops is a good place to go for getting you hands on the leading brands. And they sometimes have good deals. They may be the "PC World" of photography but unlike PC World, the staff do at least ask if you need help - they may not be the next David Bailey but at least they try....
Of course you will find cameras a lot cheaper on the interwebnetland, but not everyone is comfortable spending large amounts 'remotely'...
And then there's the vulnerability of digital files.
True there is some concerns about the degradation of digital files - although digital images I took five years ago have not started to fall apart yet. And images I took 20 years ago on 35mm have faded (on prints) and god knows where the negs are now....
Dust on sensor/dead pixels? While the first is annoying, sensible camera use can help avoid it. It is easy enough to remove using a photo edit program.
Dead pixels can also be removed using such programs - and of course if you find a dead pixel within the guarantee period a good camera retailer will replace or repair said camera. I know, it happened to my Olympus....
I develop my own film and make my own optical enlargements in a darkroom.
Developing film? Great if you enjoy that aspect but many users want to make live easier. One point of digital cameras is the ability to view your images straight away and not in 2 weeks when you get the film processed at Boots or Snappy Snaps only to find out you were out of focus or the light was wrong....
Most people who buy a digital camera own a computer so they can edit the image if the so wish. If in time they decide they want to get into 'proper photography' and go 'wet' then great. It has sparked an interest in another aspect of photography.
I use an Olympus OM-1...
Strange - my Canon AE1 needs a battery and it is older than an OM-1 (I was looking at one many years ago - nice camera) - are all your cameras free from any form of power?
I can only say they will be disappointed with results from digital because a 35mm frame equates to about a 22mega pixel sensor, you won't get that for £700!
The Gadget Show did a test on the differences between a digital image and an 'analog' one - using two similar pro cameras, they took the same picture on both cameras, using a pro company blew the raw (as in unedited) images up to about 60'x20' (yes feet) hung it on the side of a building then asked an independent pro photographer to say which image he preferred (he was in the dark as to which was which) - he actually, and surprisingly, chose the digital image over the 'analog' one.
(I have tried to find the programme content online for you to read but haven't yet)
Spend £500 to £700 on a digital camera and in 18 months to 2 years it'll be yesterday's news because it'll be obsolete.
Strange again, as stated I have a digital camera I bought five years ago - it still works, uses the same formats as it did then, I can still get the media cards if I need them, it still takes good shots and is in constant use. Sure the Olympus is only a 2.1MP camera and the Nikon I use is a 6.1 and they are separated by a few years and a few quid. But you buy into any modern devices and they are superceded by newer versions within months (if not weeks) - it's called progress.
Just because you refuse to embrace digital photography don't be so dismissive of it as a medium for others. I know of many film users who have seen the future and traded in their old wet cameras, irrespective of the fears of medium stability. sensible housekeeping can address that and if you have a computer with ANY info of worth on it you should be backing up on a regular basis anyway.....
Now someone turn the light out Dreadnought has to play with his chemicals.....[lol]
I recently went from SLR to DSLR, and invested in a Canon EOS 3D, and have to say i am amazed at both the features and quality. I purchased from Jesspos, and yes i could have got it cheaper on the web, but its easier to pop down to Jessops and get it replaced if something happens to it. Learnt my lesson after i purchased two canon xm2 camcorders online, and one developed problems with the firewire, and when attempting to return it i had no end of problems, along with the company going bust.
So for AV equipment i pay a little extra in return for safe knowledge that if parts fail i can return and get replacement equipment, which is essential for my company.
The Canon EOS 350D is £475 on amazon.co.uk just now, the best thing to do would be to read reviews in digital camera magazines and try them out in person (Jessops would be good).
I'd definitely recommend a decent DSLR, I have the 350D and it's probably the best thing I've ever bought.
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 11:59
True there is some concerns about the degradation of digital files - although digital images I took five years ago have not started to fall apart yet. And images I took 20 years ago on 35mm have faded (on prints) and god knows where the negs are now....
Your negs being lost is your failing, not a failing of the format.
Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/DerekCitroen1964.jpg) is a quick scan of a print I made last week from a neg my father shot in 1964, and here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/TowerBridge67c.jpg) is one I made from a neg he shot in 1966. How many of your digital files will still be backed up, copied to new hard disks, converted to new file formats for you or your family to use in over forty years time?
