NEED A BETTER DIGITAL CAMERA

_RaT_ · Nov 10, 2003

Robert, what part of Alaska did you see?

RobertN · Nov 10, 2003

We went Petersburg to Juneau. We went down Stephens Passage, hung out photographing grizzly at Pack Creek(Admiralty Isl.). We saw breaching humpbacks out in Frederick Sound.

It was a week long trip on a 50' boat. This trip was geared towards photography. We took an outdoor photo class at the local JC a few years ago, and became friends with the teacher. She leads photo trips up there every year.

Check out:
www.sederquist.com/ and look at "Alaska Trip"
http://www.sederquist.com/2001intr.html That's me in the kayak...
www.dolphincharters.com The boat and crew; a great bunch of VERY knowlable folks.

Capt. Ronn does a number of trips, with a few being photo trips. Many of the other trips put you on land more for hiking ect.

Note if you look at Betty's web page, she has similar shots to ours. When on the Delphinus, with 8 other photographers, a lot of similar photo's are taken /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

frank_f15 · Nov 10, 2003

Mike glad i could inspire anyone to do anything /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif and i finally ordered a new camera sunday getting an olympus C750, 4 mp with 10x optical zoom

frank_f15 · Nov 10, 2003

have that site in my favorites, here is another one for camera reviews web page hope u like it

MikePA · Nov 11, 2003

Mike glad i could inspire anyone to do anything...
My wife and I had sat through the news and watched a segment on the local astronomy club's preparation for the eclipse but it was your message that motivated me to snap some pictures. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

...and i finally ordered a new camera sunday getting an olympus C750, 4 mp with 10x optical zoom
The C750 is the latest generation of the camera I took my pictures with! You will love it.

_RaT_ · Nov 11, 2003

Robert, that is certainly a fantastic area for picture's. I took a trip down a river up North of Dillingham Alaska. For 8 days we floated down about 100 miles of river to the Bearing sea. I hauled along my Canon AE2. I worried that it would get soaked but all worked out well. I've been up there 3 times now and would love to get back. Denali park was a favorite of mine.

TresCrows · Nov 11, 2003

Most all of the "digicams" are indoor cameras. They lack the strength for hard use and are sensitive to cold and heat and moisture. They also consume batteries at prodigious rates. We have a little Fugi toy digicam for play but I still prefer and use my Nikon FE, FMII, Nikormat. All three will take pictures without batteries, on top of a mountain in snowpack after being cold soaked for a week and in a freezing mist. They performed equally well in the desert southwest in 130 degree temps and blowing sand. I could never consider retiring them, metal bodies, aluminum and one is titanium framed and one has a titanium shutter and they are leather covered. They are built to last and are repairable and will still be clicking when I am gone.
Digital is nice for a quick snap and that instant gratification but I cannot see how a few thousand or even a few million pixels will ever be comparable to the trillions of light sensitive molelcules in film. The new layered pixel technology does look promising for a great improovement in density. All digital cameras use an algorythem to compute the picture and "smooth" and fill in the missing data (that which is being photographed) ie, some of what you see in a digi pic is fabricated by a chip. J

MikePA · Nov 11, 2003

Most all of the "digicams" are indoor cameras. 
Some are, some are not, just like film cameras.

 They lack the strength for hard use and are sensitive to cold and heat and moisture. 
Some are and some are not. I've used my digital camera at temps below 0F and above 100F without a problem. You can also buy underwater cases for digital cameras. A coworker took his Olympus C750 skin diving. Took great pictures.

 They also consume batteries at prodigious rates. 
Again, some do and some do not. Some film cameras require batteries as well. Even film cameras that do not use batteries can have problems with heat, cold and dust.

 I cannot see how a few thousand or even a few million pixels will ever be comparable to the trillions of light sensitive molelcules in film. 
Digital is not for everyone nor every photographer. Many people can not tell the difference between a print from film and a print from a digital camera. For those people who can, they should stay with film.

