 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Here is a question for you. How many of you think that the traditional camera is that best medium for photography?Do you feel that the Digital cameras are OK but some how are missing something? [Like a lower price tag for one].
I compared two cameras, one digital and the other a traditional SLR. The Digital camera was $1300 while the traditional camera is $400. Let’s face it, optics and a good camera body are one of those things where you get what you pay for. However I can buy and process a lot of film for $900.
What do you think?
Follow Ups:
I shoot the EOS3 and D30 adn can safely say that both cameras are fantastic. Both cameras accept the same array of lenses and accessories. The EOS3 is definetly faster for some situations, but overall i would say the D30 wins! Traditionally i would take shots with Velvia and then scan them in using a Nikin slode scanner to end up with a digital shot..... color management is a nightmare!With the D30 the color management is fantastic, it does not exist!
just straight image xfer to Photoshop.
All the fetaures of the EOS3 SLR are in this camera for the most part. The ability to switch ISO on the fly and bracket difficult exposures and get instant feedback is indispensable.
I have had 20x30 enlargements done from my raw images from the D30 that you would be very hard-pressed to think it was digital.
...Buy the 35mm camera--(A)There are more interchangeable
lenses for 35mm cameras than for 'digital'cameras
costing only $1K,and the number of silver "grains" in
traditional film still OUTNUMBERS by 3X
the number of 'pixels' in the $1K digital camera,
and (B) You can take the 35mm negs or slides and send them
to a lab which
will SCAN them onto a Kodak Photo CD--Dale Labs
in Florida does this...it is DIFFERENT from Kodak's PictureDisc
...the Photo CD has FIVE levels of resolution, and you
can also store 'medium-format'images up to 4X5 on it!!---
there ARE 4-megapixel digital cameras, but they don't
cost $1K, more like $3K...
Well, a camera dealer came out and told me that digital images were not nearly as good as good film images (kind of like CD's vs. LP's), but I really enjoyed using my FujiFilm FinePix 4900 Zoom on the vacation we just had (until the battery went dead, -I forgot to charge it the night before). We just got home and I was able to stick my Smart Media Card into my HP printer this morning and gots some wonderful enlargements with no fuss. Very handy and delightful for a snapshot camera.
Digital is going to be here if it isn't already for casual snapshots, when you can afford to have your PC or a repository for shots around at the time. I'm still not sure what one would do if one wanted to take a 6 week tour somewhere. I can carry (and afford with no trouble) enough film, but I have no idea how to get enough digital storage for that sort of trip (figure, with editing, 30 shots per day, unedited 2-3 135-36 rolls).For large prints, large presentations, transparencies, I think that old-fashioned film cameras are still the weapon of choice. Presently it's hard to get a digital resolution like a 6x7 cm bit of Velvia or Pan-F+.
Digital cameras have also to evolve, they have for the most part (excepting some the deadly-pricey pro models) a fixed, not-so-great zoom lens (or worse, "digital zoom" :( ) and not the best of features.
I can't imagine why any digital camera couldn't give you a histogram or curve display of a shot, and allow you to tweak it and re-expose the scene accordingly, but only the most $$$$ of the lot come close.
Unlike some of the insultingly negative folks, I think that either one can be handled "organically" to do creative stuff. Film has some limits there that digital doesn't have, but can have effects you'll have huge problems generating digitally. On the other hand, nothing in film beats the ability to colour-adjust digitally, except some of those nice flying-spot printers that let you do it witl film :)
JJ
I have PS 6.0 and it is great! I have not learned all of the tricks it can do yet but I like it.I have Light Wave 5.6 as well. It is a 3D ray tracing program.
Lots of fun.
Van
Have a look here Van, some very pratical Photoshop tips & a nice site as well.
regards rod
It has some value, indeed. I have the LE version, I don't have a 1G of memory, and I didn't want to splurge for the whole thing.I get what I really wanted, though, the ability to balance, etc.
JJ
Van,You structured not correct question. I mean: this question can be asked but then you have to specify the application of “your photography”. Photography is a huge world and there are of thousands of circumstances why the certain techniques or methodology should be used.
