What camera

B

Bob Watson

Guest
Just read the review of the olymus camera and was wondering what other members use, Digi or film?
I've just treated myself to the fuji finepix 6800 (digi) and it's great. The pic quality is outstanding and it's got more features than the flooded side of a dam!
Perhaps Graham can let us know what is used on FM.
Also can members submit pics in the forum or is the risk of virus through attatchments too great.
 
R

Richard Drayson

Guest
Hi Bob,
I used to have an Olympus Mju, great camera with some nice features.

Then I was offered a second-hand Fuji MX-2700 after getting a PC and printer etc.
I then sold the Olympus as it seemed silly to carry on using it and having to pay for developing and printing when I could print my own photos using the PC.

As you say, the digi results are great, especially on cameras with a decent size lens, but the print quality ultimately depends on your printer.

At the moment digi is excellent for website jpgs, far better than having to scan prints but for really top notch, pin-sharp enlargements I think film cameras still lead the way, large format in particular.
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
I depends on your pocket, how keen you are and essentially what photography means to you.

For several years I was as keen on photography as I was on fishing. I did a lot of wild life and insect photography that I sold to various magazines world wide. For this sort of work you need a good SLR, ie two bodies with a selection of lenses. Colour slides are still superior to Digi cameras at the moment for this sort of work but I guess it won't be long before we are seeing truly excellent reproduceabilty from the digi cameras.

The Nikn D5 at over ?3k for the body is getting that way.

These days I would love to be able to afford a good digi camera. The Nikon D100 would be my ideal.

Dream on Clay..... :eek:)
 
P

Paul Tubb

Guest
I agree with Ron, slides are still superior to digital images. I use a twenty year old Nikon FM which has never let me down, even in the roughest of conditions.

What concerns me with digital cameras is the storage issue. Ok, so you download onto the PC, then transfer it to CD etc, etc but its time consuming and you have to lug a tonne of gear around to show anything. Slides are far more convenient and much easier to store.
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
Lug all that gear around to show them?
What, a CD????

Or a carton full of slides that no-one else can view?

I went digi about 4 years ago and my last camera I bought over 2 years ago and you cannot convince me that normal film is the way forward.

The picture quality is stunning and as good, if not better than a SLR costing twice the price.
No development costs, or mess doing it yourself.

Quick, easy and so simple to pass the camera to Joe Dogwalker if required.

They mess up in foul weather?
I think not.
Or only as much as a normal camera.
 
W

Wayne Cappleman

Guest
I've been using digital cameras for about 3 years now. ALthough my last two were'nt too hot image wise, the latest purchase (Fuji Finepix 2800) is absolutely great. Even on the manufacturers default setting, which is half what the camera is capable of, the images are fantastic.
Most households now have a computer of sorts, so taking the snaps round on a CD is perfect, or even sending them to friends by e-mail (always remember to reduce the image size if you do this though - they might not appreciate you hogging their e-mail program for more than 1/2 an hour).
If anyone wants a proper snap, I print out the images onto photo quality paper. As good as the real thing.

Bear in mind when buying your camera. Salesmen will often try to get you to go for the one with the highest megapixels (the best quality and therefore more expensive) but as anything over 2 million is indistinguishable to the human eye, don't be fooled.
 
S

Stuart Bullard

Guest
I'm with you Rik. I also have the Fuji Finepix. At ?200 it is superb.
 
B

Bob Watson

Guest
Got to agree with Carp angler, picture quality is as good as SLR. Limited by the quality of your printer of course. Decent photo suites also enhance good images to make them even better, remove red eye etc, though most digi's have red eye reduction/removal anyway, you can still get it if you wear glasses. Most definitely the way forward!(IMHO).
Wayne, 2 megapixel may be indistinguishable to the human eye, but as with most things we buy, they keep getting better. A 400mhz PC two year ago was cosidered quite powerful, now you're looking at 2ghz, get the best you can afford and be one of the last to have to upgrade. Can printers print 6megapixels yet? If not I'm pretty damn sure they'll be able to very soon. Think of the possibilities in enlarging photos where the human eye does notice the grain in normal photos. I could go on but you get the picture (no pun intended).
 
W

Wayne Cappleman

Guest
lol - Hmmmm definately will get better when the print quality goes up, and as you say, 2 megapixels is fine as long as you don't zoom in on the image.

Mind you, I think I have got to try one of these High Street developers who will print your images properly from Disk. Just to check quality you understand.
 
