Digital or SLR -no contest!

[hoppy]

I have a Fuji Finepix, which cost me £178 with all accessories and 24 mb memory, I think it does pretty well compared to film cams. If I want snapshot sizes, that I'm not going to enlarge, I set it at low or medium resolution, but if I'm going to take a special photo, I'll set it at it's highest resolution, so I can enlarge it to an 8x6 photo,which turns out as equal as a film cam, here's one I did earlier...cheers...hoppy

[Dan]

heres my two penneth worth!

There will be place for both, digicams for convience and snap happy pics you can send edit etc without scanning, and photos for the quality shots.

Everyone said vinyl was doomed when CD's came out but sales of turntables are on the increase and I have little difficulty getting new 7" singles for my jukebox!

 

so there you have it theres room for both. And actually I quite like the excitement of seeing the photos pop through the letter box from Bonus Print or what ever! Sad arent I?!

 

Dan

[davidP]

For snap snap stuff then digitals are great. I've got an old Olympus 1.3mp zoom and on standard setting I can shoot over 240 pictures before I need to change the card. I have 2 cards so have a capacity for nearly 500 shots, something you couldn't even think about with an SLR. I can snap away not worrying if it's going to out or not and so can take a few risks. I can also print them out toa reasonable standard if I use the right paper but I must confess that I've probably printed less than a dozen pictures in 4+ years of using the camera.

However, when I use my SLRs I have a range of lenses from 20mm to 500mm and all sizes in between. This gives me a tremendous range that a digital just doesn't have (unless I spend £1600+ on a Canon digital body that can use my lenses). For that reason I often carry my SLRs and lenses and the digital at the same time and often have an SLR and the digital on the go at the same time.

So if I'm going somewhere I'm not likely to go to again or somewhere really special then I'll use the SLRs, but if it's everyday stuff or things I know I'm going to want to share then the digital really comes into it's own.

[Guest NickInTheNorth]

davidP:

I can also print them out toa reasonable standard if I use the right paper but I must confess that I've probably printed less than a dozen pictures in 4+ years of using the camera.

 

 

You can get them printed on proper photographic paper, from proper processors. Look superb.

 

 

However, when I use my SLRs I have a range of lenses from 20mm to 500mm and all sizes in between. This gives me a tremendous range that a digital just doesn't have (unless I spend £1600+ on a Canon digital body that can use my lenses).

For about £400 there are a couple of olympus cameras, and some others, but which makes I have forgotten, which will give a 10x optical zoom. On my Olympus C2100 UZ the standard lens gives an equivalent of 380mm with an SLR. If you throw in an eagle eye zoom lens then you can up that to 1900mm equivalent. You could then add an Olympus B-300 tele-adapter which will push it up to 3230mm equivalent!!!

 

Yes there is some corner vignetting but not too bad. Take a look here for some samples

 

Most digital cameras also have a very good macro capability (I can focus down to 5 cm!).

 

I am not trying to say that there is no place for film, but digital can be pretty versatile when you dig around a little.

 

What would the above cost for traditional lenses? Total cost for the above around £600.

[spasor]

I `spose it`s horses for courses?

If I was taking wedding photo`s or such I`d use my Olympus SLR. But for taking snaps of fish or flowers to post on the net, it would be digital every time. As my Sony digital can take ordinary or`fine` pics, I don`t loose too much definition unless I want an A3 sized poster?

But most of us seem to agree that digital is the future?

Paul.

[PH]

Does anyone have a Film/Slide scanner? If you do, how is it working out?

[dave_h]

Jesus guys!! i never thought i would get such response, theres alot of photograph nuts out there! and what great pictures.

I think theres a place for both of them as many of you said!

Bikenut- you obviously are one , i like them too what you got????????

[davidP]

NickInTheNorth:

 

For about £400 there are a couple of olympus cameras, and some others, but which makes I have forgotten, which will give a 10x optical zoom. On my Olympus C2100 UZ the standard lens gives an equivalent of 380mm with an SLR. If you throw in an eagle eye zoom lens then you can up that to 1900mm equivalent. You could then add an Olympus B-300 tele-adapter which will push it up to 3230mm equivalent!!!

 

Yes there is some corner vignetting but not too bad. Take a look here for some samples

Nick, that's pretty damn impressive for a digital. I'm tempted!!!

[John S]

I remember back in the mid '80s a prototype product was "tested" by one of the photography mags - AP or Practical Photographer.... This item looked like a 35mm film with the tongue sticking out a couple of inches or so, and once put into the camera in place of the film, would convert it into a digital camera. The main selling point was that you could start off using it in a pocket compact, then put it into your top-of-the-range Canon SLR part way through the roll (as it were). The projected selling price was about £1,000 but the economies of scale would have soon brought that down.

 

Never heard of it ever again - I wonder if a major film/camera manufacturer got hold of the patent is is sitting on it....

[Eddie]

Sod the difference in film quality, what I want to know is..............

 

dave_h:

 

When i catch my first 40lb pike it will be on a SLR

What brand do you think pike prefer and do you suggest I spin it or mount it on a snap tackle?