 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2007Compacts v DSLR
I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? I don't have a digital camera yet and was going to get one, well at least I thought I was. Was going to get a Lumix LX2 until people told me it wouldn't be too great in low light, and one of my first uses would be a football match at night (rare for me mostly the games I go to are day time). It also just has 4x optical and they said that wouldn't be too good either for getting closer. Someone suggested the TZ3 which has the optical zoom (10x) but they still said that it would be poor in low light because of the small sensor. I've done a little bit of research and it seems the only compact digital camera that is reasonable in low light is the Fuji F31fd which is a 6pm camera, lower than the 7mp of the TZ3 and a chunk lower than the 10mp of the LX2. The Fuji just has 3 or 4x optical zoom though. My question is would the TZ3 really be rubbish for taking photos at a football game at night? Even if the pitch is lit up by floodlights? I was just wondering what people in this newsgroup use for a compact camera or do you all just use SLRs? When I have been doing a bit of research on what camera to get it seems you can get maybe 2 out of the 3 features you need but one critical one is always missing, at least for compacts so I am wondering what the solution is to that kind of predicament when I don't want to take a big SLR, just some small to fit in my pocket. Not that I could really afford an SLR anyway or would be anything other than an amateur photographer at best. The reason I was originally swinging towards the Lumix LX2 was because it had okay manual controls for a compact digital camera so it would allow me to be more creative. It just seems to be the zoom and supposed poor low light abilities that people have mentioned to me that lets this one down. I was hoping to be able to take photos of landscapes, nigh shots with slightly longer exposure times, and also to take shots of faster moving objects like at football matches and also wildlife etc. Is my only option to consider a DSLR with the bigger sensor if I want to take photos at night time in low light etc? Perhaps an LX3 would give me what I need, but more than probably not :( Cheers John Ps. Would be interested to know what all this IR photography is about. Do you basically just have some sort of filter on your lens to capture in IR? And what benefit does it serve to capture IR images from a digital camera? Is it just purely creative, or is there something else to it like stacking with a regular shot for a cleaner picture or something? John, I have been looking to upgrade my little Canon Point and Shoot SD450 w/5MP. Does take great pics but like you mentioned I have a very hard time with some of the functions not being present that a full DSLR would have especially at low light levels. The prices on the DSLR's are a lot more then I really want to spend considering I am not using it for Professional reasons. I just ran across the Canon Powershot G7 and now the newer (I think LOL) G9. The G9 has a almost the same features as a full DSLR in a compact little thing that has Image Stability, a high 12.1 MP and a 35-210 Zoom. I've been checking out some prices and they do vary from the high 400's and I've seen it for as high as $600.00 Its better then a couple thousand and compared to my little Canon Elph its like apples and oranges, there is no comparison. Small enough where you wont have to worry about damaging it in bouncing around. I'm sure your gonna get a lot of comments from the experts on whats good and so on. If I had a wish list, I would choose the Nikon or the Canon and try to get the most for the money. I've seen them both with about equal zooms but I'm not willing to spend that kind of money. I have better things to do with my money then that. LOL Mark G Not4wood >I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more > than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > to it like stacking with a regular shot for a cleaner picture or > something? First of all I agree with ray's estimation of the Kodak P850. Unfortunately, I broke the joy stick, so I can no longer navigate the menus to change the settings. I'm leaning towards replacing it with a refurbished P850 from Kodak. I've also been checking out the Canon digital cameras and actually prefer the S5 IS model. It doesn't have the megapixels that the G9 (12.1) and the G7 (10.0) have, but 8.0 definitely works for me. It also has the 12x zoom and a good range of shutter speeds (15 to 1/3200) when using manual and shutter priority. Here are the specs from the Canon web site: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=ModelTechSp ecsTabAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=15207 What concerns me is the power supply. I'm very happy with the Li-lon (or is it Li-Ion with a upper case i, I can never remember) that the P850 uses. There's no way I would want to replace 4 AA Alkaline batteries on a regular basis. So how do the optional 4 re-chargeable AA-size NiMH batteries compare to the Li-Lon/Li-Ion battery ? I also appreciate the comments/suggestions regarding DSLR bodies and quality lenses. They eliminated some confusion I had as to what direction I will go when I can actually afford a DSLR, which is my ultimate (very long term) goal. Art. Thanks for all the advise/info. I had looked at the G9 as an alternative to the LX2 and the TZ3, but I think the same probs would remains with that