If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a new Digital camera
Tom Pfeiffer wrote: Isn't it hard to breathe with your head down in that sand dune? "Terje A. Bergesen" wrote in message om... If you want to get into, ie. learn and develop your photographic skills, digital is not the way to go. Why not? A camera with a manual mode, and an aperture priority and shutter priority modes would be good. Buy a decent used 35mm SLR camera with a couple of good lenses and go to a photography course. There is currently no single digital camera at *any* price that can match pictures taken on such a camera. I disagree. If one has a large enough budget, they can get a 14 megapixel digital slr, which would probably give results better than most 35mm films, especially when needs to shoot at 400 ISO or higher. For those with a more modest budget, a digital camera will probably be much cheaper than a film camera for those who take many photos once the cost of film and processing is factored in for the film camera. The immediare results of the digital camera also help people fine tune their photo taking skills. Some people will disagree, they are wrong. A digital camera *can* shorten the learning curve for composition and lighting substantially by reducing the time-to-feedback. It can also reduce the cost of the education. Just because you didn't learn that way doesn't mean someone else can't. Most people also don't want to bother carrying a pad and paper and recording all the exposure information for each shot. For *most* amateurs, there is not a significant difference in quality between the output of current digital SLRs and film cameras, because they are not shooting and scanning slides, they're shooting and printing color negatives. Slides are much less forgiving as far as mistakes in exposure than negative film. You may believe that those 'chromes make your images "better" Properly exposed Velvia slides can be great, but one often needs to bracket quite a bit and use a heavy tripod to get great results from Velvia. All that film and developing is expensive. than digital ones, but the majority of mainstream photographers doesn't (IMHO). Tom P. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Good digital is at least as good as 35mm. I do both. Superb digital is
practically as good as 6x6 (Canon 1ds) but unless you are going to make it pay, it's not worth it. I find that I take better shots with film, as being aware of what it costs, I just am more careful, and using 6x7, which I also do, I almost never shoot a dud. I know it's psychology, but it's true. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital Camera Pricing | measekite | Digital Photography | 75 | February 7th 05 10:23 AM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
Digital zoom camera & lots of selection questions | Lou | Digital Photography | 5 | November 12th 04 12:43 AM |
What was wrong with film? | George | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 192 | March 4th 04 02:44 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |