|   warning...not to be viewed by people presently owning a digital camera | clary.
Oct 3, 2002 7:54 PM | | popular Canon S30:
other camera:
 |
| modem users need not apply... | clary.
Oct 3, 2002 8:39 PM | | you will never know until you have seen! |
| People with anything less than a T1 need not apply. | DeeEight
Oct 4, 2002 1:59 AM | | I used to think the dweebs in the passion forum posted too large of pic
files. The above sents a new record. |
| People with anything less than a T1 need not apply. | divve
Oct 4, 2002 3:46 AM | | Clary is from passion:) |
| I have less than a T1 | tlg
Oct 4, 2002 4:11 AM | | It took about 15 seconds with my cable modem. |
| Lets make a deal DeeEight. I'll stop posting large files if... | clary.
Oct 4, 2002 7:16 AM | | you stop pimping your overpriced obsolete junk all over the place in each forum. |
| So, which one do you think is better? | Matno
Oct 4, 2002 5:57 AM | | Different, one's not necessarily better than the other... |
| The 2nd one? | Ripzalot
Oct 4, 2002 6:47 AM | | Unfortunately, they are not the exact same image but I think the point is how much better the second one is. Pretty sharp. |
| new, yet to be released technology that will find it's way... | clary.
Oct 4, 2002 9:11 AM | | to compact cameras for cyclists use in the near future.
Full-frame, 11.1-Megapixel CMOS sensor |
| Matno, upgrade your monitor if you can't tell the difference... | clary.
Oct 4, 2002 11:29 AM | | it's a night and day difference.
Compare both photos for clarity, colour and texture.
Look at "Nicholson St. 400" street sign.
garbage dump # "957995"
"vendors and visitors must report to main office" on back door.
Roof, brick, posts, telephone wires, air conditioning at side of building, satellite dish, fencing and guardrails, etc. |
| ok...so its Higher pixel count.....your point? | DJS
Oct 4, 2002 11:51 AM | | my first PC was a 64k Commodore. Then 2 years passed and I got a 128k machine. Now I have a P4 at 2ghz.
My first dig. cam was 320x460
now I have a 3megapixel...in two years I'll have a 10mpixel.
OK. ?
They are both good images, one is higher res, better contrast, etc. Sure, its newer technology. My '01 Honda is faster and smoother than my 79 Jeep. In 79 it was fast and smooth (ok, maybe not smooth)
The only time you will need that many pixels on an image is for cropping small sections or large-format dig outputs. You have a large format printer to use that cam with? |
| present compact cameras are garbage and useful for monitor... | clary.
Oct 4, 2002 1:39 PM | | display only as far as I am concerned. (My $100 Minox 35mm camera takes better pictures, but it's the transfer to digital that's the rub). Also, too much shutter lag time, focusing lag time, cameras needing 45 seconds to download the best quality Tiff pictures onto memory cards (good on Canon with their RAW format), purple fringing (blooming), other chromatic aberrations, noise, noise and more noise in low light, pathetic low light shooting, low contrast, poor colour, useless for facials (not like Kodachrome faces), horrendous battery drain and high cost for the quality and reliability you get. Better buy a cheap digital camera for monitor displays and wait for better quality to come later than to drop big money on something that has a half life of six months.
A present digital camera would not be the best choice for recording the summiting of Mt. Everest (digital cameras do not work below freezing and are presently unreliable). You are tied to your computer if you lack memory cards and to your battery charger because of the power drain. You cannot take a digital camera on a two month cycling trip through India or China (ie. on extended trips). I look to the future of digital photography, not the present. The large picture shows promise, the small one sucks (and that Canon S30 camera costs $800CAD plus all the extras required to make the camera useful).
Try doing these shots with a contemporary digital cameras. It is impossible. In the future, possible.
Correct facial colour not possible with digital.
Tibetan woman:
Long night exposure impossible with digital. (calculate time by measuring arc)
North Star over Annapurna by moonlight:
Long night exposure impossible with digital.
Moon over Everest:
Leica lenses using Kodachrome film, no filters, no artificial lighting, printed on Cibachrome 12" x 16" and scanned by my 1200dpi cheap scanner at 200dpi. The crossover from print to digital shows lots of loss with the bad scanning and JPEG compression.