one as well with it being a compact - the sensor size being small. It seems what you gain with one compact you lose something else... like the G9 you lose about 4x optical compared to TZ3 but you gain more mp. LX2 you have a compact that is basically on steroids with what it can do, large mp count, and its manual abilities, but you lose optical zoom and still small sensor and poor low light/noisy pictures for sports etc. I've also taken a look at SLR-like or Bridge cameras like similar to the Kodak P850, FinePix S9500 and the Canon S5 IS. With these cameras being a lot bigger and two thirds to three quarters the way to looking like a proper SLR I thought they would be a good choice and better than compacts, but when I have look at those it also seems to be the same small sensors from compacts that they use. I think Alex mentions this about his bridge camera, and with their being one or two good ones using the optimised sensor from Fuji, but still nowhere near the quality from an SLR. I would be interested to know how a lot of the old film SLRs stack up to DSLRs in terms of size and weight, is it easy to find smaller light weight film SLRs? This may be an alternative to a DSLR and cheaper too if I am buying an old used model. I think it looks like I could very well end up with a two camera compromise. Film SLR and a digital compact like TZ3, G9 or LX2/LX3. Then I just take the one with me that will serve my needs that particular day. John > Thanks for all the advise/info. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > John Well, if you just want to have some fun once awhile then just a cheapie P&S with long zoom (10-12X) should be able to give you few shots. Matter fact, I haven't used P&S for many years to know if the newer is any better than my last P&S Olympus 10X IS C-2100 which I still have it (cuz I really like the quality of this little gem). *BUT* if you want to invest your money on a good cemara system, and do sport photograph at least once every few weeks/months then I would suggest to do more researching on good DSLR system. Or most people (especially the pro) ain't stupid to spend their hard earned money on more expensive camera gear when the cheapie P&S can give a similar or almost as good. Or the $200-300 you spend *less* on P&S the $200-300 you will have to spend on your better system. And you may want to look at the future investment instead of just spend $500-1000 on a camera that won't give you option to go to higher level. And remember that "good lens" is one of the most important parts, because good lens will give good IQ to all BODIES and body will be getting old and replaced, but lens will stay to serve you for many many years (or even decades). Those are what you want to research. Or if you just want a $200-300 P&S then just grab one cuz they are pretty much the same, and they are way so cheap these days comparing to what I paid for mine more/less than a decade ago (I paid average $800-1000+ a pop from 16-level grayscale, 1X, 2X, 3X, and 10X and from 320x240 pixel to around 2.1MP etc..). I am the owner of a TZ3, firstly I'd like to say I think for a P&S camera with a relatively small sensor it's fantastic. I got great shots of animals on my recent safari, the zoom lens is excellent and I was very pleased with my purchase and in most situations I would wholeheartedly recommend it. However having said that I don't think it's the best camera for low light sports. The low light performance isn't terrible (not by a long way compared to my old nikon 3200) but it would not be good enough for a sports game. The auto focus takes a longer time to lock onto subjects in low light and this added with the stability effects of the long zoom you'd need, you may find it difficult to get it to focus properly (a monopod or similar helps here though as does the onboard OIS system). There are no manual focus or aperture settings on the TZ3 so you have to rely on the various autofocus methods. There are a couple of highspeed focusing methods which I used most of the time on safari and they peformed well, but I think even they slow down in low light. If you are likely to be taking sports shots in low light a lot, don't go for the TZ3 - as suggested a dSLR or larger dSLR like camera would be better. However if you're looking for a very compact _P&S and the odd low light sports game isn't too important compared to other situations you'd use the camera, I'd say the TZ3 is hard to beat for the price and size. > I am the owner of a TZ3, firstly I'd like to say I think for a P&S > camera with a relatively small sensor it's fantastic. I got great [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > safari and they peformed well, but I think even they slow down in low > light. *If* it's long zoom (like 10-12X) then you may want to go for IS (Image Stabilized) which will help to prevend camera shake and also help with low-light situation. But IS won't help much with fast sport (best for slow or still). Also, in general or average P&S usually give better color than DSLR (especially DSLR with cheap poor lens) *but* if you go for detail post processing then P&S is no match for DSLR. Of course I am talking about DSLR with good lens, or to me it isn't worth the trouble to spend $$$, time, energy with poor lens. > If you are likely to be taking sports shots in low light a lot, don't > go for the TZ3 - as suggested a dSLR or larger dSLR like camera would > be better. However if you're looking for a very compact _P&S and the > odd low light sports game isn't too