Digital ot Film??

“I'm shopping for a new camera.
Does anyone out there BP with a digital camera....If so, I'd like your input. What do you like and/or dislike??

Thanks.”

“I love my Fuji Digital!!!
FinePix 2600 zoom
Photo Albums

SnowNymph and Wingding's Sony digital cameras looked really cool too!”

“My boss gave me a Sony Cybershot for Xmas last year and I love it! It goes with me on all my outings. Great pictures and is user friendly!”

“i havent really done any long term hiking, most of my trips are only a couple of days, but i hike with a fujifilm finepix A101 digital camera. 1.3 megapixel resoloution, 20 second silent video capible, smartmedia cards, 1 1/4" lcd screen, lots of little bells+whistles such as flash settings, micro/macro options, time delay, three resoloution options, and about a dozen others that i havent even discovered or used (it can also be set up as a webcam). its pretty light, but no optical zoom, powered by two AA nimih batteries - one of the highest rated by consumer reports (and the best camera for the price, mine was about $175 from www.mysimon.com ) pretty durable, too, will take a drop off a standard kitchen table (or out of you hands on the trail...this i have personaly tested multiple times). i carry mine in a samsonite padded clip-style case (no velcro to make noise when you take it out for a picture) its seen rain, cold (i keep it in my tent though), constant jarring from hiking, impacts, splash from waterfalls, dirt, and about everything else so common in the backcountry, and has lived to tell the tale. id reccomend a fujifilm to anyone. they're simple enough to use, but still have the useful features- if you like lots+lots of bells+whistles+trinkets, buy an olympus (and bring along your fat wallet)

i like the fact that if i take a bad picture, i dont have to pay to develop it, making me take many more pictures, and geting spectacular pictures that i might not have risked with a film camera. a 128 meg smart media card (approx. 240 pictures on normal resoloution...yes, thats right, two hundred and forty pictures) weighs in at, oh, i would guess around .01 oz: its about 1/32" thick, and 1 1/4" by 1 3/4" for $53 here: http://store.yahoo.com/cdrdvdrmedia/smarmemcar.html
smaller, cheaper cards are avilable, i have a 8 meg and a 16 meg card, and thats sufficient for me (they're re-usable, upload pictures the computer and then clear the card) you can also preview all pictures ont the lcd screen, and delete bad ones right there

some cons could be that pictures gotta be "developed" on a computer with smart media software instead of at just any corner drugstore (but that'd be only a problem on very long range hikes, say, thru-hiking the AT). pictures can get blurry when batteries start to go dead, but its pretty obvious when they need to be replaced. the jealousy of film camera users could be a problem too, as they'll always be borrowing your camera, and/or trying to steal it.

the only person who would want a film camera would be a professional photographer, and even then, i still think there is digital cameras that could hold their own

my opinion: ill never own another film camera, they just dont compare to a modern digital camera.

and thats what i think

later,
-nate”

“I did shoot professionally for a while so I am accustomed to the nuances of film and wet chemistry. I am intriguied by the "editability" and immediacy of digital.

I can see myself owning and using both. My 35's are getting old (20+ years) and I do need new ones. My Large Format camera is fine but at 50+ lbs doesn't lend itself to backpacking very well (Thank goodenss I have a SUV).

I have been looking at the Minolta DiMage 7. It is spendy but is loaded with features that a pro (or ex-pro in this case) would appreciate. Sounds like everyone on here who has bothered to respond really likes their digital.

I guess my next question would be, how big of an enlargement (print) have you ever had made. From what I have read cameras in the 3 megapixel range give good quality (not great, but good) prints up to about 11 x 14.
I prefer to blow my large prints up to at least that, usually larger. (I have excellent prints from my 4x5 negs that are about 4x6...feet).

The Minolta DiMage 7 resloves at 5 megapixels.

Thoughts?”

“BWD,go to photo.net
I think in the nature forum they have a digital thread that covers a lot of yer questions in detail.Prolly the best photo site on the www.”

“What I read a few months ago, is that a photograph (film) can keep for 30 years or longer...remember seeing those yellowish photos from the civil war or something.

Digital photographs have to be printed out...the color will surely fade in 3 or 5 years.

So depending on what you want...lots of pics in the computer, and practically no development fee...go digital.

If you wants pics to keep for a looong time...go regular.”

