 Cheryl Staub |
SLR vs high end P&S for travel ease. I am really struggling with this decision. I'd like to go digital but having trouble deciding on camera type. Leaning towards SLR (Canon 350D) but keep struggling with the fact that on a recent trip to Europe I didn't like switching lenses on my film camera (can be very awkward depending on where you are)...but can't do without the 300mm zoom! Going digital SLR I'll still have to carry an extra lens. Is there an upper end P&S which would give me control, good quality photos and close to a 300mm zoom? Or do I need to accept the fact if I want at least 300mm I'll be forever carrying an extra lens? God bless all of you who time and time again answer questions from us beginners! :-)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Cheryl Staub |
For instance...what about this Nikon: Nikon Coolpix 8700, 8.0 Megapixel, 8x Optical/4x Digital Zoom, Digital Camera
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Buy a 28-300 mm zoom. Or, look into EEV's. A friend has a 3 MP Dimage 1 that takes great pictures [quality 8X10 prints.] EEV's go for $500-800 and feature up to 8 MP chips. All manufacturers have one or more models. Check out Pop Photo's web site; the magazine did a review of 6-8 of these several months ago.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
I had a simular problem a few months ago..before my 3 week trip to Greece. Because I had an attempted 'pick-pocket' in Milian a year before..I decided to leave my Nikon D50 and all it's lenses home....instead took my Canon PowerShotS2 with image stabilizer. Only a 5 MP but has a great range including a 12 optical Zoom. Was very happy will the 1100 or so photos from my trip. You can check out some shots using this camera at my portfolio if you like.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Robert Capra, a photojournalist, once said: "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not getting close enough." So, are you sure a 300mm is sufficient? Maybe you need a 500mm or even a 1000 mm micro/ macro hoo ha zoom?? (Doesn't Canon make one of those in autofocus?) So Cheryl (and anyone else listening) you first ought to consider how you plan to use that lens. If you're shooting baseball games from the dugout at Pac Bell Park off a monopod with a ball head, sure. You could use that kind of glass. If you're shooting travel photos and portraits, MOVE CLOSER, forget the zoom. Besides, the rule of thumb for most photographers is that to really hand-hold a camera steady, you need to work at shutter speeds that are one notch below the actual mm of the lens. So, technically, using a 300 let's say, you shouldn't be working slower than 1/250th of a sec. or so, or working off a camera support of some kind. For those who disagree, try it with and without a camera support and see what looks sharper at higher magnifications. Based on what you're asking, my recommendation is that you consider shorter zooms (if at all) say in the 35-75 range, or 75-150. Remember too, that the greater the zoom capacity, say 28-300, the more likely you'll see edge distortion at higher magnifications depending on the f-stop you're working at. And, if you opt for shorter zooms or fixed focus lenses like an 85 or 135, get the sharpest lens you can afford, whether you're shooting digitally or with film. Why? Because assuming they continue to try and improve the resolution of DSLRs, if you get cheaper glass, then you get caught behind the resolution curve and while manufacturers of digital equipment LOVE to sell you more equipment as they make older equipment obsolete in one way or another, you don't need to spend it if you plan for the future of your own photography. Get the picture? And you know what Cheryl? If I were you, I'd stick with film. LOL !!! [I won't reignite that debate here]. But in planning for your photo future, transparency and negative films IMHO are going to be around for quite awhile. Keep your SLR film camera, treat it to a new, really sharp lens that has multiple uses for you and if you don't get your images scanned to CD at the place where you get them processed (hopefully a commercial lab rather than a Walmart), then get a good quality scanner and do that yourself. I'll lay odds that you'll like those results a lot better AND you'll probably save a lot on equipment. Then you can tell the manufactuers later on, they didn't catch you in the midst of an equipment improvement. BTW, I shoot all my 35mm work using a set of very old Nikon F-2As and two Leica M-6's and no zooms. I just MOVE CLOSER. And you know, I never hear any clients complaining about image sharpness, clarity or color shifting or that they may have to wait a few extra hours or maybe a day to get the images scanned for editorial use.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
more people like Mark and the whole industry is out of business.... Get a new camera, one with a lot of optical zoom...have fun and get better photos without moving a muscle. cheers
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
When I went digital I carefully weighed the pros and cons of P&S vs DSLR. Dust on the sensor being the biggest drawback in my mind with a DSLR. I ultimately decided on the Nikon 5700. Boy was I sorry. Having used a SLR camera for over 20 years I never could adjust to the lag and startup time. Had I known how much I would hate the P&S I could have saved myself about $750 and maybe used that on a nice lens to go with the D70 I later purchased. Hey Mark, do you really consider image sharpness & clarity better with a SLR? I'm sure you wouldn't say so if you didn't believe it. I thought so too until recently when I had an 8x10 printed from the D70. Comparing them to my film enlargements they are much nicer. The film enlargements have so much grain and they don't seem as sharp to me. When I view my slides through a lupe they look as nice or nicer but something gets lost in the enlargement process.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Yep Joe, you're absolutely right. More photographers like me and an entire industry falls flat on its face. It should only be. Then maybe we can get back to the real art and craft of photography and equipment manufacturing the old fashioned way....so it lasts and remains usable. LOL !!! Great advice Joe. Do photography using optical zooms without moving a muscle. ROFLMAO !!! Eventually we get old and die too. Yes Sharon, I do although I don't know what you mean by "lag" or "start-up time". As far as image clarity and sharpness, that depends on a lot of factors not the least of which is the quality of the glass, the shutter speed, the smoothness of the mirror (for those antiquated 35's like I use or to avoid that, use a rangefinder like the Leicas), the photographer's visual acuity and the type of film and how it's processed. Ok Sharon, so if we have an SLR shoot out for sharpness, can I match my Hasselblad lenses too against the D70? It's an SLR too ya know. Rent one. Betcha love THOSE results. Take an old Nikkor 85mm f 1.4 for a test drive using slow shutter speeds, hand held at 1/30th or less and shooting wide open at 1.4. Those variables, among others, I mentioned can be eliminated from the sharpness equation