camera debate film v digital

[merv]

i have only owned a computer since before christmas,the problem is ,i have a nikon slr camera with a 28-300mm lense, which i get very good results from ,has anyone transfered there photos onto discs if so is it worth the trouble ,do you loose any picture quality in doing so ,how much trouble then to transfer your photos onto the net. to get the same picture quality in the camera i was told i would have to spend $2000.00 which i would rather spend on that other hole in the ocean. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]merv

[agnes_jack]

Merv
I use a 5mega pixel olympus c50 zoom. The quality of the photos, ease of use, compactness, ability to transfer photos to computer and print or do blow-ups is amazing. A camera like the one I use will do magazine quality blow ups and has a 12x zoom. All in a camera the size of a cigarette packet. I dont know why you would use anything else.

# # # # Regards Tony ;D ;D

[imported_admin]

Merv

As far as transfering he pics onto the net is concerned you can have a read of the following post and the links in the post, http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=Saltwater_Pics;action=display;num=1 022721675

If you upload pics to the net they will most likely look just as good as the originals but will not print out with any quality.

Reprint picture quality will depend on how you scan them and also what printer, ink and paper you use to reprint them.

You can get your film developed and have the pics put on a CD for you by several places. Companies like Extrafilm will develop them for you and delivery them via Internet, print and CD if you like, http://www.extrafilm.com.au/

[neptune]

Tony, your camera is more than likely 5 mega pixels, not 500 mega pixels. A bloke at the camera shop told me a good SLR camera is equal to about a 20 mega pixel digital which as far as I know, we are no where near yet.

[SteveCan]

The debate here is not really about quality - it is about ease of use.

With a Film camera - no matter how good it is you still have to go through the process of scanning and saving etc - only to get a photo that is 'web' quality.

With a digital it is simple to post to the web because it is in digital format already - all you have to do is adjust the image size down to what the site will allow and away you go.

I could go on with other arguments as well supporting this - but the fact is that for web posting - digital is far simpler and more convienient.

Cheers
Steve.

[imported_admin]

It is an impossible debate - Film V Digital.

As Steve said, digital is easier for the internet.

It really boils down to what you want the camera for/to do. If you were to say I want a camera for X then one could discuss which way to go. But trying to simply compare the two is near impossible.

[agnes_jack]

Neptune
Dead right mate, typing error [smiley=hammer.gif] [smiley=oops.gif] [smiley=stupid.gif]

Thanks Tony

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

Merv,
Another option is to get a negative scanner. That way you can go on using your film camera until such time as digitals have the same resolution for an affordable price. trouble is, you still have to wait for the roll to be finished and the negatives processed.
Most of the photoshops here (Manila) process your film that way nowadays anyway. They just process the negatives, put them through the scanner and print from the scan. Not sure what resolution they have in the commercial machine, but presumably it is as good as the film. I just get them to rip them to disc for me at the same time.

I just bought a sony p8 which has 3.somthing meg which with the current exchange rates cost me about Aus$500. I was going to get the p10 which has 5.something meg, but after sitting down and thinking about what i am actually going to use it for ie taking casual snaps (hopefully of some fish in the not too distant future) and emailing them, I thought what the hell do I need the extra resolution for. If I want a decent shot of something, I'll get out my film SLR.
I had a similar debate about whether to get a good digital, and realised 90% of the time, I can't be screwed lugging around my current SLR anyway. I'm much more likely to slip a small digital in my pocket and snap a few pics though. Also a lot less hurtful if a smaller cheaper camera gets dropped, goes over the side, or just rots away in the salt air, etc.
Anyway, that was my choice for the moment. I'd say its only a few years away when affordable high resolution digitals are going to be the norm.
Cheers
Jeff

[merv]

thanks steve,and fellow members .i will send a couple of films away and get them put onto disc , hope to post some pics soon. merv [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[jimbamb]

Merv.
Read everyones ideas.The thing that scares me is if ya good camera either Digi or Ord gets wet as is so easy to do out at sea another option is cheap disposable cameras.If they get wet or dropped ya haven't lost a lot of doe.Slr cameras dont like water even not gettin wet ,they will rust up inside an cost ya heaps to fix often are unrepairable!!! i guess digi would be the same.
Just some food for thought!!!!

[landy1]

Digital - easier to use for web related pictures
SLR - best quality all round
My two cents, currently have 2 digitals and an SLR, covers all bases
cheers
Mick

[jimbamb]

Merv.
forgot to mention its realy easy to take a pic of a pic with a digi.Saves takin the good one out into the salt air

[Rosso]

OK i have a ricoh SLR that takes some very nice photos, however it is very big and heavy.

Recently (for about $800) i goto the brand new sony DSC V1 (http://www.sony.com.au/DIS/products/index.cfm?prodid=DSCV1&catid=19129)

All i can say is that is brilliant! It takes 5m shots (you can take less..its only a setting) it has night vision, flash, a shoe horn for a pro flash, can take movies (depending on what kind of memory stick you have in it...

For example at 5m it will take a photo of 2592x1944 down to the smallest 640X480 - VGA. Neat eh?

I heard once that something around 2.1 is the the same quaility as a film camera.

As for over the net....well...i have broadband so it doesn't make any difference (mwahahaha) but as stated above the bigger image the longer its going to transfer/take to email over the net.

When you get your film developed you can actually ask for them to be copied/burnt onto a CD. You can also take in your memory stick(s) and get them processed as well.

I do not know the store you went into but i brought my camera off the net. ebay actually. I paid roughly $800 for it to be delivered to my door. I could have walked around the corner to ht.com.au and got one for about $300 more. Or go into town to hardly normal and pay another $200 on top of that....

In a nutshell, don't pay retail unless your desperate :P

Feel free to email me if you want more details or you have any questions.

I personally think that Digital is better, because its cheaper, smaller and you can do the same things, if not better then film.

Cheers

robbie.

PS here is a photo of my fly fishing clippers on my desk taken with the macro setting, http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~merrick/Gallery3/DSC00132.jpg

more photos are at http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~merrick/Gallery3/index.html

[Rosso]

Oh i forgot to mention. As soon as you attach the camera to USB the PC detects it and it becomes another hard drive.

From there you can either cut/paste or drag and drop your photos from the camera to your HDD, for editing/storing/uploading or deleting.

Too easy really!

R.