“well, didnt know you were a professional photographer, so im hardly in a position to be giving advice- you've been taking pictures longer than ive been alive :p (im 19) (and by the way, and handy, good to know tips on general picture taking are always appreciated here...im trying all i can to improve)

id consider myself more of a beginning amateur photographer, but ive usualy gotta stay quite mobile when im taking pictures (ya know, gotta keep on down the trail, bad weather, im slipping down a mauntainside, guard dogs at my heels, alarms, ropes breaking, being shot at, cops are chasing me, etc, etc, im sure you know how it goes :p )

but i dont do much in the way of blowups, i usualy print my stuff out at around 5 1/2" by 8 1/2" or 8 1/2" by 11"...my printer dosent support any bigger (and i dont have the money or need to go get a drum plotter or something...hmm, but work has one that can do a 34" by 44" sheet }:-) ) they seem alright to me, but i dont really have any really big film blowups to compare to (and i happen to be halfway to legaly blind, 20/250 vision, but im 20/20 corrected)

but my camera is only a 1.3 megapixel (1.0 is reccomended minimum for most peoples use)

the editability is real nice too- ive got a couple 360 degree landscape composite pictures that are pretty cool- a good friend of mine happens to be a graphic arts major, so hes there with the photoshop editing

immediacy is also handy, as none of us young whipersnappers have an ounce of patience anyways :) (i used to have some, but i dropped it, cause hey, when your hiking, every ounce counts, right? :p )

later,
-nate”

“I just switched to digital. I would have held out if it wasn't a gift. I really miss having the prints. I'm printing photos on regular paper, and trying to figure a way to print on photo paper (4/pg) without wasting sheets of it. We're looking for a better color printer too.

I'm taking a lot more pics now, and its fun to delete and retake. The other downer is I can't see the small menu without reading glasses, and I don't always have them with me. Its fun playing around with it.”

“i just upgraded my 680 pixels to a new sony 4.1 megapixel. I can tell you, GO digital!!! Here why I like digital:
1) Personally I started taking more pictures with my digital
2) I can see if I like the picture and/ore if I have to take it again
3) I can save everything on cd and still can print it on photo paper

I bought me a cheap epson color printer and the pictures print out great. So hard copies are not a problem either. :)
4) awesome black/white pictures

a reason not to go digital:
if you a professional photographer and you have time to mess with your camera. I think the pictures on a regular camera are still better if you have time to mess with the filmspeed, etc..”

“I'm sticking with film for now, use a film scanner. I like the "hard copy".”

“Stanlee, just save your digital photos to CD and you never have to worry about them turning yellow. If they do just print more.

We save to two CD's. One we keep here at home and one we place in our safe deposit box at our bank. Don't need to worry about losing any memories in a fire.”

“Snow Nymph, we've had a HP Photosmart 7550 for several months now. We couldn't be happier. It prints as good as, if not better than, commercial labs.

On of the many photos printing options, is 3 (4x6). No wasted photo paper at all. At the price we purchased Kodak paper and the ink cartridges at, it's working out to be about 7 cents per 4x6 photos, or $2.52 per 36. CD's were $5.00/100 after rebate.”

“The real problem is how long will the digital format you have stored your pictures with remain compatible with advances in technology? 20 years? 40 years? Of course, you can always transfer them to the next new technology, but there's a cost associated with that.

It's a tradeoff. As anybody who has color pictures from the 70's knows, paper isn't perfect either.”

“my pictures are safed as jpg's or tiff's so that should be compatible forever....Well, you'll never know, but I doubt that this would be a problem in the future.”

“I am kinda thinking about a digital camera - is there a website that would show the differences in the various pixal amounts ? Like what is the quality of a 1.2 meg camera versus a 2 meg - I do understand the math - but I would actually like to print them out myself for comparison.
dawn”

“Geezr, I read a few years ago that videotapes have a lifespan of 8 years, and CD's are up to 20 years. After that, they can lose bits or bytes. Don't remember the exact years each product can last.”

“dawn, higher mega pixels produce better quality pictures onces printed.
mine is a 4.1 megapixel and it does producte great prints. I heard that the 2 megapixels spose to be pretty good too. It really depends on how large you want to print them.

larger prints = get more mega pixels
smaller prints = less mega pixels needed.”

“dawn, higher mega pixels produce better quality pictures onces printed.
mine is a 4.1 megapixel and it does producte great prints. I heard that the 2 megapixels spose to be pretty good too. It really depends on how large you want to print them.

larger prints = get more mega pixels
smaller prints = less mega pixels needed.”

“Stanlee, yes it's going to be interesting to see how time reacts with technology. Like Bitpusher stated it's all a tradeoff. If CD's do begin to lose quality after 20 years I suppose one just needs to burn new CD's prior to that happening.

At 54 years of age, I shouldn't have to do it too many times. ;-)”

“If I had a digital camera, it's what I would take. So many of them are so much more compact that many point-and-shoots. Course, so many of them are so much more expensive, too.

For now, I will continue to use my point-and-shoot and get the pics put on CD.”

“Gemini - I understand the fact that a 4 meg camera will have a better quality image than a 2 meg. What I would like to see (print on my own printer) - a 4meg vs 2 meg vs 1 meg
Just to see what I would concider a minimal acceptable photo. The guys in the stores around here are idiots - they tell you how great a camera is but are unable to actually print out a copy on a good printer - they just keep saying "It is actually better than a 35mm" - prove it !!!”