Dust on sensor/dead pixels? While the first is annoying, sensible camera use can help avoid it. It is easy enough to remove using a photo edit program.
Dead pixels can also be removed using such programs - and of course if you find a dead pixel within the guarantee period a good camera retailer will replace or repair said camera. I know, it happened to my Olympus....
I use a small £1.99 blower brush to remove dust. :lol:
Developing film? Great if you enjoy that aspect but many users want to make live easier. One point of digital cameras is the ability to view your images straight away and not in 2 weeks when you get the film processed at Boots or Snappy Snaps only to find out you were out of focus or the light was wrong....
Maybe you should learn to know when the light is good or bad before you take the picture. Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/Birdcages.jpg) is a print made from a neg shot at night with no flash. Know how to use the light conditions available to you and you won't have to fix any mistakes.
I use an Olympus OM-1...
Strange - my Canon AE1 needs a battery and it is older than an OM-1 (I was looking at one many years ago - nice camera) - are all your cameras free from any form of power?
The Canon AE1 was introduced in 1976, the Olympus OM-1 was introduced in 1973.
The most any of my cameras need a battery for is to operate a built in light meter, they all have fully mechanical shutters, manual focus and manual aperture. As I use a handheld meter they have no batteries installed.
The Gadget Show did a test on the differences between a digital image and an 'analog' one - using two similar pro cameras, they took the same picture on both cameras, using a pro company blew the raw (as in unedited) images up to about 60'x20' (yes feet) hung it on the side of a building then asked an independent pro photographer to say which image he preferred (he was in the dark as to which was which) - he actually, and surprisingly, chose the digital image over the 'analog' one.
(I have tried to find the programme content online for you to read but haven't yet)
The Gadget Show, that bastion of photographic expertise? I'll remember that next time I need to make a sixty foot print. :lol:
Just because you refuse to embrace digital photography don't be so dismissive of it as a medium for others. I know of many film users who have seen the future and traded in their old wet cameras, irrespective of the fears of medium stability. sensible housekeeping can address that and if you have a computer with ANY info of worth on it you should be backing up on a regular basis anyway.....
I don't refuse to use digital. For pictures for ebay, and for quick snaps to show on the web it is quite useful... but for good prints to hang on a wall I choose to use film and traditional materials in a darkroom because they give the best results.
Now someone turn the light out Dreadnought has to play with his chemicals.....
I don't play with chemicals. I use them to make extremely good photographs that won't fade in a couple of months like inkjet prints.
Wow, some like minded folk - see Jessops ain't that bad and as Andrew points out they will replace more often than not.
The 350D is the "Rebel" in the US I believe, and friends swear by it.
I don't think you can go far wrong with any Canon or Nikon products and they seem to be in a price war at the moment, constantly bringing out cheaper but better equipped cameras.
But then we should all rush out and smash our computers and rip the charge-coupled devices from our box brownies because they are all blasphemous in the eyes of the good lord Kodak.......
It would be intersting to know what camera format is used by the likes of MacDonalds or other photography businesses these days. Do they still rely on large format cameras for weddings and other occasions or have they also embraced the new technology and are happy for it to coexist in peace and harmony in their bulging camera bags.....
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 12:12
But then we should all rush out and smash our computers and rip the charge-coupled devices from our box brownies because they are all blasphemous in the eyes of the good lord Kodak.......
If you cannot discuss the subject sensibly maybe it is better to say nothing, as the old adage says, 'It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt'.
Your negs being lost is your failing, not a failing of the format.
Didn't say I had physically lost them - they are in the loft, boxed up....
...but after many years and many moves the prints and negs have got split up. I dare say one day when I grow weary of the Org I will go and rummage through them....
I use a small £1.99 blower brush to remove dust. :lol:
So can I - muahahahaha.......
Maybe you should learn to know when the light is good or bad before you take the picture. is a print made from a neg shot at night with no flash. Know how to use the light conditions available to you and you won't have to fix any mistakes.
Didn't mean me - meant Joe Public....
I use an Olympus OM-1...
The Canon AE1 was introduced in 1976, the Olympus OM-1 was introduced in 1973.
The most any of my cameras need a battery for is to operate a built in light meter, they all have fully mechanical shutters, manual focus and manual aperture. As I use a handheld meter they have no batteries installed.
