Camera s, Pros and Cons of...

[Spur-Hound]

Hi folks

 

Time to pick your brains.

 

I have owned a fuji finepix s5500 digi cam for a while, and although i am pleased with it, i just dont think it has the quality i need for what i am intending to do...

 

A family member has a brand new un used canon EOS 300 SLR camera that he would like to swap. only problem is it is not a digital (also comes with a biig powerfull zoom lense, and another smaller lense) He wants the convenience of a digital

 

So what do you think. I know shooting film will mean one or two more hassles, but to be honest im realy needing quality rather than convenience for sending photos off for publishing (hopefully)

 

Any one have the experience of teh canons??

 

cheers

Shaun

[Bigfishy]

If you add up the cost of film together with developing + reprints I would have thought that the best solution would be a digital SLR

[Vagabond]

I have a range of Canon A1 SLR gear and a Canon digital. Also a lightweight underwater A1 sports for pictures aboard charters when the spray is flying.

 

Main disadvantage of SLR - extra weight in the fishing bag - compounded if you carry a telephoto.

 

Main disadvantage of digital - the time-lag between pressing the shutter and the lens firing - drives you mad on action shots!

 

Digital excellent for trophy shots and light to carry. You can check your shots and repeat if necessary/still possible.

 

SLR more versatile though

 

If I had a couple of burly gear-carrying assistants, SLR would get my vote. Being without such aides, (and lazy) I carry the digital most times.

[argyll]

For what its worth, the film camera is more or less dead, except to those who enjoy the technology and the darkroom paraphenalia. Everything that you can do do with a film camera can be done with a digital and pictures can be 'developed' in minutes rather than days with film and guess what ? other than the initial cost of a memory card, the film is free. You can also correct most problems with inexpensive software. You can even remove that thumb that got in the way of the lens at the last moment. Neither is quality an issue. Digital cameras have become very capable professional tools producing sharp images capable of being blown up to A4 and beyond without much noticeable loss of quality. Dont buy a film camera....even a Canon, unless your a big fan of film cameras. They are heavy, developed film is expensive (you'll dump 80% of the pictures you'll take), require several expensive lenses to get the best out of them and in terms of whats available today, its backwards technology. Ask yourself why the seller wishes to sell.

[Peter Waller]

Stay with digital. The publishing industry is geared up for it.

[Spur-Hound]

Cheers folks

 

My digital camera is border line for printing quality shots and blowing up. Just had me thinking, 'cos i wont be able to afford a digital SLR for a long time... Whereas he ffilm SLR camera there will, with alittle bit extra work inviolved such as the film, scanning etc etc. Ill hold the thaught for a while

[Gillies]

If I were you, I'd keep the digital.

 

The EOS 300 is a great camera, and has kind of a cult following ... but it will take quite a bit of getting used to, to get the most out of it ... and lots of wasted film.

 

I have the Canon 300D and Canon 20D dslr's, the Canon 300D is now a backup to 20D ... I take the 300D and a wide angle (18-55), plus a telephoto (70-300) fishing .... but it's to bulky on the boat, and my wee Point & Shoot (Pentax Optio S) doesn't deliver the quality I would like. So I'm thinking of getting a Canon Pro 1 Point & Shoot for fishing if I see on cheap, nice and handy size.

 

Guess what I'm trying to say is, the extra bulk is a pest ... and what you have is great for fishing + thats not to mention the SLR learning curve, scanning of shots, wasted shots etc etc etc.

 

I've printed 6 megapixel shots up to 30"x20" and they were great ... and can go even bigger with the 8 megapixel.

 

Thats my 2 pence worth.

 

Gillies

 

[ 11. May 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Gillies ]

[argyll]

You dont need an SLR to get quality digital pictures. I got rid of my SLR kit and replaced it with a Nikon Coolpix 8800. It can do just about everything that an SLR can do and more in a much smaller package. The lens covers 35-350mm, it has a digital through the lens viewfinder and most of the features that you'll find on an SLR plus a few more that you won't. Its not perfect and is not first choice in low light but it handles everything else. The Canon G6 is another nice camera and the earlier, cheaper G5 is also to be recommended if you're counting the pennies. Take a look at www.dpreview.com and read the reviews of compact digital cameras. Very good website for information on all things digital.

 

[ 12. May 2005, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Vagabond]

My digital is a Canon Powershot A 80... as I said above, the one disadvantage is the time-lag between pressing the shutter button and the shutter actually firing.

 

Nobody has picked this up

 

Is it not a problem with your digitals ?

[Elton]

I suffer the same, but I only have a little one (ooerr).

 

Do the more lavish models not adddress this?

 

I've seen journalists with digital cameras and would have thought that they must be fast cameras.