If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
holland america cruise holland america cruise line alaska cruise holland america holland america cruise ship | Islam Promote Peace | Cruises | 3 | July 31st, 2004 10:31 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | June 28th, 2004 07:44 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | February 16th, 2004 10:03 AM |
Hot Deals Starting 12/12 | Liberal | USA & Canada | 4 | December 14th, 2003 12:29 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM |