Which digital camera do you have?

Zac Stein · December 5th, 2003, 02:20 AM

1 point of order, if you are still going to go to a lab to get photos printed, then i would stick with a film camera, the 35mm neg can not be beat just yet.

But everything else about digital which is said here is true, unless you are a useless arty fart like me.

Zac

Jeff Donald · December 5th, 2003, 06:08 AM

You can get your digital files printed at most of the better labs now. Sam's and Costco charge only $.19 USD for a 4x6. They are done on the same machines (Fuji Frontiers or equivalent) as prints from negs.

Quality wise the difference between film and digital images is a moot point. National Geographic just did it's first all digital image article. Sports Illustrated has been all digital for a while. Digital camera sales exceeds film camera sales. I see no reason to delay a purchase.

Dan Brown · December 5th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Nikon D100, with 24-85 zoom, 35/f2, 70-210 zoom and SB-80DX strobe. It has really become a useful tool in writing my first film peice. I've been shooting a lot of angles and flow shots with it, and using it to delete/edit/refine images for my film. Plug it into the 36 inch TV set and run the frames. Kinda-nice! The ultimate Polaroid.

Matt Betea · December 5th, 2003, 10:49 AM

Zac, I do agree with you, to a point. Yes I think a 35mm neg printed traditionally or high quality scan is better than the digicams out now.

But in the real world application rules, not so much the absolute best quality. Seeing the areas where digital is big, it is quite capable of meeting the demands. And the convenience of digital is also a huge plus for people working under extremely tight deadlines, etc.

I'm interested in seeing a review of the Digilux2. Looks like a very nice little cam for street shooting. But then again with the Leica name on it, it'll probably go for more than half the DSLR out now.

Helen Bach · December 5th, 2003, 12:35 PM

Matrix metering is for girls

Meaning what?

Best,
Helen

Matt Betea · December 5th, 2003, 08:12 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Helen Bach :
Meaning what?

Best,
Helen -->>>
Just a little light hearted jab to all the matrix metering folks 8)

David James · December 6th, 2003, 05:09 PM

I have been using the Olympus CZ2100 UZ since it came out. It is only a 2.1 MP but has Image stabelizer and 10X optical zoom. I have been really happy with it just wish it was 4-5 MP.

Richard, I have seen several 3.2MP point and shooters out there that fall within your price range. Some even had 3X optical zoom. Try your local WalMart or www.walmart.com they had some cameras in your range.

Happy Holidays all

Glen Elliott · December 11th, 2003, 12:54 PM

I'm currently using a Sony F717 as well. Just upgraded from the F707. Now I'm already looking to upgrade to the Canon 300D.

I'm actually selling my F717 now to help fund the upgrade...
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=18230

Alicia R DeLoatch · December 15th, 2003, 06:01 PM

Hi, I use Olympus d560 but will upgrade to the olympus 5060 or the Canon G5.

Alicia

Mike Butler · December 16th, 2003, 06:05 PM

Main camera: Canon 10D.
Plus a Canon Elph Powershot S400 which never leaves my side.
Also have an Olympus C2500 which I never use.

Wife carries a Canon Elph Powershot S230, her second one. (first one got stolen)

Daughter just got a Canon Powershot SD100 for her birthday(basically the same as the S230 except it uses an SD card instead of CF) and has an Olympus D510 which she gave to her boyfriend upon the arrival of the Canon.

Hey, I like matrix metering. And girls. :-)

Kevin Maistros · December 20th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Canon EOS-1Ds
Canon Digital Rebel

Ozzie Alfonso · January 4th, 2004, 01:05 AM

I originally had a Coolpix 900. It fell off a table and I found myself holding two cameras - one with the LCD, the other with the lens. Believe it or not I was still able to snap a few pictures although terminally out of focus. I upgraded to the then new 950 - a great traveling camera and a lot more rugged than the 900. The only big problem with the 950 is how fast it eats batteries. The cost of batteries balances the cost of film.

I just bought a Nikon D100. It could have been a Canon but since I've had an F2 and an FM for centuries along with an array of excellent Nikkor lenses - which I can still use with the D100 - I stayed with Nikon. I did buy a new 24-140 VR zoom. It's my first still camera zoom. I used to be a purist - only primes. I've found the lens' automatic movement dampener to be excellent. I can shoot handheld at 1/10th or 1/5th with no visible shake. The camera also has a built-in mirror flap dampener. I can get an acceptable handheld 1 second exposure!

The D100 is still new and I’m still learning my way around it.