important compared to other > situations you'd use the camera, I'd say the TZ3 is hard to beat for > the price and size. I used to shoot low-light with my old Olympus C-2100 10X IS, and with external flash Vivitar 285-HV (manual mode), and it did much better than my current Canon DSLR cameras. Or I can get a good bright capture from 70-100' (inside church with low light) that no way I can get with Canon DSLR and 2 Speedlite 580X. > *If* it's long zoom (like 10-12X) then you may want to go for IS (Image > Stabilized) which will help to prevend camera shake and also help with > low-light situation. But IS won't help much with fast sport (best for slow > or still). The zoom on the TZ3 is 10x and it is stabilized. There's two modes one which stabilises on the display screen and one which only stabilises once the picture has been taken but does a slightly better job of it. I used mode 2 most of the time as I had a monopod to help me stabilise the camera for capture at long zoom. If handheld mode 1 would probably be most useful. The IS on the TZ3 does a pretty good job either way. I left the mode on all the time even when not using the zoom. I agree it won't help much with fast sport as the shutter and focus lock lag becomes more of a problem then in low light. High light it's not such a big deal. > > *If* it's long zoom (like 10-12X) then you may want to go for IS (Image > > Stabilized) which will help to prevend camera shake and also help with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > becomes more of a problem then in low light. High light it's not such > a big deal. 10X is a very good zoom range and I often recomment P&S buyer to go for 10-12X to enjoy the benefit of the long zoom, and the IS is a bonus which helps long zoom quite a bit. I have been using long zoom for decades now so I am (or was) pretty good with 500+mm, until around 3-4 years ago I noticed my hands are no longer as steadiest as used to, so I have started using monopod (before I was always hand-hold). Hunting at low-light situation then I don't know, but I know that IS often help with low-light (comparing to non-IS) as you can can be able to slow down the shutter-speed while it's hard on non-IS. Also, if it's hunting alot then there may be something is wrong with the model (probably the lens quality?). BTW, the only time I needed tripod on the Olympus 10X IS was when I used either 1.6X, 2.2X, or 2.6X teleconvert (I think I had 3X too). > > > *If* it's long zoom (like 10-12X) then you may want to go for IS (Image > > > Stabilized) which will help to prevend camera shake and also help with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I assume by Hunting you mean the focus lock hunt? I think the lens on the TZ3 is actually very good quality (it's a Leica and I've been very impressed with the zoomed images I've got, no noticible distortion and minimal purple fringing). But the focus does take a little longer in low light. Don't know why but it may be model specific, it was mentioned in the reviews I read. It's not a huge problem normally and it doesn't take ages just slightly longer to lock on in lower light.I think the slight delay would make it difficult to use with fast sports in low light. > > > > *If* it's long zoom (like 10-12X) then you may want to go for IS (Image > > > > Stabilized) which will help to prevend camera shake and also help with [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > think the slight delay would make it difficult to use with fast sports > in low light. Yes "focus lock" and that's one of the most important parts when people talk about "fast lens" and "sport". "fast lens" in general it means good lens that can open at F1.2, F1.4, F1.8 (for prime) or f2.8 (for zoom), but many long zoom/prime can start with F4, and many long zoom for sport can lock focus lot faster than many regular f2.8. Here, besides the 50-500mm, all my lens are f2.8 and I can tell the Canon 70-200L f2.8 can focus quicker (almost immediately) than the other f2.8 those often do little hunting (or re-focusing). I started with P&S over a decade ago, and went through 6-7+ of them, so I know P&S isn't a right camera for fast sport. I don't know much about newer generation of P&S (among my family members we have around dozen digital cameras <bg>), but base on my experience with P&S while I was using it, besides some Read/Write delay - Some model (Sony was the one I noticed) has slow displaying - All P&S cameras I used had 0.x second behind shutter. IOW, I had to press the shutter full-down 0.x second before hoping to catch the action. Yes, I know we have to press_and_hold shutter 1/2_down for auto-focus then full-down. And DSLR work just like film camera, it's quick and "fast lens" will be the bonus. I haven't done any port photography for awhile, but I have photographed martial arts tournaments for some years, and they were lighting fast. >I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more > than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > to it like stacking with a regular shot for a cleaner picture or > something? You can do ok with a point and shoot in low light if you use a long exposure and a tripod. The problem is for sports a lot exposure isn't going work. While most allow for higher ISO the small sensor means a lot of noise. As for the tripod who wants to carry one around. Your best bet would be an entry level dSLR like the Pentax K100D and a 50mm f1.4, with this you could shoot just fine in low light. If you want more zoom (probably wood) then you want