“that's a bunch of bull. it's not better then a 35mm. also not as good as a 35mm: most digital cameras don't have a great zoom. A digital zoom makes the picture blurry, so you will need to look at the actual zoom, most digital cameras don't have but 5 to 9mm actual zoom or so.(unless you pay a fortune). I paid around $750 for my digital, the zoom is 9mm I think, if you pay $750 for a 35mm you'll get a great zoom.

Of course there is a quality difference in 35mm too.

sorry, I can't prove it to you.
you can go to my picture site:
http://www.msnusers.com/TNHome/shoebox.msnw

the TN home or sugar glider images are on a less then 1 megapixel camera.

the goodbye pictures are scanned (from a 35 mm)

this page:
http://photos.yahoo.com/zwiebele007

includes all 4.1 megapixel images (well besides the ultrasound pictures)

print one or two to check.. maybe it gives you a little idea.”

“Thanks, Gemini
but I still need a little help - I went to http://photos.yahoo.com/zwiebele007 - hospital - Dee - on the bottom it says Thumbnail: 1 KB | Screen Size: 32 KB | Full Size: 519 KB

How do I see the 519KB file ?

I am not trying to be stupid ...
dawn”

“you can't see it if you click on it?? Hmm, I am not sure. I can click on it, but maybe because I am the owner of the album.

let me see if I can upload it to my server. Give me a couple of minutes.”

“My 1.2 megapixel camera is nearly obsolete but is more than adequate for viewing on a computer. Prints up to 4" x 6" are hard to tell from film. More than that and they get grainy.

Since digital cameras lack the focal length of a film camera, you don't get that nice blurred background effect you need for many good shots.

Digital zoom is a gimmick. You can do the same thing with your software after you download it.”

“okay. go to
ftp://gwwebdesign.com/pics

the DSC pictures are 4.1 megapixels
the joey picture is a less then 1 megapixel camera (old). Print them and see. at least you get an idea. They don't make the old camera anymore (not enough pixels), but it should help you to decide.
I am not sure if the joey picture already downloaded, if not, give it a couple of minutes”

“okay, it's up now. had some problems with the joey picture. the joey and the wheel picture are under 1 megapixel”

“Thanks, Gemini ...
I got more info from you than I got going to three different stores.

dawn”

“When having film developed I always have it put on CD. Since this is the case does film speed really matter? I typically end up editing the image anyway by lightening or color. Mostly use of film is for landscape/brightliight. Rarely fast action sports or indoor.”

“You mean the ASA rating, right? 100, 200, that sort of thing?

The higher that number, the less light the film needs to make a picture, that is, the emulsion is more light-sensitive. So, if you're taking outdoor pictures in bright sunshine, 100 ASA is good, but you need a higher number for indoor pics, or pics without lots of light outside. Of course, indoors a flash will give you all the light you need. There is a tradeoff, however. The higher ASA ratings have a larger grain, so the pics don't turn out as sharp. Digital cameras and scanners don't quite approach film grain yet, unless you have some kind of professional-grade scanner. Even then, I don't think those are close to 100ASA. But a good rule of thumb would be, if you can see the graininess, so can the scanner.

So the answer to your question would be, no, not really, unless you end up with really grainy pics.

I use ASA 200 film. The resolution I scan at is lower than the grain of that film, and everything turns out great.

Did all that help any?”

“Digital cameras and scanners don't quite approach film grain yet, unless you have some kind of professional-grade scanner.

I'd also add professional or semi-pro digital SLR cameras to that list.

High end digital is giving medium format a run for it's money. Shoot-Out

Pull down some full-size 3072x2048 samples and see for yourself what a $1500 digital SLR can accomplish. Of course that $1500 is just body only. :)

Samples at Steve's Digicam's”

“Bad links... messed something up...

Samples @ Steves
Samples @ DPreviw”

“Sigh... Gotta quit doing this when exhausted...

Samples @ DPreview”

“Much obliged fellas. Thanks for all the info.”

“Metalic based CDs (like audio CD's you buy in a store) have a shelf life of over 100 years without losing any information (stored at room temperature).

Chemical CDs (aka writeable) will last anywhere from 5-50 years depending on burn speed, quality, and the temperature at which the CD is stored.”

“I just got back from my first big trip with my Coolpix 5700. I'm overall impressed and I loved, loved, loved, loved not paying the film and processing of my mistakes!”

“I thought I heard that they are just noticing some quality loss from CD's that are about ten years old. It will still be few years before we hear any real data on this subject, but a CD is just like a vinyl record. The CD;s that a person burns are very susceptible to damage. Make a back up CD. FYI”