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
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie Question...?
I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really
isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great. I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras faster? Better in some other way? Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? Thanks for any comments! Mark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great. I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras faster? yes Better in some other way? yes Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? yes Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? yes Thanks for any comments! Mark Like most things it depends a lot on what you pay. You don't say what you are comparing the 'new' cameras to, 5MB, 6MB, 8MB etc are much better rated than early digital cameras of 1MB,2MB, etc etc, but also remember the pixel count isn't everything also consider sensitivity and noise, the latest DSLRs will compete with 35mm SLRs and film, try a film camera at 1600 or 3200 ISO !. Your camera suffers from shutter lag, as do many others but things are getting better. In my view Kodak certainly aren't the best and used to suffer from over compression. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great. I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras faster? yes Better in some other way? yes Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? yes Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? yes Thanks for any comments! Mark Like most things it depends a lot on what you pay. You don't say what you are comparing the 'new' cameras to, 5MB, 6MB, 8MB etc are much better rated than early digital cameras of 1MB,2MB, etc etc, but also remember the pixel count isn't everything also consider sensitivity and noise, the latest DSLRs will compete with 35mm SLRs and film, try a film camera at 1600 or 3200 ISO !. Your camera suffers from shutter lag, as do many others but things are getting better. In my view Kodak certainly aren't the best and used to suffer from over compression. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great. I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras faster? yes Better in some other way? yes Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? yes Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? yes Thanks for any comments! Mark Like most things it depends a lot on what you pay. You don't say what you are comparing the 'new' cameras to, 5MB, 6MB, 8MB etc are much better rated than early digital cameras of 1MB,2MB, etc etc, but also remember the pixel count isn't everything also consider sensitivity and noise, the latest DSLRs will compete with 35mm SLRs and film, try a film camera at 1600 or 3200 ISO !. Your camera suffers from shutter lag, as do many others but things are getting better. In my view Kodak certainly aren't the best and used to suffer from over compression. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan answered well, but I'll just back him up.....
Yes, they're getting better - but no, they're not yet like film cameras. Shutter/AF lag is getting a lot better, but it's still present. My ca. 2003 C-5060 has about 1 second AF/lag time and 1.5s to store the image (SHQ jpg; about 3MB) ; my old ca. 1999 HP had 3 seconds AF/Lag, plus 5 seconds to store a 700KB image. Compare to my manual Nikon film SLR - push button - image stored, no lag. Light sensitivity is not improving. You need a larger sensor to collect more light; the sensor size is not changing. Megapixels mean almost nothing; they're only useful if you do a lot of cropping or huge enlargements. For 4X6", 5X7" and even 8X10" at 4 feet viewing distance, a *good* 3 Mpixel camera works fine. As with all electronic devices, there's a lot of not-so-good cameras out there; with poor optics, poor sensors, and poor JPEG compression engines. As the megapixels increase, image noise increases; it's basic physics; cameras these days compensate by processing the image more in the camera. Image quality rivals regular (not medium format, of course) film cameras in every way now; the images are easier to fix if they're not right, too. Are digicams cheaper? Yes, definitely; without any doubt. You pay up front, though. For example: my Nikon FG-20 manual film SLR. Used for $125; it came with a nice Nikkor 28-85mm lens and a Sigma (I know, I know) 70-200 zoom. Accessories about $100 (cheap used flash, tripod, bag, etc.) So, total cost of used SLR - $225. Cost of good film - $3-4 per 24 exp. (ie. Velvia, Portra); developing & printing (at Walmart - not recommended) $5/roll (at a good shop - recommended) $7/roll. So, I was paying about $10/24 exposures. At best, $7/24 at walmart using cheapo film. I was developing about 1 roll biweekly - total of about $250-300/year. I got about 1 pic in 10 which was a keeper; the rest were ok but were usually put in a box for "storage". Now, my Olympus C-5060 cost $550 new, plus about $150 for the extras (memory, mostly) - total of $700. Doesn't sound promising, does it? I print about 1 in 20 images; at $0.19/print. I've taken ~2000 images this year; I've printed ~100 - for a cost of ~$15.00 (a few enlargements, too). So the difference in price between my USED SLR and my NEW digicam was wiped out in 1-1/2 years. Now, every pic I take for the next ~4 years is pretty much free of developing costs..... And, quite frankly, the image quality is much better than that old SLR and that cr@ppy Sigma lens.... The environmental impact of printing those unwanted film prints shouldn't be underestimated, either - I'm saving ~500 4X6 prints per year using digital; that's a lot of chemicals and paper...... ECM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan answered well, but I'll just back him up.....