Digital? Not yet, but getting better. |
| I predict... | Matno
Oct 4, 2002 3:22 PM | | It will be a LONG time before digital photography catches up to regular film, at least in terms of resolution and price. Sure, you can already get digital cameras with incredible resolution, but you have to mortgage your house. On the other hand, you can get a good quality point and shoot 35mm camera with zoom lens and lots of other features in a compact package that costs less than a good crankset. Personally, I'd rather invest in a fast scanner for now (actually the one I have isn't bad, and it was pretty cheap). |
| the problem is... | clary.
Oct 6, 2002 12:52 PM | | that the market is driven for the masses. They might do away with 35mm film before digital ever gets to be as good as film in some areas.
Marketing pushes a product without giving the purchaser valid equivalent comparisons. Where have you seen digital photos compared to scanned 35mm photos from a digital camera manufacturer?
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html"> Here is a sample from the tutorial:
Alex Tutubalin sent me these two images of a Russian newspaper. The image on the left was taken with the Canon EOS D30; the image on the right was taken with Velvia and scanned with the Nikon 4000 ED at 4000 dpi. Both full frame images cover the same field of view; both were taken with the Canon 28-70mm L lens at f/8-- my benchmark excellent lens. The Velvia image is shown full size. The D30 image has been resized up by a factor 2.6x using bicubic interpolation.
The resolution of the film image is much better. Note the number, "3279" in the upper right. The comparison between the two images appears to be consistent with simulations in the table below. It's hard to tell whether the D30 has less grain or can't resolve the paper texture.  
I still use 33 1/3 RPM long play albums because it sounds better than CD music. We (LP enthusiasts) might represent .0001% of the population. They did away with LPs while LPs were still better (but not as convenient- a "masses" requirement). They are going to try the same with digital cameras. They push the product, giving all kinds of accolades to it, and the uninformed consumer buys and then is disappointed at the quality and cost (except for the newbies who don't know any better and the gadget geeks who like to play with all the buttons and Photoshop). The informed purchaser knows what he is getting into when needing a specific tool.
Here is one guy who agrees with you from a CNET review of an expensive point and shoot digital, the Canon G2 ($739US).
"Its got along way to go to equal film quality"
I just tested the g2 and I must admit am new to digital camera's, but not new to scanning and quality in general. I am actually a retoucher and photographer so I know a bit. The best thing to do in my opinion is buy a compact camera and a half decent scanner, this way you will get much better quality, ,ie bit depth, colours, and resolution, detail. Its alot of money for dodgy quality. |
| Think of the overall cost... | JmZ
Oct 4, 2002 8:29 PM | | Digital will cost more in the short term. I won't argue that, you win. A decent digital camera (in my opinion a 3.0 megapixel) is still easily $300+ and better ones (5.0 megapixels) are easily over $750.
BUT... Now for the reasons why I went digital.
Ease of use. The digital is stupid easy to change memory cards. Quicker and easier than to change film. It does cost a bit more than film, but for a vacation (one week or so) I wouldn't hesistate to get an extra 2, maybe 3 cards and be happy with my digital. A 2 month journey is quite a differnet case, but that isn't most photography.
Battery cost. The digital I've got runs on 2 AA batteries. Cost $2 to replace in the boonies. The film camera runs on a funky size, and I don't always see it about when I need it. When I do find it, it is normally around $10.
Film. I can buy 2 memory cards for the digital and re-use those over and over. Film is a purchase that continues. With the digital I've even INCREASED the number of shots I'm taking because I don't have to reload the camera, and I have more images available.
Shutter speed. Push. Both the digital and the film camera that I've got are pretty slow. I could get faster on either one, but it would cost too much money.
Accessories. (Lenses, filters, etc) The film camera wins here, maybe. If I pick up a standard point and shoot then again it is push. If I pick up a SLR camera then it wins.
Ease of transfer. Digital without a doubt. I can take home my camera, eject the memory card and download straight to the computer. If I have the film camera I've got to go get the film developed, wait for that to happen, and then scan. The cost of the processing has to be added in too.
Extra features. The Digital wins here too. I can take movie clips with the digital camera. It isn't the perfect weapon for the job, but it offers me a chance to do that. I CAN'T do that with a film camera. I can also delete bad pictures while out in the field, I can change resolution sizes while in the field to accomodate for the best image quality, the maximum number of images, etc.
Cost of accessories. I can't comment on this too much. One digital memory card can run from $30 on up. I paid about $70 for 128mg, and that will do 200 images plus. One card reader cost about $40 brand new, and rechargable batteries and charger came with the camera. My total cost for camera, memory stick, reader was about $500.
I don't know what the filters, extra lenses, camera bags, and other associated items will cost. I have not ventured down that road, but for a comparible camera to my digital I'm looking at only $125-150. The film, batteries, developing all add up as time passes. I'll even forgo the cost of the scanner, since if I'm patient enough I could get one free after rebate.
A digital camera is just a different tool. It works better than a film camera for me, right now.
JmZ
A few notes... the images were good Clary, but I doubt that they could be achieved by a point and shoot, and I shudder at the photo development costs and print prices for a 12" X 16" photo. The quality suffers, but that too takes some talent, a good graphic artist could compensate or tweak the settings to make a good image out of that print. |
| The times I used Velvia or Ektachrome I regret, so digital... | clary.
Oct 5, 2002 9:35 AM | | would be a definite regret and a total waste of time for my preferred photography. Kodachrome is archival, has neutral colours, is/was extremely fine grained, does better with long exposures, is stable in hot climates (no dyes in the emulsion), and can be used past it's due date (no dyes). It's because of the masses who use zooms (you can't shoot ASA25 with f4.5-f8 5x zooms), that the fine emulsion films of ASA25 have been discontinued and of ASA64 have just been discontinued. There is only ASA100, ASA200 and ASA400 left to use.
One area of photography that loves digital is in Advertising where they can manipulate images (using Photoshop) to create a non-reality, or more ordered than reality. Not my domain, so no need here.
I need to get a digital camera to take pictures of items I need to sell on Ebay, to send photos by Email and other internet uses. It will be a very convenient tool. A 2MP or 3MP will suit. But digital cameras are not suitable for Fine Art, Photo Journalism, and rough going.
My mechanical cameras need no batteries to operate and have only focus, speed and aperture to fiddle with to take a picture. Present zoom/auto focus/digital cameras are an abortion. Once you turn the digital camera on, it takes 5 to 8 seconds before you can take a picture. Once you press the shutter release, it takes up to 1 second to get the picture. If you use the best file format the camera has to offer (TIFF or RAW), on some cameras, you can't even take one picture with the memory offered, and if you get more memory, it takes 45 seconds to download to that memory before you can take another picture. If you have the camera on all the time, or use the LCD to facilitate taking pictures (some cameras have no viewfinder), the battery goes after a short time (less than 1 hour to a few hours). Then there is the zillion buttons and camera modes to deal with. By the time you have dealt with those, the subject or scene is long gone or changed. Compare that to a mechanical/manual camera that I can set or preset for depth of field and exposure in an instant and press the shutter to have "The Decisive Moment" captured. Most important is depth of field and exposure (and a technique for holding steady, framing and capturing the moment). You have to understand light and what value it is on your subject. My first photograph of the Tibetan woman was shot at 1/60 f4 (ASA25). The background is at 1/125 f8. Automatic cameras would do what? 1/2 and 1/2? I exposed for the woman, not the background and not an in between setting. My second shot of Annapurna was a 20 minute exposure. Not even close there. Digital has no sensitivity in low light, let alone moonlit scenes. My third was in freezing conditions on top of Kali Patar. Digital cameras do not work in freezing conditions. All three shorts were in the "rough going" category that digital cannot do. Add to that the reliability factor. A lot of my cameras are up to 40 years old and as good as new. (what can go wrong with them, they are as precise as a Omega Swiss watch). Digital cameras are unreliable, period. Go on Ebay to have a look at all the reconditioned cameras on offer (a lot of these cameras were just released 6 months ago).
"The Decisive Moment"
 
 |
| correction... | clary.
Oct 5, 2002 10:03 AM | | My first photograph of the Tibetan woman was shot at 1/60 1/30 f4 (ASA25). (gave the ASA64 backlit value by accident, I haven't used that ASA25 for while and gave a quick value from habit).
A note here. No need to meter. I use the f/16 ASA rule. In daylight, the f/stop setting is f/16 when you set the shutter speed to the ASA value of the film. So for daylight pictures, while using ASA25, the settings would be 1/30sec at f/16 or 1/60sec at f/11, or 1/125 at f/8, or 1/250 at f/5.6, or 1/500 at f/4, or 1/1000 at f/2.8. As you can see, ASA25 is a pure daylight film. Backlighting is 4 stops lower than daylight, so 1/30sec at f/4. It is very fast to use this method. Saw the woman, set the aperture and speed, pre-focused, aimed the camera and shot without disturbing the subject. |
| Do you rate your experience typical? | JmZ
Oct 5, 2002 7:03 PM | | Not trying to be rude, blunt maybe. A digital camera is a perfectly acceptable choice for quite a few people.
