Choice of travel camera

pfriedmanNoSpam wrote:
Grab shots (this is not a pejorative) are something else. For this, though,
I think 35mm is often better than digital. The reasons for this include:
1) Faster response. There is still a much longer delay between pushing
the shutter button and the shutter actually opening in digital than in film
cameras. Getting better, but still not there.

Have you ever used a digital SLR? Shutter response time is identical to
film SLRs - under 100ms.

2) Wide angle. Only a few of the top line digital cameras allow true
wide angle work. This limits digital cameras for both landscape shots and
grab shots. (Wit the latter, since the wider the angle are greater the depth
of field, so with wide angle, you don't need to focus or at least focus as
critically-- this speeds up the shot and allows you to capture some shots
you would otherwise miss.

This is the only disadvantage that I've come across using digital.
However, Nikon and Canon have developed wideangle lenses (useable on
their less-expensive digital SLRs) that give coverage equivilent to 20mm
wide angle (on a 35mm camera).

3) ASA equivalent. Digital still does not handle low light all that well.
By the same token, you often have to use a slower shutter speed with digital
than with film. This can limit you when shooting in either low light or
objects in motion.

Digital SLRs are superior to film in low light situations. Digital does
not suffer from reprocitity failure or grain. Nikon and Canon DSLRs
have virtually no "noise" at ISO 400 and shutter speeds as long as 30
seconds. My Canon 10D can set an ISO rating as high as 3200 (noisy, but
useable). The camera of choice for amateur astronomers is one of the
newer Nikon or Canon DSLRs.

Digital is great and certainly getting better rapidly. However, at this
point, I do not think one can say that digital is always better. It depends
on the use and user. For the run of the mill cruise shots (posed mug shots,
sunsets, beaches, etc.) intended for web publication or non-cropped 4x6
prints, digital is usually the way to go -- I DO agree with that.

Paul

Note that none of the non-SLR digitals available today has near the
image capabilites of the SLRs. If the only digital images that you've
seen are from P/S digitals, then you haven't seen what digital is
capable of. My Canon 10D can produce sharp 12" by 18" enlargements -
with *no* grain.

I bought my first DSLR 2.5 years ago (Canon EOS D60). I kept one film
camera (Canon EOS 3) "just in case". I shot a single roll of film after
my D60 purchase, just to see if I could get better results. I sold the
film camera and have shot over 20,000 digital images since then - with
no regrets.

-Dave

"Dave Herzstein" wrote in message
...
pfriedmanNoSpam wrote:
Grab shots (this is not a pejorative) are something else. For this,
though,
I think 35mm is often better than digital. The reasons for this include:
1) Faster response. There is still a much longer delay between
pushing
the shutter button and the shutter actually opening in digital than in
film
cameras. Getting better, but still not there.

Have you ever used a digital SLR? Shutter response time is identical to
film SLRs - under 100ms.

Yes, sir. But just the Canon 300D (AKA Digital Rebel). I find it has a
slower response time than my Canon film cameras. I certainly could be wrong
as I ahve not done any serious side-by-side testing. Please buy me a 1D and
I will be happy to report back.


2) Wide angle. Only a few of the top line digital cameras allow true
wide angle work. This limits digital cameras for both landscape shots and
grab shots. (Wit the latter, since the wider the angle are greater the
depth
of field, so with wide angle, you don't need to focus or at least focus
as
critically-- this speeds up the shot and allows you to capture some shots
you would otherwise miss.

This is the only disadvantage that I've come across using digital.
However, Nikon and Canon have developed wideangle lenses (useable on
their less-expensive digital SLRs) that give coverage equivilent to 20mm
wide angle (on a 35mm camera).

Are you talking about the secondary lens? They seriously degrade image
quality imho.


3) ASA equivalent. Digital still does not handle low light all that
well.
By the same token, you often have to use a slower shutter speed with
digital
than with film. This can limit you when shooting in either low light or
objects in motion.

Digital SLRs are superior to film in low light situations. Digital does
not suffer from reprocitity failure or grain. Nikon and Canon DSLRs
have virtually no "noise" at ISO 400 and shutter speeds as long as 30
seconds. My Canon 10D can set an ISO rating as high as 3200 (noisy, but
useable). The camera of choice for amateur astronomers is one of the
newer Nikon or Canon DSLRs.

1/4 sec, let alone 30 secs is unusable handhand (for me, at least). I shoudl
have been clearer. I was referring to grab shots in low light. For me this
means b&w. While your 10D might be able to handle this, my 300D can not
compare to HP5 pussed to arouna ISO 1000 (or Delta 3200 for really bad
siuations).


