 
|
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 |
Old timer here. I have a cheap HP digital camera that I just gave to my 12 year old. It's just a toy. I am amazed at the poor quality of these things.So.... I am thinking about shooting some subjects with my old trusty Nikon 2020 and having my local Costco return my film in the form of digital pix on a CD. Can anyone tell me what the quality is like? I can't imagine it's very good as a 35 mm negative is very small.
Or do I bite for a REAL digital camera? Suggestions?
Thanks!
Follow Ups:
..do you want to do with the digital camera? Final image use will direct you to the best choice. Is this to use in place of a P&S film camera, or are you expecting to replace a 35mm film camera with resolution, interchangeable lenses, etc.?I use all different types of film cameras from 35mm up to 8x10 and am currently looking at a Canon S45 (smaller version of G-3) for some site documentation work that will go into a published report instead of film/scan routine. For Web work or incorporating photos into printed reports digital is a far better solution for those photo uses. At the higher end, medium and large format digital backs are the way to go for catalog/studio work.
But, if you're expecting to duplicate film performance in an enlarged photo with a digital camera - stick with film. New Kodak camera will be out in February with a 24x36mm sensor and 13 megapixels for about $5k based on the Nikon N80 body (special version).
***"I can't imagine it's very good as a 35 mm negative is very small***"
11,000 ppi Tango drum scan of 35mm frame and you can do 30x40 inch enlargement on a LightJet. No grain, totally sharp from edge-to-edge. Again, depends on YOUR final output requirement.
I work with cameras everyday and recently purchased the Nikon Coolpix 2000. I can promise it is far better than the lower-end HPs. It lacks a viewfinder (LCD only) and only records movies without sound, but on the converse I got a good shot in absolutely no light using only built-in flash and the macro is amazing for a camera of its class. My two best suggestions: Coolpix 2000 ($229 at Ritz/Wolf), or spend $20 more and get a Canon A40 ($249). The A40 has the movie w/sound and a viewfinder, and can take lens adaptations. The macro is not as good but is still decent for most people. Just some thoughts...
Abby
unless you print larger than 5x7 and/or develop and print your own pictures, there's no point of getting a non-digital camera anymore. The Canon G3 can be had for what would cost an inexpensive SLR with one or two cheap lenses. Although the digital quality has not surpassed the best of film, the ease of digital photography is manifold better than traditional photography. Digital photography is superior at taking pictures, darkroom manipulation, and storage; with instant feedback, the freedom of manipulating digital information, the convenience of digital storage instead of shoeboxes, there's less work between your photographs and your creative mind. Do yourself a favor, search for the galleries of people with a digital camera, say the canon g2, and those with leicas and contaxes, and see which have a lot of good pictures.Many digital shooters are snapshooters, and that diminishes in certain eyes the good aspects of digital, and people forget that a camera is just a tool. The less it's in the way between you and your photographs, the better. Unless you are imprisoned by the bad habit, the crafts as some might call it, of traditional photography, like myself who loves the smell of Dektol in the morning, then stick with a film camera. A few months ago, I made some creamy looking 8x10's from a gathering with my friends, taken with Kodak Tmax 100 on a Fuji rangefinder 6x7. People looked at them and said wow great, but eventually, they all visited another friend's website to look at dozen of pictures taken by a digital camera.
I still shoot film, and when I want digital images scan the slide. Properly done, you'll get good resolution. I dunno about Costco.One thing you might consider is getting your own slide scanner. You can get something in the 2800 dpi range for about $250.
I'm probably going to put off getting a digital camera for a few more years until the price/resolution ratio improves. I have a lot of Nikon glass, so I would want a body that accepts those lenses. The D-1 is too expensive.
There's nothing wrong with the 2020. The AF is a bit slow, and it's pretty heavy. But it gives you access to (almost) the whole line of Nikon lenses.
Most of my photography is done with an old FM, or a FA when I want TTL flash. Most of the older Nikons are incredibly robust, and I'm not particularly gentle with cameras.