Professional photographers may choose to have a Digital in their arsenal (just like who needs just one bike :), and choose what suits their needs best. Then again, they may not. The Digital probably won't be ideal for all situations, but I think the same is true of the SLR's too. The professional photographer who would chose a $399 2.0 megapixel digital would surprise me if just as much as if they chose the $150 Kodak (or insert name brand here) point and shoot.
Neither are professional cameras.
Most competition for digital cameras is from the point and shoot arena, if they are abominations or not. The variety of choices in film, lenses, and exposures is a definite advantage to SLR's. Having a camera that doesn't require batteries, works in sub zero temps, etc is a great advantage. For most photographers I don't know that any of these are great issues.
The tools that you have go beyond those of the masses (such as myself). I know a few professional photographers, and even then they don't have all that equipment. It is possibly due to their specialties, but the point is still remains. A true high end film camera is probably better than a true high end digital, but for what most people are using their cameras for they won't notice the difference.
Digital photography is great for advertising and marketing, and I would say that for some fine art and even photo-journalism that they are more than acceptable choices. They will not be the proper solution to everyone's needs, but they are adequate choices. For rough going, I won't disagree - the digital is at a disadvantage.
JmZ |
| Do you rate your experience typical? | clary.
Oct 6, 2002 8:24 AM | | With my present low hassle cameras, I get slide viewing (projecting Kodachrome slides on a screen is a pleasure beyond compare), slide printing on Cibachrome (none better, and cheap since I do it myself with my Focomat), and the possibility of scanning onto the computer.
With digital, you get no projecting, quality is not there for the price, technology evolving too quickly, junked after a few years (either obsolete or broken).
That is why I will go for a low costing digital camera in the 2MP to 3MP range, maybe a unit like Fuji A200 or Fuji 2650 with the new xD-picture memory card for quicker file processing and lower battery consumption using AA batteries. I've looked into cameras with TIFF and RAW and cameras with manual controls, but the extra jump in cost doesn't justify it because that extra stuff doesn't bring the images to the 35mm realm. I just need a cheap digital for getting images on the screen.
This little unit sold on Ebay for $128.50 and will blow away any digital camera in combination with Kodachrome 64. Give it a try. You won't be disappointed.
http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc=US&lc=en&product=KODACHROME+64+Professional+Film+(PKR)
KODACHROME 64 Professional Film / PKR
Excellent for advertising, medical, editorial, travel, and nature applications
Extremely sharp
Extremely fine grain
Reproduces subtle color naturally
Archival
P.S. On the Tibetan woman photo, on her prayer wheel, look at the colour on the brass ferrule just by her hand. Can't get faithful colour representation better than that. |
| and as a footnote, some film scanners scan at 4000dpi... | clary.
Oct 9, 2002 9:14 PM | | resulting in a maximum image size of 3,654 x 5,646 pixels. So any film camera, that's any, produces an exposure on film of 20.63 Mega Pixels (65MB file) and depending on the lens and film quality, that image has great potential. Ordinary film scanners scanning at 2,700dpi produce a maximum image size of 2,592 x 3,894 pixels which equals 10 Mega Pixels and as a result looses a lot of film detail (if that film is fine grained).
And even 4000dpi (6 micron resolution) is not good enough for high resolution film with a grain size of 3 microns:
A scan resolution of 8500 dpi still cannot be compared to a traditional print from the finest grained film.
Kodak, for creating a PHOTO CD, uses a 4400dpi scanner, which produces a maximum image size of 4096 x 6144 pixels for a 25.16 Mega Pixel scan of 35mm film.
So digital cameras has a long way to go to equal film in resolution only, let alone colour rendition or sensitivity. |
| So THAT'S what you were getting at... | Matno
Oct 4, 2002 12:30 PM | | The resolution is certainly much better in the second picture. That's not really comparing two similar cameras though, which is what I thought you were doing. More money = higher resolution almost 100% of the time. Personally, I think the color on the first pic was a lot better though (which was the reason why I asked which one you thought was better in the first place). And just so you know, I'm on a different computer now than I was when I first looked. I still think the brighter picture looks better (until you try to pick out the details). On the other hand, it's a lot easier to tweek the color settings on the computer than it is to add details... |
| So THAT'S what you were getting at... | clary.
Oct 6, 2002 9:54 AM | | for the second picture, it's just a hazy day so the sky is washed out, but the colours are better for the rest. |
| |
