Thinking of going digital but I need to know some things before I make the leap

[aaron emanuel litvinoff]

I want to hear the truth about digital SLR cameras, because the only

people I know who know anything about them are dodgy salesmen. I am a

big fan of the role digital technology contributes to photography.

although I don't have a digital camera, I have a film scanner and

like to manipulate/improve my images in editing programs. I can't

stand dark rooms or the tedium of traditional printing techniques.

I would look forward to the versatility of a digital camera (never

buying/developing film, shooting fast w/o power winder etc). I

however have many many questions:

 

Are digital cameras a replacement for film? Can they do everything

that film can do, or can they not record quite as much information as

film? can digital record as much information as say, a very slow film

(50/100 ASA?) Is digital as grainy as film at a fast setting, say,

1600+? Can it accurately record colours as well as transparency film?

And could a good digital camera take pictures such as the ones in my

portfolio?

 

Sorry for all the questions, just pick and choose :o)

[ellis_vener_photography]

Well how much money do you have budgeted? If you get a Canon EOS 1Ds (about

$8,000), and shoot RAW files the answer to your questions is yes.

[joshroot]

Could you ask any more general questions? Are Japanese cars as good as American cars? Does McDonalds tase as good as Wendy's?

<P>

It sounds like you need to spend some more time reading up on digital photography. I would go to www.dpreview.com, www.luminous-landscape.com, and www.robgalbraith.com. Plus, look at portfolios here on photo.net of people who exclusively use digital cameras.

<P>

Then come back with questions that are less subjective. Every question you have asked depends on who is looking at the image. All questions like that do are create arguments.

[nicholas_wybolt]

Aaron,

 

As Ellis noted, it depends on what you want to do, which will guide you in answering your questions. I have an Olympus C-5050 5MP camera that acquits itself quite well with images enlarged to 8x10 and shot at ISO 64 or 100, web publishing, EMAIL, and the like. The camera has an impressive set of features, as well. Can't beat the instant gratification.

 

I find colors to be accurate; although I've never done a side-by-side comparison with film. I also find that the camera's behavior is similar to transparency film (e.g., blown-out whites, narrow exposure latitude). At ISO 400, I can detect grain in some images, depending on the lighting.

 

One can move through Photoshop pretty quickly to produce competent prints; however, one can also spend tons of time on a single image. In order to get a good print, you need a good file. This means care in making the image and the post-processing. You may find that the digital darkroom can become fairly tedious. However, once you have your workflow down, repeatability is extremely easy.

 

Let us know what you decide.

 

-Nick

[jim_larson1]

Digital smidigital.

 

The first clarifying question is "Do you use P&S or SLR?". They are vastly different in the digital world just like they are vastly different in the film world. If you like SLR's, and want digital, then get a digital SLR.

 

What you do with digital is different than what you do with film. Digital pic live on your computer. Film pics live in albums.

 

The main things to know about digital SLR's are the following:

1) Unlike P&S's, dSLRs are much more expensive than their film counterparts.

2) All digitals move the "developing step" from your friendly lab to your living room computer. Sure, the feedback loop is "short", but you have to work for the results.

 

Can digital match film? Depends on what you do with film. If you develop film on Kmart, and spend 10 minutes digitally photoshopping each image, then yes digital is better. If you use pro labs for your film and use the digitals straight from the camera, the lab is better.

 

The only real negative I have heard about the current digital technology is that the dynamic range of the images is a bit less than *good* color film. ISO800 digital noise can be less obtrusive than 800 grain.

[melvin_bramley]

I have the same problem.I would love the convenience of digital but I am not convinced that any of the more affordable SLR types will offer either the performance or value for my hard earned dollars.Digital is evolving at an incredible pace & most models are obsolete within 18 months.Whilst convenience is the governing factor(in my mind)for most of the digital camera sales it does have some drawbacks..

Smaller viewfinders(on most cameras)

Shutter lag again on most cameras.

Less durable """""

Less durable lenses (to achieve higher focus speed)

Expence,initially,resale,obsolensence.

Expensive to upgrade image quality; unlike buying the latest film!!

Too much d.o.f for some applications.

The viewfinder problem is a big one for me as I am left eye dominant & find my nose stuck into the back on my cameras;so a good viewfinder is important to me.

The electronic finder may answer my problem but they are only found on the lower end so called prosumer cameras.

After all of this I am tempted to purchase the Fuji 602.

'Decent' focus speed decent image quality & a good EVF.

For (dare I say this,,,real photography I will continue to use my many Nikons & lenses.

FWIW I am still having problems understanding the relationship between image quality & pixels?

After downloading images from one of the digital sites & printing out on a Epson Stylus color 900 I have to conclude that (in some cases)more pixels do not allways make a better image.

[joshroot]

Melvin

 

You are talking about two different cameras at once. No dSLR I have used has any more of a viewfinder, shutter lag, or durability problem as compared to the film camera that it was based on. an extreme example would be my EOS 1d, it's virtually as tough as the EOS 1v body that it is based on. And dSLR's have exactly as much depth of field as their film cousins, it just depends on which lens you are using. A 200mm lens will have the same DOF on a Nikon F5 as it will on a Nikon D1x.