Well, pretty much no mater what you do the lab will devitalize your film: most of the contemporary labs process images digitally and do not print analog anymore This is OK. The technologies they use are not something that limit you. The crappy sensor on your cheap camera is the limitation. Even if we forger any other parameter (and there are many of them) and look only at only pixels resolution then the analog film is equivalent to the 22-24 mil pixels. The contemporary “Pro” camera do 5-6 mil pixels…. So, even considering the cheep lens’ 50 line/millimeter resolution we are not there yet. However, I have to admit that for the amateur consumption those 1-2 mil pixels are sufficiently enough… not to mention the 75 dpi of the computer monitors… The new generation of D-cameras with 12-14 mil pixels is coming out and they will drive the prices for contemporary “pro-level” $3-5K cameras down. I thinks at the end of the next year will be seeing the full 24X36 sensor-armed cameras with 5-6 mil pixels at $2-3K price and all those contemporary half-format “pro” cameras will be use by the teenagers only (as they should be).The Cat
Well, pretty much no mater what you do the lab will devitalize your film: most of the contemporary labs process images digitally and do not print analog anymore This is OK. The technologies they use are not something that limit you. The crappy sensor on your cheap camera is the limitation. Even if we forger any other parameter (and there are many of them) and look only at only pixels resolution then the analog film is equivalent to the 22-24 mil pixels. The contemporary “Pro” camera do 5-6 mil pixels…. So, even considering the cheep lens’ 50 line/millimeter resolution we are not there yet. However, I have to admit that for the amateur consumption those 1-2 mil pixels are sufficiently enough… not to mention the 75 dpi of the computer monitors… The new generation of D-cameras with 12-14 mil pixels is coming out and they will drive the prices for contemporary “pro-level” $3-5K cameras down. I thinks at the end of the next year will be seeing the full 24X36 sensor-armed cameras with 5-6 mil pixels at $2-3K price and all those contemporary half-format “pro” cameras will be use by the teenagers only (as they should be).The Cat
I, too, am totally underwhelmed by the present digital resolution.But I do know a few labs that still do a good job on film. I haven't tried CostCo myself, but I'd be very careful to find out what kind of digital resolution and scan you get from them.
Personally I own a medium-format film scanner, and capture on film, either 6x7 or 35mm standard (24x36 mm).
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
> > I, too, am totally underwhelmed by the present digital resolution.Geez, I thought I was the only one. Is it the lack of resolution or that funny thang that digital does to colors? Will technology ultimately solve these issues?
I still love my old (heavy) Nikon 2020. I have 3 Nikon lenses. Call me old fashioned. I don't care.
> > But I do know a few labs that still do a good job on film. I haven't tried CostCo myself, but I'd be very careful to find out what kind of digital resolution and scan you get from them.
Yea, not too thrilled with the Costco quality. Still looking for a good place locally.
> > Personally I own a medium-format film scanner, and capture on film, either 6x7 or 35mm standard (24x36 mm).
Ahem, please educate me. I have used slide scanners and generic scanners but is a film scanner a different animal. Maybe it's not too late to add to my Christmas list?
Thanks.
It can't be just being digital. (resolution maybe? or ordered rows of pixels versus the random lay of color dots in film?) I use a slide/film scanner on my 35 mm slides and negatives, and the pictures I'm getting don't look "digital". Yet the scan process certainly is digital. And sure, I play with the file in a photo processing program. But you really need to do that to digital camera files, too. I don't think we're quite to the point of printing right off the camera. Although the latest photo printers are now claiming automatic post processing (like the Fuji machine down at Walmart does, I guess)for color and contrast.
My film scanner takes slides or 35mm film strips (in lengths of up to 6), or up to 6x9 medium format.If you only do 35mm, you can get a much cheaper scanner.
Your slide scanner may or may not also do film.
The biggest questions for film scanners are:
Resolution: For 35mm 2500 dpi is minimum but most do that.
Bit depth: 16 bits with at least a 12 bit ADC is minimum for decent work.
OD (optical density): at least 4.6 Mine does 4.2 and that isn't good enough for K25.But your slide scanner, if you have one, may do what you want.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
*** Is it the lack of resolution or that funny thang that digital does to colors? Will technology ultimately solve these issues?I is very difficult to explain how digital screw the colors. I mean it’s long explanation and you will have more questions then answers. (Also you do not need to know it) Even what you call resolution is not a resolution at all… Where could I start? Trust me you do not what to go into those jungles. Will technology ultimately solve these issues? Certainly it will. The question is about the level of demands. Even today the digital photography at it’s consumer level is good enough. General public has their demands to the culture of image as high as the general listeners have demands to the culture of sound…. By the way, if you are very preoccupied with quality of colors, know how to calibrate your camera and generally know what you do then among the consumer inexpensive solutions the Fuji S2 (a lilt above $2K) has the best coloring. Also, the way you transfer data and the type of the software you use are very critical for color reproduction…. although it not color itself but the language of the colors, the language, the langu….
it is very rare (non existant) the times that a pic doesn't need tweaking from any digi camera,color ,brightness,sharpness,intensity.Thats why God gave us Photoshop!!!
Your Photoshop can do nothing that is important in photography. Apparently what I consider important you do not notice…
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 ]
