|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: A good digital photo camera?
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-26-2005 09:45 AM
I recently gave up on digital cameras and went back to film. About 18 months ago my Minolta 35mm SLR developed an electronic fault which would have cost more to get fixed than buying something new, so I bought a Nikon 4300 digital. I found the camera fiddly to use, the range of accessories available was small and they were hellish expensive (£60 for a polarising filter, for example). What really put me off it was taking a load of pictures and accidentally deleting them while attempting to transfer them to my PC while tired and not concentrating properly. You can't make that mistake with a film.
A couple of months later a big chain of high street electronic stores decided to discontinue film cameras and sold off their existing stock very cheaply. As a result I got a Nikon F75 with 28-70 and 80-300 lenses all for £200 - an astonishing bargain, given that that package originally sold for £430 - and a film scanner.
What I now do is to take pictures on film, usually b/w or E6 reversal, process them using a changing bag and tank in the kitchen and then scan them. I find this to be the perfect solution - it gives you the superior tonal range and proven storage longevity of film, plus the versatility of digital (small files for email, or high quality inkjet home printing). Interestingly, the girl at my local photography shop recently told me that film, chemical kits and lab processing sales had more than doubled during 2005, suggesting that lots of serious amateur photographers had tried digital, didn't like it and had gone back to film for origination. Inkjet paper and cartrige sales had continued to grow, while photochemical printing consumable sales had collapsed, she said.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-26-2005 03:31 PM
Point taken - I've had a film disaster, too. On a family holiday to the Scottish island of Jura while a teenager, I wanted to see the Corryvreckan (whirlpool) and the house which George Orwell rented while he wrote 1984. It's a five mile walk from the end of the last paved road. Knowing that I'd almost certainly never get a chance to see Barnhill (Orwell's house) again, I started off in darkening skies and with a roll of Ilford HP5 loaded in the camera, which I thought would be ideal (high contrast, a bit grainy and atmospheric) for the subject.
About half way through the outward walk the heavens opened, and they stayed open the rest of the way there and all the way back. On the basis of that afternoon I'm not at all surprised that Orwell died of tuberculosis at around my age! Anyhow, I took what I thought would be some foggy and atmospheric photos. Back at the hotel when I opened the camera, I found ripped perfs in the tongue of the roll - no film had ever been pulled out of its cassette after I'd loaded it.
Still, I guess the archivist's instinct in me feels more comfortable with film because, whatever its faults (e.g. you can't see if anything went wrong until after you've processed it), we know that it'll last a very long time if stored cool and dry. For obvious reasons digital origination has pretty much sewn up the snapshot market, but I still like the differing visual properties of different film types (take FP5 if you're going somewhere rainy and atmospheric, or Kodachrome 64 if you're off to the tropics); and the sharpness of the lenses which came with this new Nikon are fantastic.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-28-2005 07:12 AM
I shoot a *lot* of film, & have enlargements made, & the only disadvantage was scanning photos for email or to put online.
Kodak has a service at
http://www.kodakgallery.com
by which they provide you with mailers, you send in the film, they develop it & scan the negs, then return your negs. Ostensibly, you are then supposed to be able to order prints online from the site, but they only scan 35mm film at 1536x1024, which the site notes is acceptable only for sizes up to 8x10. It's aggravating because they sell bigger, up to poster size enlargements, but if you want one from Kodak's site, you can't shoot film, you must shoot with a digital camera of higher resolution than 1536x1024 (which almost all are now).
Enlargements from film, since more labs are shutting down, means sending the negs off again to Kodak via some retailer like Target, & again risking about counter help losing negatives, bending prints, etc.
It's really a shame that Kodak's services pretty much care less & offer lower-featured services for film customers than for those who upload files from digital cameras. As a matter of fact, their scanning is even lower resolution than the photo CD's from the storefront Ritz Photo place where I drop the Fuji 1600 I shoot for insurance.
The 4 mp digital camera I got for Christmas will probably replace the Polaroid as my funky impromptu camera. Which is sort of a shame, since a lot of what I do with the Polaroid is impromptu pictures I give out, & folks are delighted on the spot to get a picture. With the digital camera, it folds back down to the questions I get asked when I'm taking photos with the film camera: "Can I get a copy?" (No, not right here right now.) "Are you going to put these online; I'd like to see them!" Answer A: I dunno. Answer B: Maybe, write this down: http backslash backslash dub dub dub some long tortured url that you've got to spell out, you don't have a pen or anything to write on, this is taking way too long, you won't remember anyway, & you're losing interest now.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-28-2005 03:18 PM
For me, using a digital camera has solved the constant request I used to get for reprints.
