what digital camera

Matthew,

I think you're right -- looking at pictures on a computer monitor to determine is probably futile. The above pic. certainly is not "analog" as I see it on my LCD display - there's jaggies, and the color levels are obviously discrete.

However, it is my understanding that digital cameras have not equaled the resolution and dynamic range possible with film [note the the use of the word possible]. For example film can resolve more line pairs/cm than the same sized CCD. Also, an individual CCD pixel is sensitive to only one color, which both reduces the sensitivity (by about 1/3) and resolution (new lower res. Foveon CCD chips excepted). Finally, the dynamic range of a CCD is 8-bits IIRC - I'm sure film has more range than that.

Now all bets are off if your using a crap piece of glass in front of that film.I'm not sure the same is true for digital though. What's the limiter -- CCD resolution/dynamic range or the lens?

As I said, that's how I understand it -- I'd welcome comments if I'm in error.

-Dan

You will never see an analogue image on this forum. Once it's been digitally scanned or taken, it's not analogue.

It's like copying an analogue recording onto cd.

Matthew is taking the piss out of some of you.

Leaving bizarre metaphysical assertions aside, the point I was trying to make was that all this film Vs digital stuff is frankly as much nonsense as the CD Vs Analogue debate. There are people who believe that any high quality analgoue camera will better all digital cameras as the latter is somehow flawed and they may even be right (you can always play the "if you saw it on my lightbox you would know" card so ultimately it becomes an un-winnable debate online).

In practical terms though its much more sensible to say some film cameras are better than some digital cameras and some digital cameras are better than some film cameras. Choosing between the two then becomes a matter of budget, usage, feature sets, etc. etc. It should be choice much like, say, choosing whether to buy a petrol or digital car (ok that's not the best analogy but hopefully you can see my point). There are issues that, for the moment, make film still a better choice on quality grounds but these are mainly to do with access to high quality lenses than any problems with the digial format or the sort of lines/mm stuff Dan points out.

count.d said "It's like copying an analogue recording onto cd"

The problem I have with this argument is that it would mean it should be impossible to tell from a scan the difference between, say, a high quality E6 exposure made with Nikon's finest prime lense and something snapped with a half decent mid-range compact camera. I think its very easy to make quality judgements from scans and (at least to me) its obvious that the picture I posted is of much higher quality than the, at best, very average quality of the pictures posted by PR regardless of the analogue or digital source. I mean doesn't it just leap of the screen as 20 times better?

If you can make such judgements about, say, different lenses then I don't see why you cannot do so with digital vs film.

"Matthew is taking the piss out of some of you"

Matthew was just a little annoyed about a spate of threads with unhelpful, innacurate and glib generalisations on the subject. Like, say, a Kiwi coffee enthusiast faced with a flippant claims about lever operated espresso machines

As the picture I posted -- Jeremey was perfectly correct. It is both soulful and digital -- the soulful aspect comes from a Leica lens which in this case has been gaffer taped to an Canon EOS-10D. See here for details and more examples.

Matthew

quote:

---

count.d said "It's like copying an analogue recording onto cd"

The problem I have with this argument is that it would mean it should be impossible to tell from a scan the difference between, say, a high quality E6 exposure made with Nikon's finest prime lense and something snapped with a half decent mid-range compact camera

---

All I said was that to compare an analogue image to digital image, you must have the transparency or "analogue" printed print in front of you to compare. You cannot do this with two images on the screen. This help was obviously aimed at some of the earlier posts.

quote:

---

Matthew was just a little annoyed about a spate of threads with unhelpful, innacurate and glib generalisations on the subject. Like, say, a Kiwi coffee enthusiast faced with a flippant claims about lever operated espresso machines

---

My flippant claims about lever operated espresso machines is based on research and me having Italian/Sicilian relatives in Sicily and England. Three of these are in the catering business, one of which owns one of the best restaurants in Sicily. He uses automatic machines at the restaurant, lever at home for the extra something. It took me a long time and many calls/trials to choose what to spend £500 on. So your unhelpful, innacurate and glib generalisations on threads annoys me a little.

I only have a certain amount of time I can devote to writing on the forum. I cannot spend twenty minutes a time on one post. I will give my opinion to questions, with specific answers. If someone gives a list of requirements for a camera, I will give one model answers. If they need to know more, they can always ask.

[This message was edited by count.d on SATURDAY 10 January 2004 at 14:44.]

Matthew, I can understand that a photo with M-lens and 10D is probably better than a picture taken on 35mm film with a 100EUR compact camera...

