Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera


"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
news:XcydnZZOg8AbwcjbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@giganews,com ...
> jeremy wrote:
>> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
>> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>>
>>
> 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

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera


"Trev" <trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex,com .invalid> wrote in message
news:qcGdnQrQiInw_8jbnZ2dnUVZ8sylnZ2d@pipex,net ...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
> news:XcydnZZOg8AbwcjbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@giganews,com ...
>> jeremy wrote:
>>> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
>>> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>>>
>>>
>> 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 . . .

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera


"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:RDh5i.9208$ns.3238@trndny05...
>
> "Trev" <trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex,com .invalid> wrote in message
> news:qcGdnQrQiInw_8jbnZ2dnUVZ8sylnZ2d@pipex,net ...
>>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
>> news:XcydnZZOg8AbwcjbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@giganews,com ...
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
>>>> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

jeremy wrote:
> "Trev" <trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex,com .invalid> wrote in message
> news:qcGdnQrQiInw 8jbnZ2dnUVZ8sylnZ2d@pipex,net ...
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
>> news:XcydnZZOg8AbwcjbnZ2dnUVZ rXinZ2d@giganews,com ...
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
>>>> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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 . . .
>
>
It is rather in what you are used to, I suppose. There are many
audiophiles who still prefer the old tube-type amps. Bottom line is
that they LIKE the distortion.

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > 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?

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

jeremy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > 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.

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b,net > wrote in message news:4655ba7b$0$962
>
> 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.

I am in no hurry to stop using my film gear. I'm an amateur, not a
professional, and I shoot for my own pleasure. Part of the pleasure of
photography, for me, is the tactile gratification that comes from using
older, heavier, mainly-metal, equipment.

I have a digital P&S, and I am not pleased with all of its automation,
especially autofocus. But I do carry it around for snapshots.

I just haven't been bitten by the fascination that many others have with
digital. I used to be an early adopter of new technology, but that phase
seems to have passed, and the Luddite in me has resurfaced.

At least I can say that I know what I want, and why I want it, rather than
following the apparent herd mentality and chucking all my classic gear and
replacing it with something new. I wonder how many people have gotten over
their initial fascination with digital, then put their cameras up on the
shelves and haven't bothered to use them in a long time? We never hear from
them, but I'll bet that they represent a significant percentage of
purchasers of digital cameras.

I was happy with film when I shot Kodachrome, and I'm happy today with
Velvia. In my case, there seems to be no compelling reason to change over.
The cost of film was never an issue for me--especially since it was always
spread over the entire year. Like buying cigarettes--taken singly the
purchases are small, taken in the aggregate the amount spent in a year is
daunting.

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

jeremy wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b,net > wrote in message news:4655ba7b$0$962
>> 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.
>
> I am in no hurry to stop using my film gear. I'm an amateur, not a
> professional, and I shoot for my own pleasure. Part of the pleasure of
> photography, for me, is the tactile gratification that comes from using
> older, heavier, mainly-metal, equipment.

I do understand the appeal of finely-made mechanical equipment. I still
somewhat regret the Leica M3 that I haven't had since, oh, about 1978.

> I have a digital P&S, and I am not pleased with all of its automation,
> especially autofocus. But I do carry it around for snapshots.

My excuse for mine (a Fuji F11), despite the frustrations, is precisely
that I carry it around. I do wish it had manual focus, and real manual
exposure (and good user interfaces for those two). And a tilt/swivel
LCD. And a pony. No, wait, the pony was from another list.

To the point that I'm semi-seriously considering a Nikon D40; but that
wouldn't live in my bag full-time. It'd be smaller and less obtrusive
in the little bag with just a couple of small lenses, though. And would
be *far* better in low light. And would cost me $550 if I get lucky
on ebay, after buying and paying for installation of the katzeye screen.
Ahem. Anyway.

> I just haven't been bitten by the fascination that many others have with
> digital. I used to be an early adopter of new technology, but that phase
> seems to have passed, and the Luddite in me has resurfaced.

It has completely revolutionized my printing, and never mind I didn't
have a darkroom in the house where I started doing digital printing. I
was a pretty good B&W printer, a mediocre color printer. And with
digital I am now a quite good color printer as well as B&W printer.

And then I see how much cleaner the digital captures are than the film
scans, and how much better digital handles tungsten and other
non-daylight color balances, and how much better than film digital is in
low light. It'd be horrible to have to go back, digital is just *so*
much better for what I do (once I reached the DSLR level with a Fuji S2
at the very end of 2002).

Sounds like you do mostly slow film for landscapes and such; a very
different situation, where digital isn't nearly so clearly technically
superior (though a lot of people still argue that it is).

> At least I can say that I know what I want, and why I want it, rather than
> following the apparent herd mentality and chucking all my classic gear and
> replacing it with something new. I wonder how many people have gotten over
> their initial fascination with digital, then put their cameras up on the
> shelves and haven't bothered to use them in a long time? We never hear from
> them, but I'll bet that they represent a significant percentage of
> purchasers of digital cameras.

As you say, we don't hear from them. But I know *so many* photographers
who were mostly in a rut, whose interest has been revitalized by
digital. And more who hadn't been photographers before, but are now
getting into it.

> I was happy with film when I shot Kodachrome, and I'm happy today with
> Velvia. In my case, there seems to be no compelling reason to change over.
> The cost of film was never an issue for me--especially since it was always
> spread over the entire year. Like buying cigarettes--taken singly the
> purchases are small, taken in the aggregate the amount spent in a year is
> daunting.

I think we're starting to see the people who acquired a hand-me-down
digital camera when they were 10 years old. I have negatives going back
to when I was 8, but the camera wasn't much, not *nearly* as good as any
digital P&S today, and...I couldn't afford enough film to learn much.
The kids being handed those cameras will mostly never be photographers,
but the ones who *do* will have started working seriously much earlier.
And some of them will be the ones who didn't, either that early, or
maybe at all, have the focus and application to learn film exposure and
darkroom work, but who can learn from the instant feedback of digital.
Some of them will have "the eye", and they'll be wonderful.

I do think it's curtains for photographers like myself who are mediocre
artists and good technicians. Luckily it's not my profession, so I can
continue to do what I like and make pictures that interest my family and
friends and occasionally a few more.

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

jeremy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > 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?
>
>
No, the scanner was not a particularly good one, but for scanning
prints, that isn't essential. But between the cost of film, and prints,
and the laborious aspect of scanning them, digital is a winner.

Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > wrote in message
news:39SdnbB6xskCqcvbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@giganews,com ...
> jeremy wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter,net > 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?
> No, the scanner was not a particularly good one, but for scanning prints,
> that isn't essential. But between the cost of film, and prints, and the
> laborious aspect of scanning them, digital is a winner.

I misread your original post. You were scanning PRINTS? No wonder you were
disappointed.