BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Kodak DX6490 vs digital SLR.

I shoot with a Kodak DX6490,I like to use the PSAM mode and prefer to 'adjust' everything manually. Recently when I did some night time photos on the terrace, without flash the pics came out as the worst piece of rubbish I've ever seen. my settings were ISO 800, aperture: f2.8, (then when you do like a zoom, it sets 'itself' to f3.2), shutter speed: I think 1/2 or 0.7", and I used a tungsten setting, because I liked this greenish cast that the picture got. I took a bunch of other early morning shots and while I was really happy with the 'colour' I was getting, the quality seemed beyond grainy and it wasn't just because of no tripod.
Also, I tried with the 'night time' settings of the camera, and it uses an ISO 80 and low aperture and shutter speeds, but I don't know, I hate the quality and the 'natural' colouring.
Has this happened to anyone else, or am I just doing something wrong with my settings?

Also, I've taken some indoor shots with a tripod, low aperture/shutter speed combo, with a pair of fluorescent lights perpendicular to each other, ISO 400 with daylight settings (they don't give the WB in kelvins (at all for that matter), so I assumed 5500K?)

After all my blabbing and ranting, my question is, If I get a digital SLR, could I get better pics? I absolute despise tweaking in photoshop, I think it's great for positioning, cropping and panoramic, but I don't like touching the 'adjustments' setting, as I do plan on taking this to a pro level where i'd have to shoot with film and have darkroom experience.
I think the Kodak DX6490 is an amazing camera and everything, and I wonder if I really want a digital SLR to make myself feel more professional?!
Is there a difference? Am I being too confident as a not-even-amateur/hobbyist? I know this question is just rambling, but I'm desperate and would really like some advice, other than take some anti-anxiety pills and go to a professional photo school like Speos.

To love this question, log in above
April 30, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2006

Like me, you seem to be jumping into this backwards. Years ago when I jumped into darkroom work, I started doing color long before B/W.
Most people shoot film and then go to digital for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
Instant feedback from the LCD.
Ability to create images through software, that you just can't do in a darkroom, or not nearly as quickly and easily.
Okay, on to the camera.
I also own the DX6490. My first digital camera. It does take awesome shots, so long as you don't exceed the cameras limitations. And that's true with any camera, including DSLR's.
There are a few quirks about the Kodak that I don't like. It is terribly slow both at focusing and writing the data to the memory card.
Secondly, it has a color issue with the chip. It doesn't faithfully record colors in the violet end of the spectrum. Tends to turn purples to blues.
The metering system could use improvement and it is very noisy (grain) at the two higher ISO settings 400 & 800.
A DSLR would more than likely be a big imrpovement in these areas plus give you more flexibility as far as attachments, lenses, and built in features like auto bracketing.
Kodak does make an adapter that slips over the zoom lens and threads into the camera body which would allow you to use screw on auxillary lenses and filters of a 55mm thread mount. It cost $20.00 and can be purchased through any Kodak dealer or directly from Kodak at:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2095&pq-locale=en_US&cameraEkNumber=EKN027635&skuID=S16069&Visible=false&navCategory=EKN027635

Flourescent lights are of a particular nuisance as they all vary in color temp. If you go into your menu, the 6490 does offer a fluorescent WB, however there is no way on this camera to set WB manually other than the four auto options they give you. Most DSLR's do have manual WB and some even have a custom setting.

As far as eventually going pro and shooting film. There is a lot of debate as to how much longer film will be available on the consumer level. Especially since Nikon announced back in Febuary that they are discontinuing there entire line of film cameras in the near future. That's a pretty big gamble, but they must be pretty confident of the future of film photography to make that call.
And with the advances in digital processors and sensors just in the past three years, I don't know that there is that great of a difference anymore in quality between digital and film prints to warrant using film. Again, you undoubtably will read debates in this area.
Mostly though, it comes down to how deeply you scrutinize your prints. Some go to a deep technical level to prove, almost under a microscope, that film still produces better quality prints. But are you and your clients going to look at the prints under those same conditions?
I'm more of a realist. If I can't see the differences with my naked eye from a normal viewing distance, than why the hub-bub?
Like the difference between a 1.0 & a 1.2 Ghz processor. Sure, all the bench test prove the 1.2 is faster. But can you really tell the difference when your using your computer on a day to day basis, using everyday programs? I doubt it!
Here again, a lot of other factors contribute to that speed. Using different graphics adapters and hard drive interface, I could make the 1.0 unit run faster.
Again though, it's all a matter of getting what you paid for. And right now, high quality digital still means high bucks. Canon just release a 11.? megapixel DSLR which sells for over $3000.00. Their top line 16.7 megapixel is over $6000.00. But know doubt, the quality from these cameras will rival anything from a 35mm and some even claim they are as good as medium format.
But there are other factors too, such as tonal range. As much as they have improved, I don't belive digital has the tonal range of film. Not yet anyway!
Okay, Hope I've been of some help to you on your quest. Others will soon follow with their responses which will provide more information and a wider range of opinion.

Welcome again, Bob

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2006

While I sometimes the Kodak can give sharpness and clarity that is so amazing, it's terrifying, sometimes especially during the high ISO moments, It really makes me wonder about my photographic abilities.

I feel you are right about not exceeding the camera's limitations. I feel I need to play around with this for some more time, and test it around different lights and surroundings then make my mind up on a digital SLR.

On the film/digital debate. I have mixed feelings. I don't think the art of darkroom should be ruled out completely, and I've always been partial to the quality of cibachrome/ilfochrome glossies but I have seen some pretty good stuff from the leaf medium format cameras. So professionally, I'm sure that once you get into the industry, there's no question that even clients prefer digital. I've seen a lot of the digital generation photographers who have darkroom experience on their resumes, so I think it's good to at least have some hand in it, just for the experience.

Thanks again for your response, it was really informative.

Cheers.

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2006

You will find a lot of knowledgable people on this site. You will also find a lot of opinionated people too. Especially on such controversial topics as film vs. digital.
Then again, there were a lot of diehards back in the 1980's who insisted that Sonys' BETA was superior to VHS and that it would eventually replace VHS. Oops!

There were diehards who insisted that vinyl would never be replaced, neither by 8-track or cassette. Then came CD's. Another Oops!

I could go on with the list, but I think you get the point.

Digital is no longer just a novelty. I think that ended once they got above the 2 megapixel sensor and started making DSLR's.

The fact that film is on the way out is obvious. The only real question is, for how many more years it will be readily available and when it's time is finally up, how is that going to affect the pros who continue to use it at that time.

At this point, digital is just about as good as film in most respects and it's only a matter of time before it's good enough and in high enough demand to seal films fate. And you know how technology advances these days. What ever gizmo you buy today is no longer state of the art after about six months. After a year, it's just about obsolete.

I think it is good to learn the darkroom, if that's what you see yourself doing. I enjoyed it while it was for me personally, but working at a lab years ago really took the fun out of it.

But consider also, the way digital is growing and the way the industry is going more and more in that direction, it may be to your future advantage to learn one of the high end digital editing programs as well.

I often wonder, if Ansel Adams had what we have today, would he still be lugging his glass plate negatives around?

Bob

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2006