Thanks for the timeline....
Was it really that early? Hmm must have been when I was using a Praktica LTL3 that I had an eye on the OM-1.
But it still requires a battery - HAH!!!!
OK you don't use one - good for you, all that pharting around running back and forth to get a LMR off your subject....
The Gadget Show, that bastion of photographic expertise? I'll remember that next time I need to make a sixty foot print. :lol:
Did I say it was a bastion of anything? How many programmes on the TV even touch on photography? It was an interesting experiment to me but obviously as you are so chuffin' perfect you wouldn't learn anything.....
I don't refuse to use digital. For pictures for ebay, and for quick snaps to show on the web it is quite useful... but for good prints to hang on a wall I choose to use film and traditional materials in a darkroom because they give the best results.
Bully for you - at least you will be able to take the pictures of your old outdated camera equipment which no-one will want to buy....
I don't play with chemicals. I use them to make extremely good photographs that won't fade in a couple of months like inkjet prints.
Extremely good in whose eyes? Great hope you ebjoy them for many years to come.....
If you cannot discus the subject sensibly maybe it is better to say nothing, as the old adage says, 'It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt'.
Nice, why not just come right out and call me a fool....
I am trying to have a sensible conversation with those who wish to, but it is hard to when some are so entrenched in their beliefs they refuse to accept that 'serious photography' is NOT the only option....
Read the OP - they are asking for advice on digital SLRs - if they wished to buy a 35mm or large format camera they would have asked that....
...if you stop pooh poohing digital photography and realise that for many people it is as enjoyable as messing around in a darkroom then maybe we can agree to disagree. But as with so much of the discussion on these boards recently they views are so polarised it gets peoples backs up...
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 12:33
Didn't mean me - meant Joe Public....
Of course you did.
But it still requires a battery - HAH!!!!
It doesn't require a battery, it will still make photographs without one as well as it does with one.
OK you don't use one - good for you, all that pharting around running back and forth to get a LMR off your subject....
Actually I use incident metering, no running back and forth at all.
Did I say it was a bastion of anything? How many programmes on the TV even touch on photography? It was an interesting experiment to me but obviously as you are so chuffin' perfect you wouldn't learn anything...
What can you learn from the Gadget Show? Until now I thought the only people who watched that were prepubescent schoolboys, and even then only because it has Susie Perry. Do you buy 'Stuff' magazine too? :lol:
Bully for you - at least you will be able to take the pictures of your old outdated camera equipment which no-one will want to buy....
Seeing as I have no need or intention of selling my camera gear that is a moot point. Btw, film gear is never out of date because it can still do today what it was designed for. A modern 35mm SLR will produce the same photographs as a fifty year old or more SLR, the buttons my be different but the end result will be the same.
Extremely good in whose eyes?
Extremely good in my eyes, as I make photographs primarily for my own pleasure. If others like them then that is nice too.
Lolabelle
30-Jul-06, 12:36
Hello, I don't actually have a digital SLR, but my brother inlaw does and it is brilliant, and the picture quality far exceeds that of the ordinary digital that I have, but my soft ware is heaps easier to navigate. His is a pentax I think.
What can you learn from the Gadget Show? Until now I thought the only people who watched that were prepubescent schoolboys, and even then only because it has Susie Perry. Do you buy 'Stuff' magazine too?
Well if nothing else we're getting practice at formatting quotes....
I wish I was a "prepubescent schoolboy" again - my, the things I would do properly this time round...[lol]
I'm surprised you don't buy Stuff - you seem to know Suzi Perry is on the Gadget Show ;)
But insults and barbs will just bounce of my thick-with-age skin. And no doubt like the old iron clad battleship you are named after my shots across your bow will not alter you from your course.
So like the grownup person that I am, I will call it a day and pack my camera bag and sail off serenely into the sunset, snapping away on my digital camera as I go......
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 12:46
Nice, why not just come right out and call me a fool....
I am trying to have a sensible conversation with those who wish to, but it is hard to when some are so entrenched in their beliefs they refuse to accept that 'serious photography' is NOT the only option....
Read the OP - they are asking for advice on digital SLRs - if they wished to buy a 35mm or large format camera they would have asked that....
...if you stop pooh poohing digital photography and realise that for many people it is as enjoyable as messing around in a darkroom then maybe we can agree to disagree. But as with so much of the discussion on these boards recently they views are so polarised it gets peoples backs up...