Generally, for whatever application the common “photography consumer” can be exposed, today the digital is better or will be better within the very short period of time. Some specific requirement the digital still can’t handle and probable will not handle but it is very small percentage of the consumers and they will be disregarded by mainstream.
I'm familiar with the best analog and digital results and being “one of those analog guys” I vote for digital. Not because it is “better” (most of the time it dose) but because the part that make analog better has not a lot of to do with a technology as a process but more with human/machine interaction as a notion. Besides there is a very important moment: culture of a product. Unfortunately the contemporary "products" (deliveries) have no inner-culture. (It just happened that the photography is digital currently but the key word is not “digital” but “currently”) However this is applicable not only with the cameras but with music, audio, visual art, and etc.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
I suspect your question is on a much lighter-level than my answer, but regardless, it's still food for thought:It really depends at where you draw your line as to the "best medium" -- is your purpose just to snapshot pictures of family and friends, and post it online? Or on a photo album? Or are you into creative photography, or photojournalism, or what?
Until you know exactly what you want to do, both the $1300 digital camera and the $400 SLR may both be the wrong items for you. Which $1300 and $400 camera were you talking about? I'm assuming the $400 35mm does not include optics... so what optics will you get? Seeing it is an SLR, you can spend more than $10k on getting a range of specialized optics that will let you take more stuff than the $1300 digital camera will EVER let you do (examples: true macro, 600mm telephotos, various filters, etc).
Personally, I remain yet to be convinced that digital photography has caught up with traditional film. I am a Canon EOS lover, and in looking at results from the Canon D-30 (digital SLR, $3k), Nikon, and Kodak digital SLRs, I have yet to find the true color and texture rendition that I love so much about true "photographic art". No matter what, these digital cameras still create a "pasty" color to my eyes. And I don't mind using slow film scanners to convert my work to online pictures. So for me, personally, I still think my "best medium" is film, be it 35mm, or larger format.
Conversely, many people nowadays prefer the convenience of digital cameras to their point and shoot film cameras. Many of my friends are delighted at how fast they get their digital pictures back, they email pictures around to friends within minutes of taking the picture, it's much easier to archive, etc. I'm even thinking about using a digital camera to compose before I snap away using my 120/220.
Best wishes in your camera hunt -- and welcome to the camera asylum.
Keith
Kieth, Romy and other Shutter bugs
I respect your opinions but I must tell you that you need to see some PICs from better cameras. The quality of film –VS- Digital would become clear to you if this was the case. Cameras like the 35 MM are toys to me and Digital are even lower that that. When you compare the two they are light years apart. [35mm vs Digital]
**I suspect your question is on a much lighter-level than my answer, but regardless, it's still food for thought:
Actually it is how you or anyone, as I sees it, perceives what a good photo looks like. A picture is worth a thousand words in this case.
Regardless I have use Cameras that are worth more that some cars. And for the most part I like the film type better than the Digital type. You would too if you saw a few photographs from a good [even a modest camera with a great lens] camera/lens combo and compared them to the Digital out put from even the best Digital cameras.
***It really depends at where you draw your line as to the "best medium".
No not really. An 8x10 negative will have much better resolution than any little pee pop digital camera. Even a 35 mm will beat the crap out of a DC.
Check out Ansel Adams photos and you will see what I am talking about. He used a View Camera. Remember that you are seeing them on a digital format and it sucks.
http://www.sunspotphoto.com/cameras/view.html
Here is a link to AA and some of his pics
http://www.ocaiw.com/adams.htm
*** -- is your purpose just to snapshot pictures of family and friends, and post it online? Or on a photo album?
I have been trained as a professional photographer as well as an Avionics Technician and will leave it at that.
***Until you know exactly what you want to do, both the $1300 digital camera and the $400 SLR may both be the wrong items for you.
No not really. Cost will dictate all. And if you are creative, yes creativity and photography go hand in hand, you can get better results from a standard SLR than any digital Camera.