M

Mark Williams

Guest
I'm sorry to rain on your party, those who think film's dead, but digi's a long, long way off replacing celluloid. I shoot pictures on 35mm and 3.34MP digi, professionally. Now, my 35mm will blow to A3 size before the grain starts to show. At magazine print, 200dpi, that's the equivalent of 8.1MP. Nobody makes one of those yet, and even 6MP with interchangeable lenses will set you back ?5,000 or more, body only. My old Nikon's worth ?1,000 WITH the lenses. No contest.
I also notice that digi tends to print very flat and lifeless. That's partly the fault of the printer, but I'm not convinced that the CCDs are good enough to make a really accurate job of capturing nature.
I love my Coolpix - superb for any digital presentation, like the web, or on-screen with Powerpoint. And what better for macro. But if I was blasting away for a magazine somewhere remote, I know which camera I'd rather have in my hands.
And don't forget that film is also being improved by the makers.
 
B

Bob Watson

Guest
Thanx for your input every body.
Mark, I can't argue with a professional, I'm new to digital photography but I'm sure great advances are just round the corner (along with price reductions). 10/20megapixels? will this be possible? Will printer capabilities be able to match? probably!! Just as soon as they've exhausted the present market.
 
C

Cakey

Guest
I use a Nikon 995 with great results,I also have a friend who is a pro shooter and she has held out as long as possible but she now given in and brought a digi back for her camera (?18,000),she reckons digi is catching film at a fair rate of knotts.
 
S

Stuart Bullard

Guest
Mark, I understand your point of view. My Dad was a professional photographer and indeed my first job was working for Kodak in their professional photographic business unit. However I think you need to distinguish between the disciplines of professional and novice.

Also Richard Drayson said that ultimately the quality of print depends on your printer. I am not sure this is correct Richard. Crap in equals crap out. So yes, if your printer is poor you will not get good prints. Equally you can have the dogs b's printer, but if the image stored is poor then that is what you will get printed.
 
A

andrew jackson

Guest
I use both but I can't afford a digi that will come close to my slr. I have a 1.3 mega pixel Fugi, that is used just for web shots. I think If you already own a good slr then there is little point in spending a fortune on a fancy digi, that will be rendered obsolete in the bat of an eye.
 
R

Richard Drayson

Guest
Stuart,
I can see your point but I stand by what I said.
 
M

Mark Williams

Guest
We're all right in this debate - it's horses for courses. And I take Bob's point about the diff between amateur and pro - depends on whether you want them reproduced in magazines. Anyway, my pictures are such c**p sometimes, I'm not sure I'm qualified to put the case for pros!
If all I wanted were a few snaps of my better fish, I'd go digi every time. If I wanted top quality prints, it's still film (and get a good compact, like the Ricoh R1, instead of humping round an SLR). All the mags want is transparencies, and when you look REALLY close, you can see why.
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
I've had several of my digital shots reproduced in colour in the AM.
One was a half page picture and you could not tell the difference between it and the other shots in the paper.
 
R

Ray Walton

Guest
Although i use SLR's and slide film, i also have a digital Kodak 3600 compact(2.1 million pixels) with a docking bay. I find that the digital takes brilliant pics especially at the highest resolution and in low light situations and they are acceptable to use in the angling press. I'm sure slides are always the prefered source at the moment but good well framed and sharp digital shots are excellent, as long as you don't blow them up too big...Ray
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
I've just had some digi images printed professionally to A4 by Jessops and I defy anybody to show me the difference between them and prints from film.

Take a look at the picture of Dave Colclough on page 6 of this weeks Angling Times and then tell me you can tell it was taken on a digital camera. This was shot on my Olympus C4040 at 3.8 million pixels that gave an image size of 876kb. This is two steps down in resolution from its ultimate capability.

At the Shimano Press days on Tuesday and yesterday, attended by all the angling media, as far as I could see all those taking shots were taking them on digital.

Take a look at some of my recent articles in Coarse Fisherman magazine and tell me which pictures were taken on digital and which were taken on 35mm.

For in-depth picture features and most studio work then yes, transparency film is still preferred, but I think mainly because the pros are still fighting against the turning tide and publishers are still reluctant to release funds to buy top of the range digital equipment that is still seen as 'new' and therefore suspicious.

Digital will never replace film? I'll give film about 5 years before it's well and truly on its way out.
 
B

Bob Watson

Guest
Good to see you in this thread Graham.
Just a quick question, are Jessops a nationwide concern? or do smart media cards have to be sent to them? Also are the results noticably better than home produced results? I presume they would use a laser printer. Am I correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top