Check out this deal , fly Virgin

[Rags]

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

Do the Minolta cameras use the same bayonet mounts as their 35MM SLRs?

The only way I'll change to digital is if I can use all my existing optics. I don't care how many pixels you cram into an inch, you can't match the resolution of film. I can always scan pics if I want them digitalized.

I guess that I enjoy using all my options of focal length, field of view, f-stop vs. shutter speed, depth of field, film speed, indirect flash, etc. to compose my shots.

[Jack]

... in response to Re: Cameras,, posted by Rags on May 19, 2002

Rags I'm with you on this. With so many years experience with the old reliable 35mm you get to know what your camera can and cannot do. The biggest problem I had with these new digitals when they first came out was that you were so limited in what you could photograph. You had one lens that seemed somewhat limited in the distance it could photo ( like between 10 and 50mm). I always thought someday the technology would so that you could replace the lenses on the new digital cameras and you would have the same flexibility as with the current 35mm.

I enjoy photography but couldn't convience myself to go digital, so I thought I would buy several for my younger managers thinking this younger geeration would master there digital cameras. Hasn't happen yet. So what I have learned by this recent trip is that if I cannot be there to take photos, then I will hire a professional photographer.

[Dan]

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

SLR technology with interchangeable lenses is still at the very high-end of digital photography, hence, the prices are quite high in contrast to the mainstream production units.

I tend to like the Canon PowerShot G2 as an all-around great unit, but it is all very subjective.

BTW - you can find some terrific reviews and detailed information on MegaPixel digital cameras at this website: http://www.megapixel.net/html/issueindex.html

- Dan

[wsbill]

... in response to Maybe the Olympus Camedia E-10, But . . ..., posted by Dan on May 19, 2002

a telephoto... Though I don't use the telephoto much.

the fish eye rocks..  

35mm is doomed.  It's like - Poloraid or the vinyl record.
Even medium format is under pressure, as there are digital backs for the Fuji and Blads.

[Jack]

... in response to Re: I've got a fisheye lense for my Niko..., posted by wsbill on May 19, 2002

WildBill, you been smoking that wacky weed on the back 40??

I don't think I would say that 35mm is doomed, and there is a BIG difference between 35mm and Poloraid.

Until the new digital wave can equal the overall performance and flexability of todays 35mm, there will always be 35mm. It may happen someday, but not anytime soon.

Your digital will certaintly have some distint advantages over my 35mm Nikons, mostly related to downloading onto computers and never having to develope film, but I think my cameras with various lenses will surpass the overall quality of photos taken with your camera, especially when we talk about shooting items that are 5 feet away and 200 yards away. I think your digital will not come close to the details on the subject matter at 200 yards as compared to a quality 35mm.

[BarryM]

... in response to I've got a fisheye lense for my Nikon 95..., posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

It already has to some degree. The problem is that to get the quality you want, you have to buy digital cameras in the over $2000 range. In a few years, there will be digital cameras with the capability to automatically take clear pictures in any light conditions with much higher quality than you can get with film. 35mm film is a high density storage media but the new memory cards for cameras are already starting to surpass that. Imagine being able to take clear pictures indoors under flourescent lighting and then be able to step outside in either night or day and take clear pictures without having to adjust the camera in any way. The new technology will be able to adjust different lighted backgrounds and shade conditions while bringing all your subjects into view automatically. Exposure won't be an issue anymore because the newer digital CCD's will be able to pick up the faintest light at a high rate of speed. This technology has been used by the military for years. As a matter of fact, glare will be eliminated real time because of the digital processing capabilities of the camera. The camera will be able to take a picture that is clearer than what you can see with your own eyes.

-blm

[tim360z]

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

While currently all forms of digital photography have vastly improved,  both low end and the high end---I doubt it will surpass the quality of the 35mm film negative.  However,  they are great at some applications at both ends of the spectrum.  Surpassing?...I doubt that.  Both image capture systems are really just different tools for the photographer to exploit.  Digital image capture cameras have a long way to go to rival the quality and the "look" of 35mm film,  whether in the home market or in the movie theatre.  Just in the resolution arena....digital lags far behind in acquiring an image to match 35mm film.

