| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 32983 | 2003-05-03 13:42:00 | Digital Cameras | Ritzz (731) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 141116 | 2003-05-04 12:28:00 | Thankx for the info guys. So i take it that Digital cameras are still somewhat inferior to quality of 35mm cameras.... in regards to canon powershot S45. It seems to have 4Mega Pixels...So what resolution will Digital cams catch up to 35 mm...5M/6M? Or are there other features which play a part other than resolution. Seems also, getting fast moving objects is not handled well by Digital ones. I have a Olympus mju II Zoom 115 and was wondering if getting a canon S45 will be any better than this 35mm one. One of my mates got canon Powershot S45 for $999 from the parallel importers in Auck. Seemed a good deal compared to retail 1300. Only thing it came with japanese manual but the guys at Parallel import binded up a Eng copy of the manual. |
Ritzz (731) | ||
| 141117 | 2003-05-04 13:25:00 | comparision ummm some say 20MP. u should not notice too much unless u print large photo's. high resolution also helps. compared to the olympus u got. umm.. on par? compact 35mm arn't a good camera at all. memory card options, battery lift is impt features. check how the website i given u - how they rated the camera (the areas). digital can handle quick photo's. not a problem. it depends on the model if u get like a digital SLR or the SLR styled with fixed lense they are quick! up to 1/4000 sec shutter speed. heck, some entry 35mm SLR can only do 1/2000 sec. professionals uses a general benchmark of 1/125 for moving car, 1/15 for tv, 1/350 for still water fountain (no bluriness as the water is still). having said that check the model u interested in - it jus may have a shutter speed quick enof for u. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 141118 | 2003-05-04 21:11:00 | Actually, the minimum rule of thumb is 1/Focal length to eliminate camera shake. So if you are using 35mm (or minimum magnification on a digital) you shouldnt be using anything slower than 1/35 shutter speed unless you are using a tripod Iain |
Iain Walmsley (3372) | ||
| 141119 | 2003-05-04 21:22:00 | I've taken more, better photos since I bought my Nikon digicam. Why? The expenee of rolls of film was beginning to put me off using my Pentax SLR. I've had it for years (1984 actually) but spending up to $20 bucks to develop and print and replace the film, when there were often only a few shots worth keeping irritated the heck out of me. Since getting my digicam this expense is way reduced since: 1] I know instantly if the pic is any good and hence can adjust my shooting parameters to get a better one 2] only priint out (at Camera&Camera) those shots I want. So I've no regrets overall about buying a digicam. However, as an SLR user for years I do regret that my money cannot yet buy me an SLR equivalent in a digicam. I've just been using Canon's new digital SLR the EOS 10D and love it dearly - the best of both worlds. It feels and acts just like a conventional SLR, takes good pics and is flexible enough for action, low-light and other photogrpahy modes that a cheaper digicam can't handle well. But at $4400 for the body alone it is not something that most of us can afford. It is still going to be some years before I'll be able to "replace" my olf SLR with what I feel is a true digital equivalent. But that's now mostly just a matter of price - the technology is here. Check out Scott Bartley's comaprison of $1000 to $2000 digicams in this months PC World. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 141120 | 2003-05-04 21:34:00 | As for the quality issue - that's often subjective. Example - how many times do you enlarge your conventional prints to say A4 size? Me, never. But my 3.4 megapixel camera's prints will and have been enlarged to that size with little problem. So don't get sidetracked by debates about how a digicam's megapixels are less than 35mm because this only becomes a factor if you really need to enlarge to the point where you lose resolution versus 35mm film. The more important factor in quality is that digicams - in general - don't do colour as well as conventional cameras. This is all about how the CMOS or CCD sensor works. The new chip from Foeveon which is currently only available in one, expensive digital SLR (www.sigmaphoto.com), promises to improve this situation but it is very early days for this technology. See Foeveon's FAQ here (www.foveon.com) So in the menatime you'll often notice overbright colours in your digitalics. BUT - learning how to correct these issues in Photoshop or a similar program can quickly let you bring your pics up to conventional standards. I hardly ever print out anything that I haven't passed through Photoshop first to do some colour correction and sharpening. Also, I reviewed a bunch of digicams for FFWD mag a while back and the Canon S45 was my pick of the bunch. It's a great little digicam for the money. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 141121 | 2003-05-05 01:16:00 | I got the s45 two months ago and couldn't be happier with it. The dpreview site listed previously in this thread is excellent and offers very good comparison testing. I spent a while looking around on the net before choosing the s45 and it seems to have a pretty decent set of features etc for a good price (I payed just over $1000 wholesale). The s50 is out now as well, but I don't know a lot about that one. Depending on what you want to do, the G3 from canon is alos worth a look, very smilar feature set, but 4x optical and allows lense attachments. My only problem so far has been printing the photos; $expensive$. Luckily I do most at work on a color laser at $1 per a4, but photoshops seem to charge about $2 per shot - basically done as a reprint. |
TerryW (2183) | ||
| 141122 | 2003-05-05 01:57:00 | I think I read it in >>FFWD, saying that 35mm is 20 Megapixels, but you also need a printer that can do a REALLY high res. In all reality, you get fine enough prints with a 3MP camera AFAIK! OSD looks fine with a cam that can do 40x480, but not quite as nice for printing! *There goes my 2cents for the morning* |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 141123 | 2003-05-05 03:41:00 | Re buying duty free overseas. Last September I bought a Pentax Optio 430rs digital camera in Brisbane airport. It cost $1295.00 Au$ duty free, the same camera is on sale today in Auckland for $899.00, beware!. Ps. it's a lovely little camera and fits in my pocket. Ron.. |
Ron24 (337) | ||
| 141124 | 2003-05-05 05:38:00 | READ N Z P C WORLD MAY "Film is dead. P C WORLD see 10 digital cameras in YOUR future. Does this end the thread? |
olldaddy76 (2539) | ||
| 141125 | 2003-05-05 10:44:00 | depends on the perspective. digi are great for most people. if the few are into real photography the suttle little differences is what sets u apart. bruce has mentioned about the color on the digicams. going digital removes the ability to control the type of film being used so u have less control on the output. ie.. making photo's more/less grains, tones. what is art. people still draw using paint brushes. how can a constantly revolving technology be defined as an art when one yr is observably different from the past. but yes i will keep my 35mm. i will however still go digital SLR. its nice how u can roll over 2-3 rolls of films in one afternoon jus perfecting that shot w/o having to pay processing costs. more practice so u get better at it so u can take better 35mm and digital shots. digital does need a 2nd battery then become more cost and luggge to carry and a desktop charger. i mean if i travel i find time is rare to charge a battery and inconvenient. if that time comes i would buy a 2nd batt. but it would not be used in special occasions. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||