Am I missing something with the digital camera hype?

[lee_brand]

OK - I gave up and bought a digital. This was very, very scary. I

remain somewhat confused about all the hype around digital though - I

guess it's similar to the hype around getting the latest and greatest

35mm SLR.

 

The first thing that confused me was the hype around getting the

largest number of Megapixels. Six Megapixels are required to do any

serious digital work - yes maybe if you are in a studio taking photos

of model's teeth:-). Surely it depends on what you want to do with

the digital? I use a T90 and AE-1P for the serious stuff and carry an

Olympus XA or MJU or Yashica around with me for opportunity shots. So

the digital will supplement these because I tend to take hundreds of

photos with them and it looks like the digital will be cheaper to run!

 

The next thing that I was told (by various experts) was that it would

be crazy to buy a digital without a zoom! Why? None of my RF's or

good P&S's have a zoom.

 

After looking around a bit I came across a Canon A200 - 2 Megapixel,

no zoom - basic camera at a really low price. This camera does a hell

of a lot more than my RF's and P&S's can ever do - it actually blows

the mind - 100 good quality pictures stored on a tiny little 64 meg

chip.

 

OK - next question - what is a good quality digital image? Apart from

the obvious qualities of sharpnes, contrast with minimum abberation I

guess that the resolution is important - pixels per inch. Less than

300 per inch and your printed photo is going to start losing detail.

So a image formed on a 2 Meg camera is going to start looking tatty

after 8x10. But I only enlarge 1% of my total shots to 8x10 anyway?

 

I then read the reviews of the A200 and they did not look too bad -

basic camera, good lens, chews batteries and is difficult to use!

Difficult to use?? It is basic to use - even for a fourty year old

Canon FD fan! I then started getting the idea that these "consumer

reviews" are written by anyone and everyone and that most of the

users of digital P&S's have no idea of basic photography - they would

also hate a T90 or a F4 because they are too complicated?

 

Anyway I bought the A200 and so far I am very happy with it - I know

that it is "entry level" but it is as good as my Yashica (maybe not

quite "as good" - but close) and I only have to worry about charging

batteries.

 

Bottom line question - has digital photograhy (cameras actually)

raised the bar to the extent where zooms, 6+ Megapixels, auto

everything is now the minimum standard for any kind of semi-

serious "new age" photography.

[sliu]

I have been doing digital photography for three years with a digital point and shoot, Now I add

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004k6V">an

old Nikon F</a> as my second camera.

<p>

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." --- Henri Cartier-Bresson.

[yance_marti]

As with any tool, you have to sit down and determine what you need to do with it. If all you want to do is to help camera companies maintain a healthy profit then by all means buy the top of the line camera! And then next year when a better one is released buy that one too.

 

The question about the seriousness or quality of a picture taken with a smaller MP camera? Am I serious when I shoot 3200 Tmax or only when I shoot 100 speed? Can I really be serious with 35mm when 4x5 gives such better resolution? Maybe only 8x10 shooters can only be serious. I am happy with my Canon G1 and it has most of the manual controls I require. Maybe it doesn't have all of the flexibility of my EOS 1n but that's ok. I use it for different reasons. It is perfect for getting instant feedback for a shot and to disseminate pictures quickly to friends over email.

[bob_hum]

"<i>Less than 300 per inch and your printed photo is going to start losing detail. So a image formed on a 2 Meg camera is going to start looking tatty after 8x10.</i>"

<p>

If you want to maintain 300 pixels per inch when printing a digital file, the A200's image (1200 x 1600 pixels) would provide a 4"x5.3" print. So I'm not sure where you're getting the '8x10' numbers from.

<p>

"<i>Anyway I bought the A200 and so far I am very happy with it</i>"

<p>

This of course, is the most important issue. Have fun!

[stephen hazelton]

"The next thing that I was told (by various experts) was that it would be crazy to buy a digital without a zoom! Why?"

 

Probably because some people wouldn't think of using ANY camera without a zoom. Another issue- zooms degrade the image. But on the lower-pixel cameras, the degradation is hidden by the lower inherent image quality. So, there may be no reason NOT to use a zoom on a lower-end digital, as compared to using one with film or a 14 megapixel camera.

 

I suspect you'll find that lots and lots of digital cameras are purchased by people that have never used a camera other than a point-and-shoot or a camcorder.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

<i>The next thing that I was told (by various experts) was that it would be crazy to buy a digital without a zoom! Why? None of my RF's or good P&S's have a zoom.</i><br>

<br>

When I bought my second MF camera, my girlfriend asked me:

"Does it have a zoom?" and my response was "No" then she asked,<br>

"Does it have a built in camcorder?" "No"<br>

"Does it do digital?" "No" <br>

"Then what good is it then if it doesn't have a zoom?"<br>

Then I spent 10 minutes trying to explain to her why it was such a good camera and tried to explain that zooms degrade the sharpness but she couldn't understand it, so I gave up and just assured her that it's a nice camera.

[craig_gillette]

I guess those degrading zooms are why Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and all the others sell so many non-zoom cameras. I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that the single focus lenses on low end digicams are there because they provide improved perfomance. While there is some practical advantage to having prime lenses for film slrs and even digital slrs, having a fixed focal length in a fixed lens camera like a low meg count consumer digicam is not out of concern that a zoom introduces degradation.

[stephen hazelton]

On low-end non-zoom cameras, they use the fixed-focal length lens because it is cheaper. For lenses with similar apeture and focal length, by the same manufacturer, the non-zoom is always cheaper. Due partly to the reduced number of elements required, and partly due to the complexity of the zoom (sliding elements cammed to other sliding elements, etc).

[lee_brand]

Me again - as someone pointed out - 8x10 is very optimistic, more like 4x5. So the Yashica has a distinct edge:-)

 

I guess that the manufacturers are making cameras for their primary market rather than people like me - who ever heard of a small digital "cult" type camera - like the GR1, XA or T4? I hear the Ixus is very popular though?