 All digital cameras use an algorythem to compute the picture and "smooth" and fill in the missing data (that which is being photographed) ie, some of what you see in a digi pic is fabricated by a chip. 
True, but if you can not tell the difference the issue is moot.

You've mentioned several downsides to digital cameras. Film cameras have their own, albeit different, downsides, e.g., not knowing how good the picture is until the film is developed, having to develop all the pictures on a roll of film, the cost of development, etc. As Sly and The Family Stone sang, "Different strokes for different folks."

Golfgar4 · Nov 11, 2003

Well, I LOVE digital cameras because I'm so photographically challenged, that I want to see the lousy picture I took before I delete it!!

That's the BEST reason for a digital camera! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

_RaT_ · Nov 11, 2003

You might be suprised at what is available and what folks who once had the very same equipment you have, are using now. Visit DPReview.com. Get the B&H digital catalog, it is very informative. Maybe a year or two ago, I thought much the same as you, not today, things have changed and changed dramatically. They don't eat batteries like the old Nikon Cool Pix 950, quite the contrary. Having film cameras is still nice, but even the pros are going digital or sticking with medium or large format, something the greatest 35mm film cannot ever touch if image resolution is your prime concern. The camera bodies are not the investment, its the len's. If you own Nikon lenses, there are some decent Nikon digital SLR's available. I've sold all my 35mm film gear except an old OM1. I'm going digital and not looking back. For the majority of us, it's the only way to go.

frank_f15 · Nov 11, 2003

i know most of the pros and cons of digital versus film. i have both and on occassion i use the minolta ( need to justfy all the lens and filters) but think u will have to agree that when u want a quick photo u can;t beat digital! also digital cams are getting so good that the average eye can not tell the difference. will they ever completly replace film? i don't think so.but i MHO they are excellent cameras and well deserve their place in phtography.

frank_f15 · Nov 11, 2003

( Well, I LOVE digital cameras because I'm so photographically challenged, that I want to see the lousy picture I took before I delete it!!
)
a man after my own heart. tell it like it is! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif another thing about digital i love. is i can shoot a bunch of pics of the family at gatherings, view them on tv, save the ones i want, and burn them to cd for archiving, all without the cost of film, developing, scanning, etc. PLUS if a fellow tbnr needs to see something about a trator i can run out to garage snap a pic and have it posted in 5 min.. will get off my soapbox now /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Tonester · Nov 11, 2003

Trescows,

I though that can of worms was closed! When I wasn't bashing guitars, for the past 20 years or so I have been in the graphic design business, and I'm here to tell ya, when major art magazine covers are being taken with (albeit high-end) digital cameras everyday, and National Geographic guys are emailing their photos from the jungle with satphones, it's time to reconsider film. I was an absolute fanatic about film until I got the Nikon D1, for all intents and purposes, to me, it was a Digital version of my F5, which I also owned.

Mike & Rat are right, times they are a changin'. BUT I admit I paid $1400 just for a good Nikkor lens, so you DO need a very good camera/lens to get really professional digital photos!! The latest crop of "prosumer" cameras are pretty darn good for most everything else. Rat, wait for the new Sony, if it's anything like my DSC-f717 you will love it!

Tony

_RaT_ · Nov 11, 2003

I'm considering very hard the DSC F-828. Realizing the sensor is not the same as those found in most SLR's, but then, my needs are not that extensive either. Just waiting for Steves-digicams.com full review as well as Phil Askeys from DPReview.com. Thanks for the update, Rat.

RobertN · Nov 12, 2003

I've mentioned before in similar conversations... You can't beat good glass. You can even put good glass in front of a mediocre body, and get better pictures than a pro body with mediocre glass. That goes for film or digital.

I use the non AFS Nikon 80-200/2.8 a lot. It is a nice lens for $700-800. I would still like the IF/AFS version though. You're looking at what, $2k or so for that lens?

The Alaska trip we went on, one couple had a 500mm and a 600mm Canon IS/USM lenses. They had an easy $12-15k tied up in two lenses!