Yes, they're getting better - but no, they're not yet like film cameras. Shutter/AF lag is getting a lot better, but it's still present. My ca. 2003 C-5060 has about 1 second AF/lag time and 1.5s to store the image (SHQ jpg; about 3MB) ; my old ca. 1999 HP had 3 seconds AF/Lag, plus 5 seconds to store a 700KB image. Compare to my manual Nikon film SLR - push button - image stored, no lag. Light sensitivity is not improving. You need a larger sensor to collect more light; the sensor size is not changing. Megapixels mean almost nothing; they're only useful if you do a lot of cropping or huge enlargements. For 4X6", 5X7" and even 8X10" at 4 feet viewing distance, a *good* 3 Mpixel camera works fine. As with all electronic devices, there's a lot of not-so-good cameras out there; with poor optics, poor sensors, and poor JPEG compression engines. As the megapixels increase, image noise increases; it's basic physics; cameras these days compensate by processing the image more in the camera. Image quality rivals regular (not medium format, of course) film cameras in every way now; the images are easier to fix if they're not right, too. Are digicams cheaper? Yes, definitely; without any doubt. You pay up front, though. For example: my Nikon FG-20 manual film SLR. Used for $125; it came with a nice Nikkor 28-85mm lens and a Sigma (I know, I know) 70-200 zoom. Accessories about $100 (cheap used flash, tripod, bag, etc.) So, total cost of used SLR - $225. Cost of good film - $3-4 per 24 exp. (ie. Velvia, Portra); developing & printing (at Walmart - not recommended) $5/roll (at a good shop - recommended) $7/roll. So, I was paying about $10/24 exposures. At best, $7/24 at walmart using cheapo film. I was developing about 1 roll biweekly - total of about $250-300/year. I got about 1 pic in 10 which was a keeper; the rest were ok but were usually put in a box for "storage". Now, my Olympus C-5060 cost $550 new, plus about $150 for the extras (memory, mostly) - total of $700. Doesn't sound promising, does it? I print about 1 in 20 images; at $0.19/print. I've taken ~2000 images this year; I've printed ~100 - for a cost of ~$15.00 (a few enlargements, too). So the difference in price between my USED SLR and my NEW digicam was wiped out in 1-1/2 years. Now, every pic I take for the next ~4 years is pretty much free of developing costs..... And, quite frankly, the image quality is much better than that old SLR and that cr@ppy Sigma lens.... The environmental impact of printing those unwanted film prints shouldn't be underestimated, either - I'm saving ~500 4X6 prints per year using digital; that's a lot of chemicals and paper...... ECM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Mark,
You have a great camera in the DC4800. It has many nice features itself. But, as it is with all things, technology and time moves on. Of course so does marketing and features etc. The newer cameras are a little larger in size but a 3.1 megapixel camera is excellent and will do a great job for you. To learn more about the cameras that took the place of the DC4800, visit the following URLs. As you will see the DX6490 and the newer DX7590 are the DC4800's of today. A review of the information sites will reveal the changes and improvements. Personally, I have used the DC4800 as it allows for some twain type interactions that the newer cameras to not have. Talk to you soon, Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company wrote in message oups.com... I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great. I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras faster? Better in some other way? Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? Thanks for any comments! Mark |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Ron, all! Really appreciated!
The major thing I can't see in the specs is that "lag" time thing. Is there some standard term for it? The time it takes the camera after a shot to be able to take the next one? Processing lag? Or how many shots it can shoot in rapid succession and how fast (which, I think, should give some sort of an indication of the time before the second shot). My wife's Digital Rebel seems awfully, awfully fast. Does it have anything to do with the lighting conditions? Like more processing to "normalize" a darker image in a digital camera? TIA! Mark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbie question... Best option to scan about 200 old slides? | Grandpa | Digital Photography | 7 | September 22nd 04 02:38 PM |
Newbie question (need advice!) | GameFan72 | Digital Photography | 18 | September 11th 04 01:03 AM |
One more Newbie Question | MATT WILLIAMS | Large Format Photography Equipment | 6 | July 15th 04 04:12 AM |
another newbie question | John Bartley | Large Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 24th 04 04:11 AM |
Newbie question: metering the GG | MikeWhy | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | February 2nd 04 03:55 AM |