I haven't 'pooh-poohed' digital photography, I have pointed out it's pitfalls.
For example there is the myth that it is cheaper than film photography. This is patently untrue, people take their memory cards to photo stores and pay the same for prints as they used to pay for getting a film developed.
If you make your digital prints at home Digital print paper actually costs more than traditional photographic paper. Then there is the cost of ink cartridges for the printer.Even if you only put the images on a computer there is still the cost of computer, memory cards, image manipulation software.
The OP said they were blown away by the quality of the shots from their 35mm camera. My honest advice to them is to save their money and stick with what they've got.
Apologies to Dragonfly for spoiling their thread....
I bought a Panasonic fz20 last year.
It is labelled as a 'prosumer' type, i.e. it doesn't have the facility to swap lenses but it does allow you to ahe complete control over you pix in the same way as a D-slr does.
It has a Leica lens - 36 - 432mm (equiv.) F2.8, 12x Zoom Lens and a flash that is effective up to 23 feet away.
IMHO I think it gives a great balance between price and flexibility and to be honest, I got fed up carting round all those lenses and then fiddling to change them etc., etc.
There is now a new model - FZ30 which has a number of smart improvements.
dragonfly
30-Jul-06, 14:22
thanks all! some interesting arguements for and against there :eek:. A couple of dslr's I was thinking about have been mentioned so next time I'm in Inverness I'll pop into the camera shop there and have a hands on look.
Still not entirely made up my mind but the digital camera I already have is good for snapshots but would like to get back into more scenic/portrait type shots which were great with the 35mm slr.
My hubby did come up with the idea of getting them processed onto a disc and then downloading them from that as scanning them in doesn't do justice.
It's cheaper to get them on disk too - only £3 or £4.
George Brims
30-Jul-06, 21:25
Your negs being lost is your failing, not a failing of the format.
Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/DerekCitroen1964.jpg) is a quick scan of a print I made last week from a neg my father shot in 1964, and here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/TowerBridge67c.jpg) is one I made from a neg he shot in 1966. How many of your digital files will still be backed up, copied to new hard disks, converted to new file formats for you or your family to use in over forty years time?
Losing your digital photos is a result of lack of care just like losing negatives - either one is avoidable.
Maybe you should learn to know when the light is good or bad before you take the picture. Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/Birdcages.jpg) is a print made from a neg shot at night with no flash. Know how to use the light conditions available to you and you won't have to fix any mistakes.
You can take pictures in lower light conditions with digital than with film. The quantum efficiency of CCD type sensors is up above 80%, film nearer 3% (and then there's reciprocity failure also).
I don't refuse to use digital. For pictures for ebay, and for quick snaps to show on the web it is quite useful... but for good prints to hang on a wall I choose to use film and traditional materials in a darkroom because they give the best results.
Unfortunately you and I are in a minority here. If you have ever seen a really high quality print of say an Ansel Adams picture close up, you will know how far digital has to go. However for 95% of photographic needs, digital is just more convenient. In particular the digital camera makers have stuck so many handy features in even their cheaper models that were impossible or expensive on flm cameras.
I don't play with chemicals. I use them to make extremely good photographs that won't fade in a couple of months like inkjet prints.
The fading of inkjet prints is a function of either ancient history or using cheap material. You wouldn't buy photographic paper of some unknown ultra-cheap brand to print an important photo, and the same applies to inkjet inks. The major manufacturers have improved theirs immensely.
Dreadnought
30-Jul-06, 21:44
You can take pictures in lower light conditions with digital than with film. The quantum efficiency of CCD type sensors is up above 80%, film nearer 3% (and then there's reciprocity failure also).
You can take reciprocity failure into account. The example I posted was a three minute exposure on Ilford HP5+ stand developed for 18 minutes in Rodinal 1+50. I can shoot in even lower light conditions by using Tri-X or Delta 3200 films etc.
You can take reciprocity failure into account. The example I posted was a three minute exposure on Ilford HP5+ stand developed for 18 minutes in Rodinal 1+50. I can shoot in even lower light conditions by using Tri-X or Delta 3200 films etc.
You see, that's one of the problems of film, it can seem that you need a degree in chemistry and/or jargon, to get what you want.
" I shot this at f99.375 for 0.57942 secs, develop the film in Acidosis ZX4Y for 18 weeks and printed by the light of the moon at 134,000 miles for a fortnight in the broom cupboard at the bottom of the stairs"
Most folk want to click and look, if not immediately then certainly when they get home. Plus, they can now take 5, 10, 20, 30, shots to get the one they want and just dump the rest...........
"I took this one yesterday" [lol]
Dreadnought
31-Jul-06, 08:30
You see, that's one of the problems of film, it can seem that you need a degree in chemistry and/or jargon, to get what you want.
" I shot this at f99.375 for 0.57942 secs, develop the film in Acidosis ZX4Y for 18 weeks and printed by the light of the moon at 134,000 miles for a fortnight in the broom cupboard at the bottom of the stairs"
Most folk want to click and look, if not immediately then certainly when they get home. Plus, they can now take 5, 10, 20, 30, shots to get the one they want and just dump the rest...........
"I took this one yesterday" [lol]
If you knew anything about photography you would know that aperture, ISO, shutter speed etc. applies equally to digital.
If someone goes around just pressing the shutter button they will get pictures, but without the basic knowledge of photography they will only ever get mediocre snapshots. Learn how a camera works, how to use it properly and you will only have to take one shot.
Quality not quantity is what makes a good photographer.
Now, Dreadnought and Geroge Brimms certainly seem to know what they are talking about. So, I have a question: about three years ago I took pictures at my brother's wedding with a Sony P72 digital. They were superb, even better than the professional's (but I think that was down to composition); recently I took pictures at my neice's wedding and I was very disappointed. Can the CCD degrade over time, thereby giving pictures of a poorer quality?
If you knew anything about photography you would know that aperture, ISO, shutter speed etc. applies equally to digital.
If someone goes around just pressing the shutter button they will get pictures, but without the basic knowledge of photography they will only ever get mediocre snapshots. Learn how a camera works, how to use it properly and you will only have to take one shot.
Quality not quantity is what makes a good photographer.
You are missing the point; I don't need to know how a car works to drive one effectively, I don't need to know the physics behind flying to know that flying is safe, I don't need to know how a microwave oven works to heat a cup of milk.
Sure, the background knowledge may make my experience slightly more fulfilling but it isn't (and shouldn't be) necessary.
Likewise photography, while all the background knowledge could be beneficial, I expect that the vast majority of people want to enjoy taking pictures without the 'geek' factor.
2 points -
1. there were 50 million instamatic camaras made between 1963 and 1970; an indicator of the attraction of point and shoot photography.
2. Please don't make assumptions about my knowledge :cool:
Dreadnought
31-Jul-06, 09:41
You are missing the point; I don't need to know how a car works to drive one effectively, I don't need to know the physics behind flying to know that flying is safe, I don't need to know how a microwave oven works to heat a cup of milk.
Sure, the background knowledge may make my experience slightly more fulfilling but it isn't (and shouldn't be) necessary.
Likewise photography, while all the background knowledge could be beneficial, I expect that the vast majority of people want to enjoy taking pictures without the 'geek' factor.
2 points -
1. there were 50 million instamatic camaras made between 1963 and 1970; an indicator of the attraction of point and shoot photography.
2. Please don't make assumptions about my knowledge :cool:
I need make no assumptions about your knowledge when you have quite clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge regarding photography when you assume ISO, aperture and shutter speed only applies to film. Your analogy about driving a car does not hold up, if you don't know how to use the clutch, brakes, gearstick and steering wheel, there is only one way you can drive a car: badly.
The OP stated "I've dusted down my old 35mm slr camera and having just received back the prints and i'm once again amazed at the quality of the pictures" . They obviously want quality photographs and not just mediocre snapshots, so they don't want a point and shoot. Regardless of whether they decide on film or digital if they want quality results they will have to learn how to use the camera properly.
As for 'geek factor', if my being able to use a camera properly and get consistently good results makes me a geek, then I am happy to be a geek. If you are happy to just wave a camera around on burst mode and hope for a lucky shot, then more power to you.
Personally I see no need for insults in this thread, obviously you think differently.
Naefearjustbeer
31-Jul-06, 09:44
My hubby did come up with the idea of getting them processed onto a disc and then downloading them from that as scanning them in doesn't do justice.