to go a modest zoom range like the Pentax 50-200, you will have to increase the ISO for the low-light but the dSLR's have larger sensors which means a lot less noise of a point and shoot. If you do go dSLR pick your brand wisely. You will need to invest in good lenses so the saying is the body is temporary but the glass is forever. Meaning in order to change brands you will have to start all over with new lenses so pick your brand well and spend most of your money on the lenses as you will have them for many bodies. Psygnosis > I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more > than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? Most if not all people when they spend money on good digital camera gear then the chance for them to use film is very slim. And for film users with good film gear and cheap P&S then the chance for them to use P&S on serious photograph is very slim too. > I don't have a digital camera yet and was going to get one, well at > least I thought I was. Was going to get a Lumix LX2 until people told [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > TZ3 which has the optical zoom (10x) but they still said that it would > be poor in low light because of the small sensor. I don't know what Lumix LX2 is, but if you wanna photograph footbal especially poor low light situation then you may need good DSLR camera (Canon should be good for low light situation), and fast long zoom lens. fast & long reach also pretty expensive (you are looking at couple grands) so may have to settle for either 70-200 f2.8 + TC 1.4X, or may be 100-400L f4 (may be with TC for day time) P&S is usually too slow for fast sport, or 10X will give you some reach but you won't be able to catch of of good capture. > I've done a little bit of research and it seems the only compact > digital camera that is reasonable in low light is the Fuji F31fd which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My question is would the TZ3 really be rubbish for taking photos at a > football game at night? Even if the pitch is lit up by floodlights? I don't know about rubbish, but for fast sport you will need good DSLR (or at least DSLR), and for low light condition then you will need fast len (like f2.8 .. there are faster prime lens but don't have the reach, and some fast lens with long reach is very expensive). > I was just wondering what people in this newsgroup use for a compact > camera or do you all just use SLRs? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that I could really afford an SLR anyway or would be anything other > than an amateur photographer at best. You may need somewhere around 3-5 months researching, and you may want to join DSLR camera forum's of www.dpreview.com to learn more of what you need for sport. > The reason I was originally swinging towards the Lumix LX2 was because > it had okay manual controls for a compact digital camera so it would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to take shots of faster moving objects like at football matches and > also wildlife etc. You may be looking at around $2,000 to start with the basic requirement, or $3,000-4,000 for a better gear (I am looking at good fast lens and an entry pro level body or around $1,300-1,500 body). You can move up to more expensive body and lens if you have the $$$$ to spend > Is my only option to consider a DSLR with the bigger sensor if I want > to take photos at night time in low light etc? Perhaps an LX3 would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to it like stacking with a regular shot for a cleaner picture or > something? IR filter to help you to block out some color, you will need to learn to post process. I don't have IR filter so I can only use Photoshop to turn mine to IR (learning). And you can always GOOGLE for more detail *unless* someone here is going to give you all information you need. > I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more > than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > to it like stacking with a regular shot for a cleaner picture or > something? What is your budget? I currently use a Kodak P850 - it has a 12x zoom, 220k EVF, shoots raw, tiff, jpeg and has most all the settings you could ever want. Price was one reason - I bought this last fall for $250 refurb at the Kodak online store (Kodak has since discontinued the P series but still has some refurb units at their online store). The MAIN reason I don't have a DSLR is that I still use my 35mm slr when I have that option. Most of my shots are done 'in the wild' - on long hikes, snowshoeing, bicycling - and I don't want to handle the weight of a DSLR plus accessories. The image quality is adequate for my needs. In my case, major factors were: 1) portability 2) big zoom capability 3) price yours are evidently somewhat different, but I think if you look at your real requirements and your budget, you should be able to shake out what you need. Take a look at the mid-ranged Olympus P&S. Can't remember the exact model but we used that at the publishing company. The photos came out great. Even our sports photographer used it for his feature pics. > Take a look at the mid-ranged Olympus P&S. Can't remember the exact > model but we used that at the publishing company. The photos came out > great. Even our sports photographer used it for his feature pics. Agreed. > Take a look at the mid-ranged Olympus P&S. Can't remember the exact > model but we used that at the publishing company. The photos came out > great. Even our sports photographer used it for his feature pics. EVF resolution?? > I just wondered what camera you mostly shoot with and if you have more > than one? And if you mainly shoot digital or film? I shoot digital with a Fuji S9500 and Olympus SP-350, and film with a Nikon FM2. I probably get about 50:50 (film:digital) good photos I want to keep. > I don't have a digital camera yet and was going to get one, well at > least I thought I was. Was going to get a Lumix LX2 until people told [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > TZ3 which has the optical zoom (10x) but they still said that it would > be poor in low light because of the small sensor. Small sensors mean small photosites for given megapixels, so less area to gather light. > I've done a little bit of research and it seems the only compact > digital camera that is reasonable in low light is the Fuji F31fd which > is a 6pm camera, lower than the 7mp of the TZ3 and a chunk lower than > the 10mp of the LX2. The Fuji just has 3 or 4x optical zoom though. There is the Fuji S6000 / S6500 ultrazoom with the same sensor as the F31, but a 28-300mm (10x zoom) lens. This is probably the best compact for long zoom in low light, although bigger and heavier than the TZ3. It's still nowhere as good as a DSLR with fast lens, though maybe 1/10 the price. > My question is would the TZ3 really be rubbish for taking photos at a > football game at night? Even if the pitch is lit up by floodlights? Floodlights are a lot less bright than daylight. > I was just wondering what people in this newsgroup use for a compact > camera or do you all just use SLRs? See above. My S9500 is similar to the S6000, with a few more pixels and some other features. > When I have been doing a bit of research on what camera to get it > seems you can get maybe 2 out of the 3 features you need but one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that I could really afford an SLR anyway or would be anything other > than an amateur photographer at best. DSLRs have bigger sensors, so they can have bigger photosites which gather more light. Do you want convenience or good photos? A night time football game is probably one of the most difficult subjects technically - low light, fast action, distance. > Is my only option to consider a DSLR with the bigger sensor if I want > to take photos at night time in low light etc? Perhaps an LX3 would > give me what I need, but more than probably not :( If you want to take good photos at a distance at night, you need a DSLR and some expensive lenses. The S6000 will let you take photos at night at a distance, but it's your call as to whether the quality is good enough for you. I have an LX2 and a Nikon D200 dSLR. The LX2 is great for outdoors, landscapes, hiking and general tourist shots etc as it is fully manual, wideangle Leica lens, sensor and LCD - but indoors it is not good. For long exposures at night, fine if you can put it on a tripod or wall. I like mine a lot. But for low light (even daytime) sports, not a chance - shutter lag, poor high ISO performance, too narrow max aperture and not enough reach. No compact can do it, simple as that. You need a minimum of 1/500th sec for football, probably 1/1000 to freeze action, and not enough light will get in the camera in that time with a say f/5.6 aperture. Shots will either be blurred, dark or both - with any pocket cam. If you dial up the ISO to even 800 the noise will be horrible. While the new Nikon D3 dSLR has usable ISO25000...(25000, not 2500). The F31fd is by far the best at low light (almost base dSLR standard, but it couldn't do sports) but get a move on if you want one, it's out of production and disappearing. The TZ3 is a great long zoom p&s, I nearly got one, but the same limitations apply, apart from the reach. In fact even a good dSLR like mine will struggle with low light sports without the right lens, and that means speed, i.e. a wide max aperture of at least f/2 and preferably f/1.8 or f/1.4. Which means a *lot* of money if you need reach as well, of say 300mm or more. There's a reason you'll see the pros at football games with long lenses costing several £k rather than little silver boxes... At the studio I use a Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I haven't had any major issues with it yet. For my "fun" stuff I am still using my Canon Elan II SLR. I guess I still like the feeling of using film & trying to capture the image on film the first time. May, I have a question for you. You didn't mention how long you have the XTI but from what you know now, your experience shooting under varying conditions. If you knew then, what you know now would you still purchase the XTI? Lens choices and mounting system, battery charging, shooting jpg and or raw, time exposures under low light, or just low light, noise levels and does the 10 MP still fit your bill? I have been looking at the XTI and comparing it to the Nikons D40 and D80. Granted I haven't held any of the camera's in my hand yet, I'm just comparing features and choices. LOL, I know I am going to get a full ranting from the Nikon Fans for this. Yes, I have always been a Nikon Fan when it comes to Film but from everything I've seen and heard I am starting to lean over to Canon. When Minolta and Canon had the edge in Film back in the mid to late '70s, when the prices of the Nikons were so high only a Pro could afford it I was in the Canon court. After I started into my Professional Level and had used Nikon in the small humble Studio I worked for, I was convinced on the quality and craftsmanship of the Nikon and I wouldn't even think of going back to anything else. I had used Bronica's for Weddings and my mentor for lack of a better word used Omega's. He like it, LOL. I have only started to shoot and research current Photography after giving up from being burnt out back in the late '80s, and I'm surprised on how much everything has changed. Konica with Minolta, my first film SLR was a Konica and I still have it. Though my meter is badly in need of cleaning and probably not worth it but I still have my 28, 50 and 135 lenses. Wonder if they would fit any Digital??? The current prices of the DSLR's are extremely high and I have a lot more research to do, but I would like to hear from someone who has the XTI. I wont be using the camera for professional reasons, but I am frustrated by the lack of features/speed and unable to do what I'm used to with the current Point and Shoot variety of cameras. My Canon 5MP SD450 does have a lot of features but low light is poor and at full Zoom there is such a high noise level its annoying and frustrating. For the size, the Canon G9 is sounding very good for the quality, speed and features but I'm still partial to the SLR. Having a small little camera do what the G9 does and still be able to get great shots. I will try and look at all of the above cameras and hold them to see how I feel. Way too much time, energy and effort into research for this when its only a hobby. LOL Example shot of what this Canon SD450 can do: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/TIA2077/ShellBeach.jpg Exif Data: File Name IMG_1556.JPG (Shell Beach) Camera Model Name Canon PowerShot SD450 Shooting Date/Time 7/31/2007 6:35:49 PM Shooting Mode Auto Photo Effect Off Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/250 Av (Aperture Value) 10.0 Light Metering Evaluative Exposure Compensation 0 ISO Speed Auto Lens 5.8 - 17.4 mm Focal Length 17.4 mm Digital Zoom None Image Size 2592x1944 Image Quality Fine Flash Off White Balance Auto AF Mode Single AF Color Space sRGB File Size 815 KB Drive Mode Single-frame shooting Note: Resolution has been changed for viewing from Photobucket = Resolution: 1024 x 768 the information above is the original Exif for the photo. Thank you very much for your time. Mark G Not4wood > At the studio I use a Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I haven't had any major > issues with it yet. For my "fun" stuff I am still using my Canon Elan > II SLR. I guess I still like the feeling of using film & trying to > capture the image on film the first time. LOL, I know I am going to get a full ranting from the Nikon Fans for this. Nikon: 9 megapixels short and 3 years too late, they have NO reason to give you a hard time..... If low-light performance is VERY important to you, I think you can still get more bang for your buck with film than with digital. Because of the migration to digital, you can get some great deals on some super high-end fast film cameras, lenses, and flashes. Coupled with some high-quality medium speed films, I think you can still outshoot all but the most expensive digitals in some situations. -=Gabriel=- > If low-light performance is VERY important to you, I think you can still > get more bang for your buck with film than with digital. Because of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -=Gabriel=- That is a nonsense to say that, show me a film camera that you can swap from ISO 100 to ISO 1600 in a few seconds and the change back just as fast. Digital is so much more versatile that except in very limited situations the convenience of the digital will win. > > If low-light performance is VERY important to you, I think you can still > > get more bang for your buck with film than with digital. Because of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Digital is so much more versatile that except in very limited situations the > convenience of the digital will win. I agree it's nonsense, but not for the reason you describe. After all, you used to able to get ASA 3200 and 6400 film (but 6400 was rare). It is nonsense because there is no such thing as a "fast" film camera. A camera, any camera, is just a big, lightproof box. Film (sensors) can be fast and lenses can be fast, but cameras cannot. Now on to the issue of lenses. Most "fast" film lenses will fit digital cameras, so the availability of them works either way. As for flashes, things like the Canon EX580 is about as high of a GN as you're going to find, so any camera that'll fit it will use it just the same, but it's more oriented towards newer camera that tend to be digital. Personally, I think that digital cameras are more sensitive to the light from flashes than film is, but that's just my opinion. There is a time and a place for both digital and film. Neither is "better" or "worse", they are just different. But the reasons listed were not real. Nor is the ability to easily switch for ASA 100 to 1600 much of a reason if you're shooting in low light and have no reason to change. > If low-light performance is VERY important to you, I think you can still > get more bang for your buck with film than with digital. Because of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -=Gabriel=- I find that it is in low light that digital does way better then film. At ISO 800 film pretty much looks like crap whereas a DSLR will produce a very good looking image. As for the lenses and flashes, I can use them on my camera so there is no advantage there. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.