Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

In article ,
says...

I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.

OK but it is certainly not the way to bet. The Fuji Frontier type of printers
print at 300 dpi. 8x12 inches at 300 dpi is 8.6 mp. 1/4 the pixels will
print at 1/2 the resolution.

"Allen" wrote in message
...

Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
meantime I enjoy what I have.
Allen

Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
cameras and lenses for image capture?

Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
sense, into "digital cameras."

For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
image capture phase.

BaumBadier wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:04:56 GMT, Alfmeister wrote:

For most snapshooters a P&S is fine. With prices of DSLR's falling all
the time however, anyone serious about photography deserves a DSLR.

I've been a photographer all my life and I wouldn't wish a DSLR on anyone.

There's a group just for this; r.p.d. isn't an advocacy group per se.

Many of the regulars here have and use both types of digital cameras.
There are clearly some situations where one is favored over the other,
and those fortunate to have both can choose if we're not far from home.

Ciao!

--
john mcwilliams

jeremy wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
...
Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
meantime I enjoy what I have.
Allen

Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
cameras and lenses for image capture?

Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
sense, into "digital cameras."

For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
image capture phase.


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a
very poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of
digital is the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever
remove my film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in
the future.

BaumBadier wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:04:56 GMT, Alfmeister wrote:

For most snapshooters a P&S is fine. With prices of DSLR's falling all
the time however, anyone serious about photography deserves a DSLR.

I've been a photographer all my life and I wouldn't wish a DSLR on anyone.


They have their purposes, but those don't match well with my needs.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
...


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them looks
as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very poor
substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is the
reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my film
camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.


I will not be going back to film But My first film scanner was the
Jessop's/Primafilm £100 job and even that did a good job if 8x6 is
acceptable. What did amaze me was the slides from my Helina 35 X where a lot
better then expected and nearly as good as the Minolta SRT shots

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them looks
as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very poor
substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is the
reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my film
camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.


Were you using a decent film scanner, one with ICE3? I am surprised to see
your comment, as I've been pleased with my scanned film images.

Digital cameras, at least in theory, filter out much high-end information.
I'd prefer good film scans, taken on excellent film cameras and lenses, over
inexpensive digital camera images.

Of course, if you are placing film cost as a high-priority item, then
digital cameras offer an advantage. I am a relatively low-volume shooter,
for whom film cost is not a major factor. For a guy that shoots an average
of a roll per week, buying a high-end digital camera seems to be an
unnecessary expense--especially since I already have all the film bodies and
lenses I could ever want.

Still, I am surprised that more people haven't jumped onto the film scanner
bandwagon. Considering all the eBay and KEH sales of film gear, I wonder
what the new owners of all that legacy equipment are doing with it? Is
anyone still shooting color negative film and taking it to the drugstore for
developing and printing?

"Trev" trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex.com.invalid wrote in message
...

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
...


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very
poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is
the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my
film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.


I will not be going back to film But My first film scanner was the
Jessop's/Primafilm £100 job and even that did a good job if 8x6 is
acceptable. What did amaze me was the slides from my Helina 35 X where a
lot better then expected and nearly as good as the Minolta SRT shots


The OP does make one important point about appearance: images shot on
digital cameras have a crispness to them that is hard to replicate on film.
The apparent lack of grain, coupled with what I assume is increased
acutance, does lend a distinctive look to digital photos--but I am
uncomfortable with what looks like a "plasticky" sharpness.

It is analogous to watching a movie shot on film versus one shot on tape.
The film has a bit less sharpness, but many of us prefer it to the "live TV
look" of tape. And I don't mind a bit of grain in my photos, because film
prints have always looked that way. Perhaps it's just the contrarian in me,
but I am in no hurry to abandon the look of film. There is a troubling look
of "sameness" to digital prints . . .

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:RDh5i.9208$ns.3238@trndny05...

"Trev" trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex.com.invalid wrote in message
...

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
...


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a
very poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of
digital is the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever
remove my film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in
the future.


I will not be going back to film But My first film scanner was the
Jessop's/Primafilm £100 job and even that did a good job if 8x6 is
acceptable. What did amaze me was the slides from my Helina 35 X where a
lot better then expected and nearly as good as the Minolta SRT shots


The OP does make one important point about appearance: images shot on
digital cameras have a crispness to them that is hard to replicate on
film. The apparent lack of grain, coupled with what I assume is increased
acutance, does lend a distinctive look to digital photos--but I am
uncomfortable with what looks like a "plasticky" sharpness.

It is analogous to watching a movie shot on film versus one shot on tape.
The film has a bit less sharpness, but many of us prefer it to the "live
TV look" of tape. And I don't mind a bit of grain in my photos, because
film prints have always looked that way. Perhaps it's just the contrarian
in me, but I am in no hurry to abandon the look of film. There is a
troubling look of "sameness" to digital prints . . .
Un sharp Mask is very much like high acutance developers in that it
increases the edge contrast just like the developer swelled them

jeremy wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message

I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them looks
as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very poor
substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is the
reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my film
camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.


Were you using a decent film scanner, one with ICE3? I am surprised to see
your comment, as I've been pleased with my scanned film images.

I've scanned lots of my old photos, first on a Nikon LS-2000 and more
recently on a Coolscan 5000 ED. I'm reasonably happy with my scans, but
pixel for pixel they are *far* inferior to the images one gets from
digital cameras. Since there are more pixels *there*, good images can
definitely be the result.

Digital cameras, at least in theory, filter out much high-end information.
I'd prefer good film scans, taken on excellent film cameras and lenses, over
inexpensive digital camera images.

Your "at least in theory" and "I'd" (contraction for "I would") both
suggest to me that you haven't done much comparing digital captures to
film scans. If not, you'll be kinda surprised when you start.

Of course, if you are placing film cost as a high-priority item, then
digital cameras offer an advantage. I am a relatively low-volume shooter,
for whom film cost is not a major factor. For a guy that shoots an average
of a roll per week, buying a high-end digital camera seems to be an
unnecessary expense--especially since I already have all the film bodies and
lenses I could ever want.

50 rolls a year (Yeah, I know there are 52 weeks, but I'm a lazy math
geek) at $20/roll for film and processing (processing much less if you
let a one-hour lab do the processing, but if quality is the issue then
that seems a foolish choice) pays for a D200 in less than two years,
*and* saves you hours of time scanning.

None of which is to say that digital is the right move for you. If I
knew you and watched you work and saw the results I might have an
opinion -- but your own opinion is the one that matters.