I was very disapointed at the quality of the pictures that I got on disc from the chemist. It looked like they had scanned in the photos ar quite a poor resolution. The extra cost considering the price of a blank cd these days was ridiculous. But then again the prices to get your digital prints done in the chemist are really quite reasonable. Maybe they too are keen to get everyone digital these days.
I need make no assumptions about your knowledge when you have quite clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge regarding photography when you assume ISO, aperture and shutter speed only applies to film. Your analogy about driving a car does not hold up, if you don't know how to use the clutch, brakes, gearstick and steering wheel, there is only one way you can drive a car: badly.
The OP stated "I've dusted down my old 35mm slr camera and having just received back the prints and i'm once again amazed at the quality of the pictures" . They obviously want quality photographs and not just mediocre snapshots, so they don't want a point and shoot. Regardless of whether they decide on film or digital if they want quality results they will have to learn how to use the camera properly.
As for 'geek factor', if my being able to use a camera properly and get consistently good results makes me a geek, then I am happy to be a geek. If you are happy to just wave a camera around on burst mode and hope for a lucky shot, then more power to you.
Personally I see no need for insults in this thread, obviously you think differently.
Whoah, where does the ' insult' thing come from?
Anyway you stated above that
if you don't know how to use the clutch, brakes, gearstick and steering wheel, there is only one way you can drive a car: badly. whereas I said
I don't need to know how a car works to drive one effectively,
The difference is in bold, small but very important. Please read more carefully.
Dreadnought
31-Jul-06, 09:55
Whoah, where does the ' insult' thing come from?
Anyway you stated above that
whereas I said
The difference is in bold, small but very important. Please read more carefully.
You make the analogy that you can drive a car well without knowing how it works, when criticising the need to know how to use a camera. You wrote "I shot this at f99.375 for 0.57942 secs, develop the film in Acidosis ZX4Y for 18 weeks and printed by the light of the moon at 134,000 miles for a fortnight in the broom cupboard at the bottom of the stairs", therefore you are criticising the need to know how to effectively use a camera.It is your analogy which is incorrect.
Insults: I am referring to your ad hominem attack "the vast majority of people want to enjoy taking pictures without the 'geek' factor", which implies having knowledge of a subject makes someone a 'geek'.
Guys, guys. Can you put down the Kalashnikovs and help out a couple of people who are having trouble with their photos and want to draw up your skills before you start a situation? :roll:
dragonfly
31-Jul-06, 10:04
:eek: what have I started??? :confused
You make the analogy that you can drive a car well without knowing how it works, when criticising the need to know how to use a camera. You wrote "I shot this at f99.375 for 0.57942 secs, develop the film in Acidosis ZX4Y for 18 weeks and printed by the light of the moon at 134,000 miles for a fortnight in the broom cupboard at the bottom of the stairs", therefore you are criticising the need to know how to effectively use a camera.It is your analogy which is incorrect.
Insults: I am referring to your ad hominem attack "the vast majority of people want to enjoy taking pictures without the 'geek' factor", which implies having knowledge of a subject makes someone a 'geek'.
I did not use geek as an insult - here are 4 definitions of the word ( ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek )
A person who is interested in technology, especially computing and new media. Comparable with the classic definition of hacker. (Late 20th century and early 21st century.)
A person who has chosen concentration rather than conformity; one who pursues skill (especially technical skill) and imagination, not mainstream social acceptance. .......................
A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream. This could be due to the intensity, depth, or subject of their interest. This definition is very broad, and allows for mathematics geeks, aviation geeks, band geeks, Computer geeks, .............................
G.E.E.K., as an acronym, reputedly came from the United States Military; it stands for General Electrical Engineering Knowledge. It is unclear if this was the origin of the current meaning for geek, or if the acronym was used as a humorous reference toward the pre-established meaning for geek (i.e., a backronym).
I was using geek as someone who has extensive knowledge.
Once again, in your passage above you have interchanged my word 'works' with 'use'; this subtly alters the meaning somewhat.
To 'use' a camera I only have to
make sure it has 'film'
switch it on
lens cap off
automatic setting on
aim
press the button
I don't need to know everything that is going on inside it and what the interactions between all the moving/non-moving parts are.
Jeepers, folk around here are getting really touchy nowadays eh?