***Personally, I remain yet to be convinced that digital photography has caught up with traditional film. I am a Canon EOS lover, and in looking at results from the Canon D-30 (digital SLR, $3k), Nikon, and Kodak digital SLRs, I have yet to find the true color and texture rendition that I love so much about true "photographic art". No matter what, these digital cameras still create a "pasty" color to my eyes. And I don't mind using slow film scanners to convert my work to online pictures. So for me, personally, I still think my "best medium" is film, be it 35mm, or larger format.
We seem to agree then.
My way to do things: If you use a traditional camera and have the film developed and have it saved to a CD you will have the best of both worlds and save a lot of money too.
You can print the pics you like best as well as send them over the net.
Your 120 x 220 is an excellent format film [one of my favorites] and will produce wonderful PICs.
***Best wishes in your camera hunt.
I am not hunting for a camera, just providing “food for thought” ;o)
***and welcome to the camera asylum.
Thank you!
http://a908.g.akamai.net/7/908/327/24h/images.allposters.com/images/IMA/A142.jpg
Van,As an early adopter to digital photography many years back and one who grew up using many Leicas and owned a Hasselblad... Cheap digital is just that. Cheap. Sure it works, but what is your true desired end purpose? Obviously digital on the cheap means you are stuck with the quality of glass and lens on the unit. With better, more expensive prosumer digital cameras you can interchange lenses as is done with 35mm/medium format/etc. Of course THAT is when digital cameras can get more expensive than the 35mm equivalent.
In the end you need to decide what is best for your photography needs/desires. As for my current digital rig, i went for the Canon D30. A good in between of pro and consumer with the ability to use pro lenses and use real lighting/flash units.
The choice is yours.
Enjoy the music,
Steven R. Rochlin
And I agree, up to a point.
For me [now that I am out of the field] I will stick to a film type. I can use the film by scanning or have it XFRD to cd at the proccesor.
I save $$ and time that way. It is how I see things.Six or half a dozen, the end result is all that matters. Is the pic a work of art? Does it move you to think or stir the emotions?
What takes it is really not what counts I guess.I am sad to see you part with such a sweet camera.
Have a good weekend
Van
Van,Yes, it is all in how one decided to express their medium... or what is needed for their workload. Saddly, the Hassey went bye-bye as it was not really used as best it could have and for me and my work, digital conforms better. If i wanted BOTH that could have been arranged, yet it was hard for me to see sich a fine piece of art in amd of itself locked away in the case 99% of the time while the Canon D-30 was being used at shows and other activities.
It is like my hatered for those who own Ferrari cars only to drive them 100 miles a year. For me, in my humble opinion, it makes no sense to own such a fine high=performance automobile if you are not going to use it as was intended. Better to let someone else own it who will use it accordinly.
Just my 2 cents. Maybe one day i'll get back to medium, or go to large format. For now with my lifestyle the D-30 fits. Sad, but true.
Enjoy the music,
Steven R. Rochlin
***Digital conforms better.Well I think it sure is handy at times. I will get a nice one some day.
Just like I got a good CD player.**** Like my hatred for those who own Ferrari cars only to drive them 100 miles a year.
Yes, I know what you mean. I had a real sweet turntable and I did not use it for a long time. I sold it to a very good friend of mine [Landshark]. He loves it and uses it all the time.
Now I have another turntable and I am upgrading it. Given the situation I would have done the same.*****Better to let someone else own it who will use it accordingly.
Yes, it is true. I get a good feeling when Landshark tells me of the LP's he has played lately. He loves analog and I had a hand in his level of enjoyment.
****Just my 2 cents.More valuable than you think.
**** One day I’ll get back to medium, or go to large format.
One day I would like a good view camera, For now my toy 35 MM will do.
My wife has a Cannon Rebel 2000. It is quite nice and has a lot of nice features but I like the full manuals without all the bells and whistles better.***For now with my lifestyle the D-30 fits. Sad, but true.
***Enjoy the music,
Always
Later
Van
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