Now, I just E-Mail them the original for them to print out or have processed. We've also made them available on Shutterfly, which has produced very good photos for us.
It's nice not to have to be buying reprints for everyone else, and convenience of digital over film has relegated our film camera usage to those disposable ones you buy at the grocery store when the need arises.
I've become a big fan of Canon. I have a G2 which is a couple of years old now, my mother-in-law has an A85 that we bought for her birthday, my brother-in-law got an A520 for his wedding, another brother-in-law has a Digital Rebel, and my parents just bought an A610 to replace a G4 that needs to go in for repair.
The A610 is definitely point-and-shoot and not up to the same level as an SLR, but it's not intended to be. It's very fast, and has the cool flip screen that my G2 has. The Digital Rebel is a digital camera in an SLR's clothing. If it weren't for the viewscreen on the back and the label, no one would know it wasn't a 35mm Rebel.
It feels great and can take every EF lens made for Canon SLR's. I would imagine the new Digital Rebel XT builds on the original's success. If I were in the market for a digital SLR, it would be at the top of the list.
I would second the referral to dpreview.com as it's a great site with very thorough reviews and the forums there are pretty good for information and a high signal-to-noise ratio.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-29-2005 10:23 AM
Here is the full line of Kodak consumer digital cameras:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=19&pq-locale=en_US
quote:
Digital Cameras
EASYSHARE-ONE
Point and Shoot Series
High Zoom Series
Pocket Series
Performance Series
Digital Photo Solutions
Compare Cameras
Reconditioned Digital Cameras
Owner's Support Center
KODAK EASYSHARE System
Upload your digital images to The Kodak EasyShare Gallery for saving, printing, and special services:
http://www.kodakgallery.com/HelpPrice.jsp?
quote:
At Kodak EasyShare Gallery and KODAK Mobile Service, it's free to create an account, store photos, share albums online, add photo borders and effects, and edit images.
I'm sharing my daughter's wedding photos with relatives and friends using the Kodak EasyShare Gallery.
quote: William Hooper
Enlargements from film, since more labs are shutting down, means sending the negs off again to Kodak via some retailer like Target, & again risking about counter help losing negatives, bending prints, etc.
Retail outlets like WalMart and Target rarely offer professional photo lab services. Most cities have professional photo labs that can make large high quality prints from film or digital images. Today, the film original is usually scanned to make the large print:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/prodSupportIndex.jhtml
quote:
Whether your lab prints optically, utilizes an optical/digital hybrid approach, or is fully digital, Kodak offers a broad range of workflow products and solutions for the lab industry.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-29-2005 11:05 AM
Kodak makes a full line of digital image sensors, right up to the latest 39 megapixel sensor for professional camera backs:
Kodak Image Sensors
quote:
Kodak's broad portfolio of available sensor products addresses all segments of the digital photography market. From high-end studio cameras for the professional photographer to consumer products, manufacturers can choose from full-frame, interline, linear and CMOS sensors based on the requirements of the application.
Kodak High Resolution Sensors
quote:
Already the world’s leading supplier of image sensors for medium-format professional
photography, Kodak is expanding its product line with the introduction of the world’s highestresolution
sensors for professional photography. The KODAK KAF-39000 Image Sensor,
featuring 39 million pixels, and the KODAK KAF-31600 Image Sensor, with 31.6 million pixels,
offer professional camera and camera back manufacturers resolution and image detail that was
once unimaginable for digital cameras, allowing photographers to experience a new level of image
quality for portrait, wedding, landscape, fashion, studio and commercial photography.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
! Expensive repairs even though I worked for Canon USA at the time and could do the repairs myself... the parts were not cheap even to employees! On the other hand digital shines here... About 8 years ago I was in a Kayak going down the Colorado River with a very early Kodak low-rez digital camera in my pocket.... I hit some rapids and wiped out...... man the water felt great on that 105 degree day! Then I remembered the camera in my pocket....the camera was literally soaking wet but back at the room I took it apart and low and behold the lens-ccd section was sealed together and no water got in between the two. Dried out the camera with the gorlfriends hair dryer and it continued to work just fine when dry. The pictures in the memory all came out fine too!! I've always carried a cheapo digital camera with me where ever I go ever since that incident.
Printer-friendly view of this topic