Hey Dragonfly, I've had enough,
Geeks, the use of 'argumentum ad hominem', jings it's just photys! [lol]
Boozeburglar
31-Jul-06, 10:55
The points already made are fair to some degree, with one or two notable exceptions…
Patronising people in the way seen here is the best way to put them off getting ‘into’ the technical side of photography.
There is no dark art to this, photography is very simple indeed. You see it, you choose whether to capture it or not.
The only input you have beyond the camera and lens/filter you use is the moment you capture your subject, where from, where to put it in your frame and how much of the frame it occupies, how tightly you focus on it, the amount you expose it, whether and how you add light and the motion you allow to remain according to the speed you take your image and the stability of your camera.
Sounds a lot but 80% of this is generally set according to the same principles, and once learnt will be automatic.
If sticking your lens at everything passing by and snapping away floats your boat, go ahead, and I am sure that, contrary to Dreadnowt's assumptions, you will take some fine photographs, and through reflection learn a lot.
The beauty of the digital work path is the ability to do this relatively cheaply, to improve via the 'suck it and see' approach.
My advice on getting a DSLR would be to get a small one. You are much more likely to capture that 'one time happening' if you have a camera with you, rather than leaving it in the car because it is so heavy. Get a lens that covers 18-125, the Sigma ones are fine and you will leave this on 80% of the time, for general photography. If you need more length, there are 18-200 available, but unless you have a good tripod well weighted much more than this in a non stabilised lens will rarely provide good service at the long end.
I thing the Canon 350d is a great wee camera, and you can pick it up with a Sigma 18-125 lens for £600 odd. A great package.
Whatever you decide to do, enjoy it and ignore the fuddle duds!
;)
SNIP
There is no dark art to this, photography is very simple indeed. You see it, you choose whether to capture it or not.
SNIP
The beauty of the digital work path is the ability to do this relatively cheaply, to improve via the 'suck it and see' approach.
SNIP
Whatever you decide to do, enjoy it and ignore the fuddle duds!
;)
The point I tried to make in post #24 before I got my face chewed............
Thank you Boozeburglar!
dragonfly
31-Jul-06, 11:44
OK, I've decided to carry on using my non digital slr for now as I know its great for taking the type of photos I am looking for from it and will send off unprocessed film to truprint or someother processing company (won't be using local chemists as they are expensive and they never seem to get the colours right - either too green or too red!) and get a copy of photos on CD which I can then upload to my online photo album.
If this is satisfactory, I'll save a fortune and also get use out of my camera again :D
Kaishowing
31-Jul-06, 11:57
Personally I use both mediums.
My little point-and-shoot digicam has given me some really very good images....But for anything other than just snapshots/webshots etc, I use my old 35mm SLR's.
When you take a halfway decent 35mm photo, the level of satisfaction far outstrips the feeling of achievment to when you get a decent digital snapshot, but that's just me!
I started phtography backwards......got the little digicam 1st, and then as I got more interested I bought some cheap SLR's from EBay.
Now I can see both sides to the argument.
It all depends on what each person wants to get out of taking their photos/images.
As long as you enjoy it, THAT'S all that really matters!
As it's all down to personal taste, we're all bound to differ in opinion as much as we don't all like the same foods.
See... so easy to begin a Middle-East (Caithness) crisis. Why do some people get so het up? Well, George Brimms, thee and I, and Dragonfly will have to find out our own answers, I guess.
Kaishowing
31-Jul-06, 13:52
....Can the CCD degrade over time, thereby giving pictures of a poorer quality?
The short answer is YES!!!
There are places where they claim that CCD's don't wear out, but they do as operators of spy and weather satellites have found out. Whether they wear out enough to make a difference to average digital cameras is another matter.
Unfortunately the more ultraviolet light that hits the chip, the faster the CCD will burn out.
It'll keep working, but there won't be the same richness in quality.
That's a fact...but I'm not sure if it'll degrade enough to make a difference in a domestic Digicam.
Soory if thats not much help, but the CCD degredation is a possibility.
The short answer is YES!!!
There are places where they claim that CCD's don't wear out, but they do as operators of spy and weather satellites have found out. Whether they wear out enough to make a difference to average digital cameras is another matter.
Unfortunately the more ultraviolet light that hits the chip, the faster the CCD will burn out.
It'll keep working, but there won't be the same richness in quality.