 

However, yes "prosumer" digital cameras (Canon G3/Sony 717/Nikon 5000) do suffer from these problems to varying degrees.

 

And here are two things that I have a feeling that I am going to say so often on this forum that I should just put them at the bottom of all my posts:

 

1. Just because something "newer & better" has come out, doesn't make the camera that you have in your hands shoot any worse than it did the day you bought it. If a Nikon D1 does the job that you bought it for, it doesn't matter if Nikon comes out with a D25xx tomorrow. My 1997 Subaru still drives me where I want to go, it didn't stop working when the 1998 Subarus came out (or the 1999, or the 2000, etc).

 

2. No, more pixels don't necessarily mean a better image. But a bigger CCD will almost always mean just that. A 5 mpix camera with a fingernail sized sensor can't hold a candle to my 3 mpix Canon D30 with it's much larger CMOS sensor.

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

Maybe my camera purchasing history will help you :

 

I have a Canon EOS 300 (I think its called a rebel 3000 or something in the US), and a Sony P9 compact 4mp Digital camera. They complemented each other very well.

 

Now I've bought the Canon 10D, thinking it would replace the compact digital, but its turned out more of a replacement to the Film EOS than the digital compact.

 

In fact, I only use the Film EOS when I want wide angle shots ('most' digital SLRs have a 1.6x focal length multipler), but I *still* use it.

 

In my view, nothing replaces the previous - each camera is a tool which excels in its own specific area. I still use my 30 year old Canon AV-1 now and again, and if I had a pin-hole, I'm sure I would tinker around with that occationally...

[aaron emanuel litvinoff]

thanks guys. sorry my questions are so general - i've only ever had ONE camera in my life since I started taking pics with an SLR in September 2002. It's a Canon AE-1. Good beginners camera, though I think you'll agree the lack of features and the abysmal shutter speed range is off putting.

[robert_reis2]

I only use my extensive 35mm camera collection when a superwide lens is need. My expensive film scanner has been covered with plastic for weeks. Get a Sony 717 or 707. Shoot fine jpegs at maximum size and get 14 meg tiffs. The zoom lens will give you creative composing and extremely sharp images. Take a CD to Ritz, etc., and print out an 8 by 10. You will not be sorry.

[craig_gillette]

A lot depend on what you want to do. Since you are used to the post processing processes from your scanning, you should be aware that many digital cameras/systems expect that you will finish off in post. That includes many of the high-end digicams.

 

If you are out on the cutting edge, squeezing the absolute maximum out of your film cameras, digitals may not be there for you. OTOH, in other applications, especially where speed and immediate feedback/availability is paramount, they surpass film. But the really surprising cameras, to many folks, are the high-end digicams. Because, recognizing their compromises or limitations, they are capable of tremendous results at a fraction of what the high-end film and digitals slrs cost.

[greg s]

My own DSLR purchase was based on doing lots of research and viewing lots of images produced by DSLRs. The research helped to answer certain technical questions I had (viewfinder, lens compatability, etc).

 

The only way my image quality questions/concerns could be answered was to view the actual results produced and displayed by various photographers who could demonstrate the capabilities of the camera models I was interested in. After going through that process I bought a DSLR and am very pleased I did. I have been able to match their results and more, in some cases. :)

[beauh44]

So far, I've sent files to two well-respected, pro labs in my town to print and see how my prints stack up with my Epson 2200 and Canon 10D. Sorry, I just don't agree that the labs do it better. In every case, my images are better than what they've done for me. Perhaps if I could stand over the lab techs as they do it, they could do as well or better. But they won't burn or dodge, increase or decrease saturation, achieve proper skin tones, or sharpen only the eyes of a portrait - there's just not enough time for them to devote to everyone's images. I'm not knocking film - I use digital, 35mm and medium format. I use digital the most now, though. Big learning curve when starting from scratch?? You bet, but worth it. I skinned my knees learning to ride a bike, but now it beats walking. :) Best wishes . . .

[gary w.]

I'm not quite understanding Beau's point: he is referring to post-processing which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which camera (digital or film) you should buy. I can do everything he stated with my film camera...it just takes me approx. an extra minute to scan the film. I pay the price for that minute to get what a digital camera can't give me....a negative.

 

If you don't care whether you have a negative, and you have a little extra cash to spend (or a lot to get one without lag), then buy a digital.

[kevin_dixey]

I shoot product photography for a small manufacturing company and I find digital to

be considerably cheaper than film for our porposes (we do about 2000 shots a

month). Is it as high quality as film? No not really, although for 95% of what we do I

would say the differences are very very small.

 

It's alot more convenient and a decent D-SLR (we use a Canon 10D) behaves much

like a good mid level film body (the 10D handles like an A2). The 10D makes

excellent images at 800 and 1600 and I think the images at ISO 400 are very low

noise. I've been shooting digital for a few years now and while I have nothing against

film, I don't think I would go back to it.