-Dave

take care,

Paul

"Dave Herzstein" wrote in message
...
pfriedmanNoSpam wrote:
Grab shots (this is not a pejorative) are something else. For this,
though,
I think 35mm is often better than digital. The reasons for this include:
1) Faster response. There is still a much longer delay between
pushing
the shutter button and the shutter actually opening in digital than in
film
cameras. Getting better, but still not there.

Have you ever used a digital SLR? Shutter response time is identical to
film SLRs - under 100ms.

Yes, sir. But just the Canon 300D (AKA Digital Rebel). I find it has a
slower response time than my Canon film cameras. I certainly could be wrong
as I ahve not done any serious side-by-side testing. Please buy me a 1D and
I will be happy to report back.


2) Wide angle. Only a few of the top line digital cameras allow true
wide angle work. This limits digital cameras for both landscape shots and
grab shots. (Wit the latter, since the wider the angle are greater the
depth
of field, so with wide angle, you don't need to focus or at least focus
as
critically-- this speeds up the shot and allows you to capture some shots
you would otherwise miss.

This is the only disadvantage that I've come across using digital.
However, Nikon and Canon have developed wideangle lenses (useable on
their less-expensive digital SLRs) that give coverage equivilent to 20mm
wide angle (on a 35mm camera).

Are you talking about the secondary lens? They seriously degrade image
quality imho.


3) ASA equivalent. Digital still does not handle low light all that
well.
By the same token, you often have to use a slower shutter speed with
digital
than with film. This can limit you when shooting in either low light or
objects in motion.

Digital SLRs are superior to film in low light situations. Digital does
not suffer from reprocitity failure or grain. Nikon and Canon DSLRs
have virtually no "noise" at ISO 400 and shutter speeds as long as 30
seconds. My Canon 10D can set an ISO rating as high as 3200 (noisy, but
useable). The camera of choice for amateur astronomers is one of the
newer Nikon or Canon DSLRs.

1/4 sec, let alone 30 secs is unusable handhand (for me, at least). I shoudl
have been clearer. I was referring to grab shots in low light. For me this
means b&w. While your 10D might be able to handle this, my 300D can not
compare to HP5 pussed to arouna ISO 1000 (or Delta 3200 for really bad
siuations).


-Dave

take care,

Paul

Dear Mr. Lee
Well guess what stupid, the postings have been very informative much to your
obvious displeasure. Yours is a classic idiotic comment.
jsmith

"Lee Lindquist" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:51:42 -0500, "jsmith"
wrote:

convenient archives of the images, one CD and the other negatives. I
fully
expect all the jackasses will respond to this posting with their usual
idiotic comments, but I know what I am talking about! So have a ball.

Consider -- with a sentence like the above, the post is probably
a troll, rather than someone interested in a discussion of the
merits of film vs. digital cameras.

And, not a very effective troll for r.t.c.

Brash statements involving kids and babies are much better bait here.

--
- Lee

Karen Segboer wrote:
Dave Herzstein wrote:


2) Wide angle. Only a few of the top line digital cameras allow true
wide angle work. This limits digital cameras for both landscape shots and
grab shots. (Wit the latter, since the wider the angle are greater the depth
of field, so with wide angle, you don't need to focus or at least focus as
critically-- this speeds up the shot and allows you to capture some shots
you would otherwise miss.

This is the only disadvantage that I've come across using digital.
However, Nikon and Canon have developed wideangle lenses (useable on
their less-expensive digital SLRs) that give coverage equivilent to 20mm
wide angle (on a 35mm camera).


Thanks for this information. We're considering either the Nikon or
the Canon digital so I can get a decent wide angle lens for it. It's
what I miss most on the digital camera that I have now.

Karen
The Nikon D70 takes great pictures in low light conditions.

Also Nikon currently has a rebate on the D70 body and some of the lenses.

http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...pecoffers.html

Sue

Karen Segboer wrote:
Dave Herzstein wrote:


2) Wide angle. Only a few of the top line digital cameras allow true
wide angle work. This limits digital cameras for both landscape shots and
grab shots. (Wit the latter, since the wider the angle are greater the depth
of field, so with wide angle, you don't need to focus or at least focus as
critically-- this speeds up the shot and allows you to capture some shots
you would otherwise miss.

This is the only disadvantage that I've come across using digital.
However, Nikon and Canon have developed wideangle lenses (useable on
their less-expensive digital SLRs) that give coverage equivilent to 20mm
wide angle (on a 35mm camera).


Thanks for this information. We're considering either the Nikon or
the Canon digital so I can get a decent wide angle lens for it. It's
what I miss most on the digital camera that I have now.

Karen
The Nikon D70 takes great pictures in low light conditions.

Also Nikon currently has a rebate on the D70 body and some of the lenses.

http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...pecoffers.html

Sue