My favorite camera? The one I will never sell, not even for the few thousand dollars I’ve been offered for the camera and lenses? – my trusty 1962 Leica M3 – with a 50mm, a 35mm, a 21mm, and a 180mm Leitz lenses.

My wish list for digital SLRs? – increase the chip size as to make the 35mm lenses correspond. The lack of true wide angle lenses is a big drawback. But I’m sure that is already coming down the pike.

Ken Tanaka · January 4th, 2004, 01:16 AM

Ozzie,
Out of curiosity, what is the widest prime lens you are using with your new D100? What marked differences have you noticed (in addition to the narrower field) between its use on your D100 and your original film SLR's?

Ozzie Alfonso · January 4th, 2004, 01:56 AM

That would be a 24mm prime as well as the 24-140 zoom. The main difference is, as you know, the 24mm ends up being the equivalent of a 28mm in the D100 and most other DSLRs with the same chip size. The other difference is my prime 24mm is an f2.8, the zoom is an f3.5. Of course the prime is not automatic in any way. The zoom is a G lends - meaning it has no internal aperture control. That is accomplished electronically in the camera body.

I haven't made a side by side comparison, but I think the 24 prime is sharper than the 24-140. I've perceived a certain lack of crispness in the 24 zoom.

There is a lot to get used to.

Mike Butler · January 4th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Much in the same way that Ozzie would have considered a Canon were it not for his inventory of Nikon lenses, I would have thought about the Nikon but for my existing stock of Canon pieces.

Man, if those batteries were getting that expensive, a rapid charger and some NiMH or LiIon batts would have been in order. We use them on my wife's Garmin GPS and on our FRS radios. The cameras already came with rechargeable (proprietary) batteries and chargers.

I too would like to see the chip expanded to 35mm frame size (not that 6.3MP is keeping me from doing my job now). Shall we start a pool to guess (bet) on the intro date? I'm thinking September 2005. :-)

December 5th, 2003, 06:08 AM	#32
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	You can get your digital files printed at most of the better labs now. Sam's and Costco charge only $.19 USD for a 4x6. They are done on the same machines (Fuji Frontiers or equivalent) as prints from negs. Quality wise the difference between film and digital images is a moot point. National Geographic just did it's first all digital image article. Sports Illustrated has been all digital for a while. Digital camera sales exceeds film camera sales. I see no reason to delay a purchase. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 5th, 2003, 08:12 AM	#33
Dan Brown Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 235	Nikon D100, with 24-85 zoom, 35/f2, 70-210 zoom and SB-80DX strobe. It has really become a useful tool in writing my first film peice. I've been shooting a lot of angles and flow shots with it, and using it to delete/edit/refine images for my film. Plug it into the 36 inch TV set and run the frames. Kinda-nice! The ultimate Polaroid. __________________ dB

December 5th, 2003, 10:49 AM	#34
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	Zac, I do agree with you, to a point. Yes I think a 35mm neg printed traditionally or high quality scan is better than the digicams out now. But in the real world application rules, not so much the absolute best quality. Seeing the areas where digital is big, it is quite capable of meeting the demands. And the convenience of digital is also a huge plus for people working under extremely tight deadlines, etc. I'm interested in seeing a review of the Digilux2. Looks like a very nice little cam for street shooting. But then again with the Leica name on it, it'll probably go for more than half the DSLR out now. __________________ Matrix metering is for girls.

December 5th, 2003, 08:12 PM	#36
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	<<<-- Originally posted by Helen Bach : Meaning what? Best, Helen -->>> Just a little light hearted jab to all the matrix metering folks 8) __________________ Matrix metering is for girls.

December 6th, 2003, 05:09 PM	#37
David James New Boot Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Jadwin, Mo. Posts: 9	I have been using the Olympus CZ2100 UZ since it came out. It is only a 2.1 MP but has Image stabelizer and 10X optical zoom. I have been really happy with it just wish it was 4-5 MP. Richard, I have seen several 3.2MP point and shooters out there that fall within your price range. Some even had 3X optical zoom. Try your local WalMart or www.walmart.com they had some cameras in your range. Happy Holidays all __________________ Dave You cannot motivate the best people with money. Money is just a way to keep score The best people in any field are motivated by passion --Eric S. Raymond

December 5th, 2003, 02:20 AM	#31
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	1 point of order, if you are still going to go to a lab to get photos printed, then i would stick with a film camera, the 35mm neg can not be beat just yet. But everything else about digital which is said here is true, unless you are a useless arty fart like me. Zac

December 5th, 2003, 12:35 PM	#35
Helen Bach Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 120	Matrix metering is for girls Meaning what? Best, Helen