TresCrows · Nov 12, 2003

I have a small digital camera. When the technology for the multi layer Fovian type chips is available I might get a higher dollar unit. You see, my old film cameras are not obsolete in a strict sense even after 20/30 years but technodigicams are obsolete every few months. My old film cameras can use the latest films and lenses whereas your new "old" digicam is obsolete when a newer chip is available and most do not use interchangeable optics. I can still have my film camers repaired if need be but I doubt anyone ever bothers to repair a digicam anymore than a CD player--just buy another.
I have never seen a digital camera that was an outdoor camera. I don't doubt there are some but none I have ever seen seem very robust or able to take environmental abuse except for units costing thousands of dollars--a lot of money to spend to watch it become obsolete in a few months. It seems each technological leep either increases funtion by a factor of two or decreases cost by half. This was not always the case. I sure would hate to invest in 4,000 dollars of digi gear for the body to become obsolete.
I am not anti-digital as you seem to think, but they currently have severe limitations and pointing them out does not make me anti digital, digital is fun but at it's present state it is very raw---and I can tell a digital pic from a film pic--it is really pretty easy.
I wish they would produce a "universal body" like Nikon had their F series and Minolta their SRTs line etc and then offer a digital back that had a slot for the imaging chip and software so that it could be updated. That way you could feel confident that your camera body and lenses and cases and all that stuff would remain a viable investment for long periods of time just like a film camera (sorta). Yes, I think some very high end Nikon and Canon units do offer digi backs etc but these are extremely high cost units and I am not sure if even they are upgradeable.
It is odd but that in the digital age the most expensive high end stereo equipment is analog tube and that high end turntables are making a comeback. There maybe a film revival in our future as well.
I think Olympus has a small digcam that is reputed to be weather resistent. Don't those shiney silver bodies reflect light when used outside? Can you use a filter, a polarizer, orange or yellow filters for B&W, howabout Infrared photograpy,now that would be cool, a digicam that could provide instant infrared or UV photograpy or allow you to select the spectrum to be photographed---hmmmmmm. J

MikePA · Nov 12, 2003

my old film cameras are not obsolete 
 but technodigicams are obsolete every few months. 
 new "old" digicam is obsolete when a newer chip 
 a lot of money to spend to watch it become obsolete in a few months 
 would hate to invest in 4,000 dollars of digi gear for the body to become obsolete. 

Lemme guess, you're concerned about something becoming obsolete. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Why does it matter if a new design/model comes out that's more advanced than the camera someone bought 6 months ago? For all but the professional photographer, the advance in technology is immaterial. The amateur's, even the prosumer's, camera will still work and still take good pictures.

_RaT_ · Nov 12, 2003

Foveon in the Sigma SD10

_RaT_ · Nov 12, 2003

"Why does it matter if a new design/model comes out that's more advanced than the camera someone bought 6 months ago? For all but the professional photographer, the advance in technology is immaterial. The amateur's, even the prosumer's, camera will still work and still take good pictures."

Mike you think like me! To each his/her own. I'm very familiar with the Nikon FE, FMII and other able bodied film cameras. Mine are all goneand I am waiting to buy a brand new digital. My old borrowed 1998 Nikon Cool Pix is obselete. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bob_Skurka · Nov 12, 2003

I've got an old, and wonderfully reliable, Nikon F2a. I love the thing. I also have a Nikon titanium bodied, leather clad rangefinder camera (can't remember the model #) that I bought 2 years ago. But I take 95% of my pictures with a minature Canon S230 digital camera. It fits in my shirt pocket, takes great pictures, and while there are cameras with 4 and 5 mega pixels out there on the market, my little 3 mega pixel camera with its 2x optical zoom works just fine. Until it lands in the bottom of a pond or is run over or until it breaks, I don't see the need to "upgrade" to the next newest bestest piece of techno-toy that will yeild the same great pictures because at some point people can't see any real improvement.