What digital camera do you have/want?

[Gatorboy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If this is the case then I won't be getting a digital camera )</font>

Since I bought my digital camera over 2 years ago, I have not taken a picture with my FILM camera once -- and probably never will.

I have taken action shots as well as still shots and I don't have any problems. Once you learn the techniques needed to take pictures based on the situation, you should have no problems. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Since I bought my digital camera over 2 years ago, I have not taken a picture with my FILM camera once -- and probably never will )</font>

I had a good 35mm Nikon and I sold it cheap in a garage sale after I got the digital camera. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[MossRoad]

Bird,

I pulled out our 20+ year old Minolota X700 and let the 10 year old use it on our vacation in Arizona last April. Who'd a thought I'd let the kid use $1000.00 worth of camera and lenses!? She made honor group at the 4H fair for both Black & White and Color groups /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We bought a cheap 2.3mp RCA camera two years ago. We've taken at least 4000 pictures with it. Prints alone at 25 cents a piece would have cost $1000.00. Add the cost of 160+ rolls of film and that's another $500. So we probably saved at least $1300.00 in those two years. The camera is half dead, but now it is my tractor camera. We're looking for a new camera for the holidays.

 

[frank_f15]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( how do you know when an action shot will present itself so you can hold the button down halfway or turn off auto focus? )</font>

no one really knows when an action shot is going to prsent itself. what i do with either the 35mm slr or the digicam is try and antisipate the shot, manuel focus on where u think the shot will appear, and shoot in continuous mode. no one gets great shots with every click of the shutter. at least i don't /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[rockyridgefarm]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You will probably have to buy a good high-end camera ( ~$3000+) to eliviate the shutter delay problems )</font>

I wanted to eliminate the delay, My new Canon Digital Rebel is pretty quick! There really is no noticeable delay and it lists for $1K. I managed to get one for $800.

 

[bebster]

Mike,
$800 !! I've been eyeing this camera, but haven't seen a price this low. Mind sharing where you purchased it?

 

[_RaT_]

Wow Mike, I did not realize you picked one up. The DSLR pretty much eliminates the shutter delay. Focus is quick, much faster then what one can do by hand and most often works beautifully. The quality of pictures I have seen from this camera and the 10D rival 35mm film. The ability to look at your shot and determine whether it will work or not has a huge benefit over film. I am definitely eyeing this camera. Rat...

P.S. Have you checked out a pretty cool DVD that Canon sends out for free titled "EOS Digital Workflow Guide"? It features quite famous professional photographers and why they for the most part have left film and find digital of real inspiration to their profession. On top of that, gobs of information about digital.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Thanks! I'll track down that dvd. I work with a pro photog. We put the dRebel through some paces. He wants one. It takes pictures faster than my Minolta Maxxum. I think they are better, too.

I debated about the d10, but decided to wait until the next version. Any accessories I buy will usually fit both.

 

[TresCrows]

I have seen them advertized in Shutterbug, a trade magazine with adds from many large camera stores. I have purchased many things from several of the advertizers over the years with no problems and cheap prices.

Mr. Bird, if you got any more Nikons you are selling "cheap" I will save you the trouble of a garage sale and just send them my way /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif. I was recently offered in the range of 5,000 dollars for one of my Nikon SLRs, with the titanium body, F1.2 Nikkor 50mm, data back and motor drive. I declined the offer, it is not for sale. That F1.2 lens is one of the finest lenses ever made and has the light gathering power approximately 16 times greater than the average high end point and shoot, digital or film, and the resolution is far superior, they went to the moon I believe---sooooo, if you got anything like that lying around "cheap", please, please send it my way. Whats more, when we land on Mars, I will not hazard a guess as to the camera they may use to photograph the flag waving in the Martian breeze but I do know this, somewhere in some place far, far away, my Nikons will still be clicking long after the 800 dollar Digital Canon SLR has been reconverted to plastimer and finds it's way into the hood of a Japanese built JD. Yeeha.

Since film is equivilent to 20 to 60 megapixels I realy doubt a 5 megapixel Canon really produces pictures equal to a film SLR but it is fun to believe that isn't it. It's new so it must be better and the instant access is better and fun and if you are having fun and are satisfied then that is all that really matters. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif We live in the moment while we plan for the future but it is the moments that count, I will record mine on film. Adios (and please send all cheap Nikon SLRs my way). J

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> Since film is equivalent to 20 to 60 megapixels I realy doubt a 5 megapixel Canon really produces pictures equal to a film SLR but it is fun to believe that isn't it. </font>
IMHO, the following is a logical fallacy;

If a digital camera can not create a 20 - 60 megapixel picture, then a digital camera can not produce a picture equal to a film SLR.

It depends upon the intended audience of the picture. A 5 x 7, 8 x 10, or will the picture be enlarged to the size of a mural?

Can the human eye discern the differences between a 5 megapixel picture, a 20 megapixel and a 60 megapixel picture? If it can't, then the issue is moot. Sony is claiming that their F828, at 8 megapixels, produces pictures that, to the human eye, are indistinguishable from pictures created from film. Granted, this claim is from a manufacturer trying to sell a product, but the underlying premise is sound. At 8 megapixels, or thereabouts, the discernment capability of the human eye has been exceeded and that any increase in megapixel capability of a digital camera would only apply in situations where there's a requirement to enlarge the picture.