Swapping Contax for cheap digital - advice sought

quote:

---

I realise the quality of the digital will be nowhere near that of my Contax,

---

I would like to see a demonstration here that shows that a picture that was taken with SLR camera is better than the same picture taken with a digital camera...

Arye

Keep your Contax!!

I use a Pentax 555 (plus 512MB memory) for digital fotos: I can take as many pics per day as I want with no additional cost. I use my autofocus SLR if I want to take higher quality pics. I can recommend the Pentax S4 and the 555, I also know the Pentax 430 and the Konica 510 (but the 555 is much better than the Konica).

All of these cameras are quite expensive, but cheap digital cameras will undoubtedly fail to meet your expectations since you are used to your Contax.

And yes, there is a big big difference between a 5megapixel and a 35mm photograph! Like Sony CDP320 to Naim CD5...

- Jun

I do not agree about the big difference between the two types. I saw printed pictures that were taken by Minolta Dmage 7 and I don't think someone can tell there were taken by a digital camera. Many of my friends are taking great pictures with quite cheep digital cameras (around the 300$) and the pictures are great! On a 17" computer screen you see excelent colors and great definition. No grain and you can focus and zoom parts of the picture. And a 17" screen is much more bigger than a regular printed picture.

Arye

Also do not agree. It's down to the skill of the photographer and how well they know their camera. There's also no such thing as a good quality, cheap digital camera. £200 buys you something that wouldn't look out of place in a christmas cracker.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

There's also no such thing as a good quality, cheap digital camera. £200 buys you something that wouldn't look out of place in a christmas cracker.

---

Can't really agree with this statement - £210 will buy you a Canon A70, a very capable digital camera. I wish I'd had one in my Xmas cracker.

David

Keep the Contax!

John

TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."

Just noticed Ayre's mention of the Dimage7. Completly agree with the point made but must point out that from personal experience the Dimage 7Hi (which I think is a 7 with a few more bits on) is the biggest pile of shite it has ever been my misfortune to own and lasted six months before being outed. It could be persuaded to take good quality pictures, but if I hadn't sold it I would have taken a hammer to it.

Cheers

Harry

great pictures with quite cheep digital cameras (around the 300$) and the pictures are great! On a 17" computer screen you see [...]

>=13x18cm pictures on photo paper (not inkjet prints!) do show a difference between a 300$ digital camera and a Nikon F80 with 1.4/50. Computer screens can't show what's really on the 35mm original...

- Jun

[This message was edited by Jun Keller on SATURDAY 10 January 2004 at 15:40.]

quote:

---

13x18 pictures on photo paper (not inkjet prints!) do show a difference

---

Agree - but how often does the person who is asking the question about what type of camera enlarge any images to that size - we have a few "life style" gurus on the forum that do do so but the majority of the users are happy with 6x4 inch prints from the shop down the road - they do not even have selective enlargements of the image made.

If you want to go to 13x18 inch pictures get a medium format camera or even go the whole hog and go for a much larger studio camera.

One of the major confusion areas with the quality 35mm cameras is that they are an item of male jewelery for a lot of owners and they cannot seperate their functional needs from their vanity needs.

Derek

<< >>

Bit like watches and Hi Fi really.

It is not -
No one says that a quartz watch is not much accurate than a mechanical one.
Hi FI - I can hear the differences between different kinds of equipment
Photos - I see no difference between digital cameras and SLRs (and I use what was a top SLR few years ago).

Arye

I'm defenitely with you on point 3.

Thanks everyone.

I've asked a few shops what sort of trade-in I can expect on the 139Q, and I've been quoted £50 to £90+.

I also noticed that some respectable cameras are on sale for what seem to be very reasonable prices [not that I have a clue - twin lens camera with Zeiss lenses for < £200? ]. Apparently many owners of good cameras are trading them in for digital - maybe people reducing the size of their camera collections rather than abandoning analogue.

Anyway, I'll probably sell my Contax privately, safe in the knowledge that I can easily find a decent analogue camera to replace it if necessary.

Does anyone have a sense of what's going to happen with the prices of traditional film cameras. The easy answer is that the world is heading digital-wards and therefore in 5 years film will be unobtainable and all film based cameras will be paperweights.

However it doesn't always seem to work like that, who'd have thought 5 years ago that Leica would still be able to charge £2k for an M7 and that one of the hits of the past couple of years would be the Voigtlander Bessa range.

Let me outline where I'm coming from. About 15 years ago I started with an Olympus OM10 and never really felt the need to change brand. So now I have a lovely OM4ti (which I hardly ever use because it's worth more than I paid for it), a tatty OM1 (most used) and an even scruffier OM4. There's a bagfull of mainly prime Olympus lenses (24mm, 35mm and 85mm are most used) and a couple of tamron SP zooms, which again I hardly ever use.

Now what I love about the Oly stuff is the small size, and the instinctive way they work (maybe it's just my 15years or so practice). I've never been tempted by an F4 or EOS plus big zoom lens. When it all comes together I'm still genuinely suprised at the quality of the shots I can get out of an ancient OM1 with standard 50mm lens.

However I find myself pulled in two different directions at the moment -
On the one hand 2nd hand prices are definitely falling so maybe it's time to pick up a 2nd OM1 body (saw two in Jessops last week for less than £100) or that 21mm lens that I've been coveting for a couple of years. Maybe it's the low point and prices will start to recover as people rediscover the tactile delight of a metal manual camer and the way it forces you to think a little longer about each shot.

The alternative view however is that this is only the start of the film camera price decline. My 4 year old has a cheapo £70 fixed focus digi camera and it is fun to zap off 20 or 30 shots when playing with the kids just in the hope that one of them will capture that great spontaneous moment, so I can see the appeal of the digi stuff. If things head inexorably towards digital then that OM stuff I covet will be even cheaper in a couple of years. But by then either I won't be able to get film for it anyway, or there'll be a digital camera as small as my OM1, with comperable lens quality and a 20megapixel back that'll have made the film stuff redundant anyway.

Any thoughts?
Phil

Interesting link.

Since my last post I've decided to get a camera with a Jupiter-8 lens, sell my Contax privately and use some of the difference to finance films and processing for this year.