December 11th, 2003, 12:54 PM	#38
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	I'm currently using a Sony F717 as well. Just upgraded from the F707. Now I'm already looking to upgrade to the Canon 300D. I'm actually selling my F717 now to help fund the upgrade... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=18230

December 15th, 2003, 06:01 PM	#39
Alicia R DeLoatch Tourist Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1	Hi, I use Olympus d560 but will upgrade to the olympus 5060 or the Canon G5. Alicia

December 16th, 2003, 06:05 PM	#40
Mike Butler Machinist Mate Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Southern Connecticut Posts: 644	Main camera: Canon 10D. Plus a Canon Elph Powershot S400 which never leaves my side. Also have an Olympus C2500 which I never use. Wife carries a Canon Elph Powershot S230, her second one. (first one got stolen) Daughter just got a Canon Powershot SD100 for her birthday(basically the same as the S230 except it uses an SD card instead of CF) and has an Olympus D510 which she gave to her boyfriend upon the arrival of the Canon. Hey, I like matrix metering. And girls. :-) __________________ I ain't straight outta Compton, I'm straight out the trailer. Cuss like a sailor, drink like a Mc. My only words of wisdom are just, "Radio Edit."

December 20th, 2003, 09:48 AM	#41
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	Canon EOS-1Ds Canon Digital Rebel

January 4th, 2004, 01:05 AM	#42
Ozzie Alfonso Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: New York, NY Posts: 355	I originally had a Coolpix 900. It fell off a table and I found myself holding two cameras - one with the LCD, the other with the lens. Believe it or not I was still able to snap a few pictures although terminally out of focus. I upgraded to the then new 950 - a great traveling camera and a lot more rugged than the 900. The only big problem with the 950 is how fast it eats batteries. The cost of batteries balances the cost of film. I just bought a Nikon D100. It could have been a Canon but since I've had an F2 and an FM for centuries along with an array of excellent Nikkor lenses - which I can still use with the D100 - I stayed with Nikon. I did buy a new 24-140 VR zoom. It's my first still camera zoom. I used to be a purist - only primes. I've found the lens' automatic movement dampener to be excellent. I can shoot handheld at 1/10th or 1/5th with no visible shake. The camera also has a built-in mirror flap dampener. I can get an acceptable handheld 1 second exposure! The D100 is still new and I’m still learning my way around it. My favorite camera? The one I will never sell, not even for the few thousand dollars I’ve been offered for the camera and lenses? – my trusty 1962 Leica M3 – with a 50mm, a 35mm, a 21mm, and a 180mm Leitz lenses. My wish list for digital SLRs? – increase the chip size as to make the 35mm lenses correspond. The lack of true wide angle lenses is a big drawback. But I’m sure that is already coming down the pike. __________________ *Ozzie Alfonso* www.ozziealfonso.com

January 4th, 2004, 01:16 AM	#43
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Ozzie, Out of curiosity, what is the widest prime lens you are using with your new D100? What marked differences have you noticed (in addition to the narrower field) between its use on your D100 and your original film SLR's? __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

January 4th, 2004, 01:56 AM	#44
Ozzie Alfonso Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: New York, NY Posts: 355	That would be a 24mm prime as well as the 24-140 zoom. The main difference is, as you know, the 24mm ends up being the equivalent of a 28mm in the D100 and most other DSLRs with the same chip size. The other difference is my prime 24mm is an f2.8, the zoom is an f3.5. Of course the prime is not automatic in any way. The zoom is a G lends - meaning it has no internal aperture control. That is accomplished electronically in the camera body. I haven't made a side by side comparison, but I think the 24 prime is sharper than the 24-140. I've perceived a certain lack of crispness in the 24 zoom. There is a lot to get used to. __________________ *Ozzie Alfonso* www.ozziealfonso.com

January 4th, 2004, 11:48 AM	#45
Mike Butler Machinist Mate Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Southern Connecticut Posts: 644	Much in the same way that Ozzie would have considered a Canon were it not for his inventory of Nikon lenses, I would have thought about the Nikon but for my existing stock of Canon pieces. Man, if those batteries were getting that expensive, a rapid charger and some NiMH or LiIon batts would have been in order. We use them on my wife's Garmin GPS and on our FRS radios. The cameras already came with rechargeable (proprietary) batteries and chargers. I too would like to see the chip expanded to 35mm frame size (not that 6.3MP is keeping me from doing my job now). Shall we start a pool to guess (bet) on the intro date? I'm thinking September 2005. :-) __________________ I ain't straight outta Compton, I'm straight out the trailer. Cuss like a sailor, drink like a Mc. My only words of wisdom are just, "Radio Edit."