[wsbill]

... in response to Not in our lifetime....my best guess, posted by tim360z on May 20, 2002

Created with a digital video (DV) camera, you can cut and past the scenes together.  It's way, way, way easier than messing with film and a negative.

Now bear in mind, those still cameras in some of the newer DV cameras produce horrible still photos, must be less than 1 megapixel cameras. (very blur'ed) on the computer screen but in that little video camera window it doesn't look so bad. ya right.

[tim360z]

... in response to Re: I guess that's why most motion pictu..., posted by wsbill on May 20, 2002

with a DV camera.  DV's are used for video-assist on Arriflex and Panavision cameras.  Thereby giving a basic, low resolution playback of the scene in reatime,  without the need for awaiting dailies the next day.  Digital manipulation (ie: cut & paste)of a film acquired image maintains great resolution of the film image---like 4K. Anyway DV's are fine,  another tool to work with having some great benefits as well as drawbacks.  Today only animated or lower budget "films" use DV as an origination format,  to the best of my knowledge and thus I have no idea where you get the info that most motion pictures are shot on DV...thats incorrect. Dv's are fine and fun and cute and the consumer can download to their home computer easily and play with the image ALMOST like mags and Hollywood have been doing for years.  It would be a very good choice for ones travel to Russia.

[Rags]

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

Unless you change the optics (lens) you can't change your field of view for a set focal length. Without f-stop exposure control you are without the ability to pick your field of focus. Auto exposure and auto focus have a place and time (snapshots), but to properly compose some situations you need to adjust your optics beyond the set and forget mode available on digital cameras. For instance you can take a perfect, crystal clear shot of a fast moving train or waterfall but that does not impart the sense of motion that a larger aperture/longer exposure shot will give you. Sometimes you want the main image clearer with a slightly softer background and sometimes you want the opposite. Your choices of composition are very limited with the "automatic" controls that I have seen on digital cameras (that I can afford). Maybe someday...

As far as processing capabilities go it's amazing what a good photo lab can do above and beyond what is available through todays computer programs (once you scan and digitalize them).

[wsbill]

... in response to Re: Digital will surpass all 35mm in a f..., posted by Rags on May 19, 2002

spot-metering, shutter adjustment, playing with the f-stop really doesn't encompass much ~ except for establishing your depth of field...That's what I love about spot metering.  

but if you want special effects - photoshop can adjust photo faster than you can take the picture.  Ya just gotta learn how to use photoshop.

Photoshop can correct a poor photo also and mend a scratched one.

The vast majority of publishing photographers are using the highend Nikon, Canon, Oly's digital camera.  Because it's faster and cheaper.

Sports Illustrated uses to create blured backgrounds for photos with depth of field problems.  It's so easy to edit out.

But I hear what your saying about you 35mm.  It's still alot of fun working a photos.

I think what happen I got tired of wearing D-76, stopbath and fixer when I was developing my prints and film.

[Jack]

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

I am sure you are correct, but it's not here today. And when it does get here it will probably take a year or so for the technology to get fine tuned.  I was very excited when this new digital photography came about, I was hoping for these improvements that you are talking about also. But todays digital is not quite equal to 35mm.

Hey BarryM, what the he11 you doing writing me if you are me?

[wsbill]

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

detactable lenses.

Check this website out for anything you ever wanted to know about digital cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com

[Rags]

... in response to Re: I think Nikon D1 and Canon my have a..., posted by wsbill on May 19, 2002

Thanks Bill. You satisfied MY curiosity! I checked out the reviews on Minolta's top of the line digital SLR and now I am certain that I am going to stick with my trusty
(old fashioned) film camera.

For one thing, I don't have months to study the manuals or haul them around for reference each time I get in a different situation. And if that many people spent over $1,500 for something and then had the courage to admit that they made a mistake, I want no part of it.

[BarryM]

... in response to Re: Cameras, why don't you buy, posted by Philb on May 18, 2002

nt