That's a fact...but I'm not sure if it'll degrade enough to make a difference in a domestic Digicam.
Soory if thats not much help, but the CCD degredation is a possibility.
Thanks, Kaishowing
I was suspicious of this since the quality was lower. It could have been the photolab so I shall try another. I do hope that it turns out to be the latter.
Dreadnought
31-Jul-06, 18:35
Now, Dreadnought and Geroge Brimms certainly seem to know what they are talking about. So, I have a question: about three years ago I took pictures at my brother's wedding with a Sony P72 digital. They were superb, even better than the professional's (but I think that was down to composition); recently I took pictures at my neice's wedding and I was very disappointed. Can the CCD degrade over time, thereby giving pictures of a poorer quality?
There is also the possibility that having such good results the first time, your expectations were higher the second time.
"If sticking your lens at everything passing by and snapping away floats your boat, go ahead, and I am sure that, contrary to Dreadnowt's assumptions, you will take some fine photographs, and through reflection learn a lot."
It isn't an assumption, I speak from experience. After 30 years of using a Zorki 4K rangefinder for a year or so I gave 'Lomography' a go (see here (www.lomohomes.com/Minitar1)) . All that 'shoot from the hip' stuff and 'don't think shoot' etc. For a year's worth of shots I have maybe five I consider keepers.
I also tried making inkjet photos from scanned negatives but the results were total garbage, so I taught myself how to develop my own film and enlarge my own photographs at home. I could never go back to the inkjets because they really do not compare to a real wet darkroom made photograph.
I have an HP945, which isn't an SLR (though it sort of looks like one) It has a zoom lens with an 8X range (plus up ot 7Xdigital zoom). If you want high quality and a versatile zoom range but the Canon and Nikon SLRs are out of your price range, this one is a good compromise. My only real complaint about it is that it's a bit slow at storing the pictures onto the memory card. This can be a nuisance if you're taking pictures of a social event, or small children.
Unfortunatley dragonfly, you won't be able to re-use your lenses from the film SLR on a digital one. As yet the chips in a digital camera aren't as big as the patch of exposed film on 35mm stock. Also there is some issue with the way light penetrates the surface of the chip, which means the light has to hit it at nearer to a right angle, rather than focusing in a cone which is OK for the slightly matt surface of film, so the lens designs internally are different.
I have the HP850 (an even older model) and am delighted with it EXCEPT for the shutter delay - makes photographing moving objects difficult.
BUT, I believe this is not a problem now.
I have not used my film SLR since. It is a Canon EOS 650 with a 28-300 zoom. That lens does fit my stepson's digital Canon 300D. In fact he bought the 300D expecting to have to use that lens, and was pleasantly surprised to find it came already fitted with a short zoom.
The 300D has been replaced by the 350D, mentioned elsewhere, which gets excellent reviews.
So, re-using lenses may be possible if for a camera of the same manufacturer. They may not be perfectly matched as mentioned above, but I doubt that anyone other than an expert would be able to tell.
The interesting part was that I had actually given him the film SLR for his partner - an art historian who had very fixed ideas about the relative merits of film and digital. Within a month of having the film 650 and the digital 300D she decided that film was not worth the hassle.
Personally I think if you are not intending to use interchangeable lenses (and get a digital camera with a good zoom range) that the more compact digital cameras mean that you will actually use the camera more.
Another comment in this thread was on the storage of pictures. remember that with film you only have one set of negatives (or transparencies). I have scanned old transparencies from the 1950s - 1965 and they suffer terribly from growths caused by damp. See
http://chemistry.st-and.ac.uk/staff/jrb/wick/
especially
http://chemistry.st-and.ac.uk/staff/jrb/wick/6503/images/21.jpg
With digital images they may be stored on CDROM or DVD. There are worries about whether these will last, and current advice is to recopy (eg from CDROM to CDROM) every 2 years. This would have the added advantage that you could ask a friend or relative to store the old copies and you have the added security that they are in a different physical location.
Similar to the advice for any computer backup, where we actually recommend 3 "generations" of backups.
Optical media such as CDROM or DVD should be stored in a cool dry place, remembering that the worst damage can be caused to the TOP surface. Use the proper felt-tip pen. Personally I avoid labels as something liable to damage the top layer. Of course there are now printers which can print directly onto the top of CD/DVD.
Jim
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.