First digital camera - opinions wanted.

Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Wilbur

Wilbur wrote:

Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Wilbur-

Your middle sentence, if answered fervently, is a war in itself!

To answer your question, what gear do you have, as that *could* be
seminal to recommendations.

What sort of photog to you anticipate doing with a digital camera?

--

John McWilliams

"Wilbur" wrote in message
om...
Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Wilbur

The issue about film quality versus digital quality is a contentious one.
Given certain circumstances, they are comparable. Fine grain B&W has the
edge in the resolution and dynamic range arenas.

Spend some time at sources such as www.depreview.com looking at the reviews
and the images. Very informative and worth your time.

The biggest difference is the software that one can use (without scanning
film) to realize one's goals.

Cost is another issue ... digital usually costs more up front but allows
more experimentation and makes it feasible to shoot lots and lots of frames.

Currently, I'm 100% digital but do miss B&W film and might someday revisit
that medium.

Whoops!

http://www.dpreview.com

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message ...
Whoops!

http://www.dpreview.com

Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
photography.

Wilbur

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message ...
Whoops!

http://www.dpreview.com

Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
photography.

Wilbur

On 24 Jun 2004 23:19:19 -0700, (Wilbur)
wrote:

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message ...
Whoops!

http://www.dpreview.com

Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
photography.

Wilbur
Comparing film and digital photgraphy is complex and as others
suggested, it is a bit of a religious war. Some thoughts...

Good film equipment has a much longer useful life than today's
digitial cameras. I have film cameras that I have used for 25 years,
and these cameras are capable of taking excellent pictures. Newer film
cameras have more "bells and whistles," but not much has changed in
terms of the camera's fundamental ability to capture an image on film.

By comparison, buying a digital camera is rather like buying a
computer. The useful life of a digital camera is probably just a few
years. The technology is still moving fast enough that digital cameras
available 5 years from now will be tremendously more capable than the
best available today.

This makes it sound like I don't like digital photography. Actually,
nothing could be further from the truth. As a "serious" photography
hobbiest, I used film cameras for many years, but I have switched
entirely to digital.

For many of us, the end result we want is a printed image that we find
"satisfying." In that context, the notion of "image quality" is rather
subjective. Image quality, in terms of the information captured by the
camera, needs to be good enough to accomplish what you want. For
someone who want to print 3 x 5" snapshots of family events or post
pictures on the Web, a simple "point and shoot" camera is entirely
sufficient and pretty much any of the current crop of digitals will be
fine. . On the other hand, Ansel Adams felt that only a large format
view camera was able to produce the kind of images he wanted. If
that's what you aspire to, digital just isn't there yet.

Most of the people who frequent these newsgroups fall somewhere in
between these extremes. Each of us has to determine through experience
the equipment and approaches that suit us best. I bought my first
digital camera, a 2.5MP Olympus C2500L 5-6 years ago. Though I used it
regularly and produced some images I like, I still used my film
cameras for "serious" work. By that time, I had a photo printer and a
film scanner. A big advantage to me to digital printing is that I can
do far more with images in the "pixel room" on my computer than could
be done in a darkroom. It's also a lot less messy! Moreover, the
immediacy of seeing a print and being able to quickly try alternatives
-- variations in cropping, color balance, sharpness, etc. -- is a big
advantage to me.

Last year I bought a digital SLR (Fuji S2). For my purposes, I am able
to capture and print images I like. I usually print letter size or 11
x 17. With some care, I have produced satisfactory 13 x 19 prints.
It's so much more convenient and immediate than developing and
scanning 35mm slides as I was doing before. I haven't used my film
cameras in quite a while.

However, there are still a lot of people out there for whom digital
photgraphy is not quite there. Anything you do with photography
involves trade-offs. 35mm film photography became very popular,
because it represents a good trade-off between image quality, cost,
and convenience compared to larger formats.

Each of us has to decide based on what we enjoy about photography, our
subject matter, and the end result we want whether digital photography
makes sense for us now.

Leonard