Americans Lured to Look at Digital Cameras

Associated Press via MyWay.com ^ | December 21, 2004 | Ben Dobbin

[Always Right]

I have been told it takes around 12mp to equal a 35mm with iso 200 film. Those cameras are still way too expensive for me.

Theoretically, that may be true, but practically a 3 megapixel surpasses the quality you get from the typical consumer camera. The problem is, unless you are using a tripod and are extremely careful not to vibrate the camera when you take the picture, you are not taking advantage of the full resolution of the 35mm camera and you could easily get the same quality with a 3 megapixel. The biggest problem with digital cameras is they are not as good in low light level situations.

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

Interesting thread! Digital cameras are great for their ability to snap hundreds of shots without worry of "wasting" film. The capability to catalog electronic pictures according to date/genre, not to mention sharing them, is very handy. Digital cameras do have certain limitations.

My biggest peeve is the "boot-up" time required on my Canon PowerShot S200, which I acknowledge is a compact, entry-level model. To grab those candid, unstaged photographs one needs a camera that can be instantly triggered. My digital doesn't cut-the-mustard in that department, but my traditional 35mm is perfect.

The second concern is image warehousing. Computer performance suffers unless you transfer resource-intensive digital photographs and short movies to CDs or another designated storage device. This cost should be factored when comparing to development costs and maintaining binders.

Lastly, film cameras seem to produce a "warmer" picture in my estimation. This is not at all scientific and can almost be compared to preferences for music from vinyl records as compared to the thinner, processed sound of music coming from CD...

~ Blue Jays ~

[xsrdx]

Ink is expensive

We used to print our own photos, but now we edit and copy to a CD, take them to a WalMart self service kiosk, and we get fantastic prints in an hour. As noted, if you want you can even save a trip now and upload them at WalMart.com.

We don't print pics at home much anymore, unless we only want one or two prints.

I think Ritz and other camera/photo stores offer a similar service.

[philetus]

I have a 2 yr old, Fuji 2600 and It's great.
Digital zoom is just less pixels.
Go for maximum optical zoom.

[Always Right]

The closest camera that meets your spec is the Canon EOS-1Ds with its 11.1 megapixel sensor.

And unless you are using a tripod on every shot, that extra resolution isn't going to any good on most shots.

[rightinthemiddle]

Bought my wife the Easy Share package with the printer and all...she wanted it to be simple and convenient.

Kodak hit a home run with the concept, which is one of the few things they've done right in the past several years.

[SoFloFreeper]

We own a very expensive Canon 35mm camera...a few years (8 maybe?) ago it set us back almost $1000...is there anything that can approach the quality we have with that camera?

[kinghorse]

Yeah too bad Seagate can't make a drive that'll last longer than 6 months. That part is more aggravating than any crinkle in old kodak paper.

(disgruntled over having to replace two hard drives in 6 months and all I keep getting are refurbs for my originally new drive purchased at best buy. what a racket!)

[rabidralph]

I bought a D-70 in August and I love it. I am an amateur photographer also. I shot with an F-3 for 18 years and an OM-1 for 17. If you buy the D-70 kit, it comes with a decent 18mm-70mm lens for $1200. Interchangeable lenses are a must and I was looking for something comparable to my F-3. The more expensive and advanced models are Nikon D-100, D1X on up.

The D-70 shoots RAW and various resolutions of JPEG. I get 293 300dpi-quality (Fine JPEG setting) shots on a 1GB memory card. It's a big investment upfront, but the money I'm saving in film buying and developing exceeds the cost of the camera and the memory cards.

[rightinthemiddle]

I bought the 3.1 MP package with the printer (she hasn't opened it yet).

Do you know if the 5 MP, etc., Easy Share cameras are compatible with the printer/dock? It would be nice to upgrade to a second camera.

[mathluv]

Did everyone see the swiss army knife (on Fox & Friends) that has a USB connector to carry/share photos when one travels?

[Always Right]

The boot-up time can be annoying on digital, along with delays in focusing. But there are as at least as many issues with warehousing conventional film as there is with digital images, besides digital does not degrade over time. As as far as 'warmer' goes, with computer processing you can make digital images as cold or as warm as you like. The quality problem with digital is speed and low-light performance. Getting better, but no match for film.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm sorry to hear that. Computers are great until they develop problems. Then they can give you a major pain in the backside. I don't blame you for your take on this. You're absolutely right.

[Moose4]

I owned a fairly simple 35mm SLR (a Canon EOS Rebel X, a nice one) for years and loved to take pictures with it. Then three years ago we bought an Olympus C-3000 to take pictures for my wife's jewelry website. I can't go back to film. Digital is just too convenient. With the 128 MB card installed in that camera, I can take 169 pictures at 2048x1536 resolution--good enough to make 8x10 prints if I wanted. For more normal 4x6 prints I could take over 700.

The convenience is fantastic. The only thing I don't like about it is the long delay between pushing the button and the picture actually taking, which makes getting action shots virtually impossible. Maybe the newer ones have fixed that.

BTW, the Rebel X has been sitting quietly in my closet for at least five years now. I wonder if it still works?

}:-)4

[RayChuang88]

My biggest peeve is the "boot-up" time required on my Canon PowerShot S200, which I acknowledge is a compact, entry-level model. To grab those candid, unstaged photographs one needs a camera that can be instantly triggered. My digital doesn't cut-the-mustard in that department, but my traditional 35mm is perfect.

The second concern is image warehousing. Computer performance suffers unless you transfer resource-intensive digital photographs and short movies to CDs or another designated storage device. This cost should be factored when comparing to development costs and maintaining binders.

Fortunately, today's latest digital cameras have very fast startup times. I've played with the Casio EXILIM EX-Z40 and it starts up really quick, as does the Konica Minolta DiMAGE X50. As for warehousing your shots, given the cheap price of recordable optical discs in CD-R and DVD+R/DVD-R format nowadays that shouldn't be a problem.

[NCC-1701]

Were you in Reunion Tower for that pic of Big D? That's a great shot. Looks like Dealy Plaza in the extreme lower left had corner.

[twinzmommy]

I agree totally! I have a wal mart just around the corner and I'm forever uploading to them :) Gotta love it and the prints are great!

I use an Olympus 6.1 megapixel camera and couldn't be happier!

[VRWCmember]

Ah, another Nikon man. I have my eyes on the D-70, although I would also take either the D60 or the D100. I bought my wife a Coolpix 4300 last year. It takes decent pictures but the time it takes to focus and then the delay it takes from the time you push the button after it focuses before it then takes the picture is very frustrating. It is not uncommon for us to snap a picture only to have the subject turn and walk away after we snap but before the picture actually takes. I will not buy another non-SLR digital camera.

[kitkat]

SAVE

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

From my experience, the Kodak didgitals released thusfar really aren't all that great. And the software for the PC is worse. Large, obtrusive and tough for non-PC geeks to handle properly.