But if you take a Dynax 303 plus AF1.7/50 I doubt if it's possibe to get better pics with any digital camera for the same price...

Of course in any case most important is what the photographer does!! And a 50k JPEG reduces any image to a level which both digital and analoge cameras can keep up with.

- Jun

at the beginning someone agreed with my favoured choice of nikon 3700 when buying a digi camera. i initially wanted to know if there were any contenders worthy of a look. it seems that the subject has exploded into an all out digital/analogue war.bring on the big dogs!

what were barn owls called before barns were invented?

Hi Jason,

Sorry about the tangential discussion, but the Barn Owl is also known as Church Owl, Golden Owl, White Owl, Rat Owl, Steeple Owl, Stone Owl and Monkey Faced Owl.

Please don't ask what they were called before Steeples were invented.

Jason G

Have you looked at the www.dpreview.com comments on the camera

Then how does it feel in your hands and against your face - is comfortable, can you take pictures without a perceived camera shake.

If you expect to take action pictures - have you tested the shutter lag - get the shop assistant to walk directly in front of you about 6 feet away and press the shutter when they pass a recognisable feature - eg lamp post, crack on pavement. - Look at the image - how does the position of the subject appear compared to when you pressed the shutter. Is the speed of reaction quick enough for you.

How fast can it take the second and third pictures in a sequence - is this ok for you.

If all of the above is OK then be confident that you are getting something that will keep you happy.

I had/have a Nikon 990 and it was OK apart from the two action/speed tests outlined above - but I did not realise that they would be a limitation for quite a while until the types of photos I was taking changed.

Do not know if this has helped you?

Have you considered buying a used higher spec camera, the depreciation on digital cameras is quite rapid.

Good luck

Derek

<< >>

the camera is mainly to be used when my our baby comes along in march and then for the foreseeable future as a general use holiday/day to day camera. i want something that will last and not be too outdated as soon as it leaves the shop.

what were barn owls called before barns were invented?

JasonG

I was in a chain camera shop today listening in to a customer asking about a digital camera (in the same price range as you are in) the customer was commenting that when he took pictures of his grandchildren the image often showed the head turned away and the the kid out of shot as the shutter delay was to too great

So I do suggest that you really try out the caeras in the shop - you need to prove to your self that will react fast enough for you. If the dealer won't demo it for you with a battery and a memory card - go elsewhere. It is worth spending a bit extra and buying from a real shop if they will give real service instead of from an online dealer to ensure you are happy with what you want.

If you have a laptop take it to the shop and get the dealer to copy the pictures into the computer so that you see what they look like.

Also re kiddy snaps - if the flash port is very close to the lens you will get red eye and burnt out faces - it is worth while have a plug on flash gun to minimise the red eye and to also get a bit of extra light on the subject.

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Imagine David Bailey using a digital camera?

It would be taking the Bailey out of David. He was use to using several films per day in achieving his famous shots. Digital would have taken out the genius in the numbers, and replace the shots with convenience, ease and lazyness.

You show me an award winning digital shot that captures time, position and feeling.

---

PR, that's the first stupid post you've written. You still have time to edit/delete it.

Funny you should mention Digital and David Bailey

See David Bailey receives new Olympus Digital camera

"David Bailey, who has been an Olympus user for more than 20 years, was delighted with the new camera; "I am thrilled to be the first to get my hands on the camera. As a professional photographer the technology meets my needs for the highest quality and flexibility; this new system demonstrates huge advances in photography"."

Derek

<< >>

we use a fuji finepix. its simple to use, easy to download and gives fantastic photo's.

Regards


NB

PR - why is it a worry - it is horses for courses, you use what is most appropriate for the work your doing.

Derek

<< >>

i have just trialed a friends sony dsc-p10,5 megapixel digi compact and found it very easy to use. it looks like i can get this camera for the same price as the nikon 3700 and it has all the same functions. how does the sony memory stick and other media compare to the usual memory cards? can the software be used on any computer?

what were barn owls called before barns were invented?

Memory sticks appear to be 60% more expensive for the same capacity than CFcards (e.g £36 as against £22 for 128Mb). Shouldn't be any software incompatibilities though.

David

You are all wrong nothing can beat the Minolta F200
Apart from it`s hunger for batteries and slow start up; but just buy biggest capacity
rechargeable AA`s and keep it switched on
The lens is far superior to Nikon who like Sony have lost there way and are trading on there past