in a number of ways. I'll tell ya something Sharon, without turning this into a digital vs film debate: When I teach entry level and advanced photography courses or seminars, I know I'm one of the few instructors who insists the students have a film SLR and NOT a digital camera. The reason is because I teach the process of photography. That includes, among other things, knowing what film will give what results when it's processed in a particular way; the properties of light, film and lenses and how to modify those things; filtration; how to get maximum image quality for maximum enlargements; and especially how to use a combination of skills from those basics to produce high end work. Yes, there are shortcuts to be sure. Digital cameras provide those shortcuts from P&S and auto-everything, to eliminating in most instances the need for labs to make prints. But in my view (and others too I suppose) if someone using a digital camera doesn't really understand the rudamentary photo processes provided with film cameras, they ain't really learning the process, they're just learning how to use an appliance to find a quicker means to an end. That's fine, but not for me. So, if you've still got that SLR, take it out of storage and I'll teach you how to make it sing a sweeter song than any digital camera can or will. Whaddya think? But then...what do I know. 0/;>)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Mark, we heard you - you can get off your soap box. How come every q&a I've seen today has you spouting your film is so much better speech. I'm sure you do teach the process of FILM photography. You forgot that word. Digital photography is here to stay. There is a whole new process now (including major computer skills if you want to process your own digital pics). You may not have changed with the times - but many people have and are very happy with it. Now back to Cheryl's question - you need to decide what's most important to you. If you're worried about the extra weight and inconvenience of switching lenses while on your trip - then you should seriously consider a digital point and shoot with at least a 10x optical zoom. There are several good ones on the market - do you research at the review sites like Steve's, dpreview, etc. If you're looking for a long term investment which isn't going to be the most convenient on your trip but you'll be happy with back at home - then research the dslrs and good quality lenses. Like Sharon says - if you're used to an slr you will probably not be happy with a point and shoot... But if convenience is what you're looking for then go for it! I love my Fuji - it's small and I can take it everywhere I go. Good luck with your decision.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
Mark, I have some old, but well preserved LP's for you if you like (I figure your still in 'true' musical reproduction, you know turntables, vacuum tubes etc). Anyway on principal your 100% right, but look around you for God's sake...don't you see what happening? People are having fun, actually TAKING PHOTOS.... some of them pretty good too. What your talking about is fine for a hand full of 'die-hards'. Oh I did the 'real photography thing back in the late 60's and 70's... It was fun, it was cool.....but so is digital...and for the cost and time involved ...including the end results, you can't beat digitals ability for the newcomer to go and shoot and see results, make corrections, and actually get to be a pretty good (although not an expert, world renowned photographer like yourself) at handling a camera. I can't image I would have ever got 3 or 4 of my grand children really interested in photography without them exposed to some Canon digitals 2 Christmas' ago (and you should see the creativity....I guess you teach that too?). Take it slow....but not that slow...cheers
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Cheryl Staub |
Mark - I do know to get closer, however there are times when you can't and that's why I like a zoom...and 300 is fine thank you. For a long time I was having my photos made into a CD (at a photo lab not Walmart) but it gets too expensive when you're simply taking photos to improve your skills. In many ways I agree with you about film...I look at the photos on this website and often feel they're equal to the photographers computer skills.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
I think Mark took the words of a famous photographer and turned them around...when asked about wide angle lens the answer was 'best wide angle lens? take a few steps back'.... Having your photos put onto a CD commercially may not always be a good idea...check the size in case you may one day make a large print...they usually don't burn the full size file your camera produced. You would be better off with a DVD burner...making your own DVD's to save your full file photos. And Cheryl I am positive your photos are equal to 95% of all the photographers who post on this site or any others (check out www.usefilm.com) And some teachers are great at teaching
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Hi Mark, I've always wanted a MF camera, but alas, they've been a little out of my league. I do know better than to try and compare a SLR or DSLR with a MF though ;)! When I referred to "lag" and "start up time" I was referring to the delay in starting up and focusing a P&S digital camera. If you've never used one you wouldn't believe how frustrating they are. A DSLR is light years ahead of a P&S in that respect. Prior to going digital I did use a film SLR for over 20 years so I do have a vague idea how photography works :o)! Not that I'll ever be good or anything, but I enjoy what I do :)!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
Sharon D. your portfolio is very good. Lag time is only a problem if you let it...oh yeah I like my SLR digital better than my Casio S2.....for several reasons including the lag time issue.... I was going to say somethings negative about Mark's works are not for showing, but that's neither here nor there.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
"Sharon D. your portfolio is very good." Thanks, Joe! I was being a little tongue in cheek :o)! I have to say I've learned a lot since joining BP though. Even after shooting for 20+ years I still have a thing or two to learn (like how to shoot scenics like the TimeCatchers), and still enjoy the process. AND I still enjoy film. I for one hope film stays around for a good long time. Even if I don't use my film cameras as much I would hate for them or film to become obsolete. Happy shooting everyone!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
First, I thought I'd jump at Joe's offer. You got it exactly right. Mac amp. and pre-amp, both with tubes (weigh a ton) Thorens turntable, AR 4 way sound columns, and shelves filled with jazz and classical music albums on.........gasp...VINYL !!!! So yeah, what are you offering? BTW, we did scrap the VCR for a DVD player about a year ago. As for your grand kids, sure. Digital is magic. But then to a 7 or 8 year old kid, so is watching a print develop in a darkroom. As to the origins of that print, I know the negatives have been around and well-preserved since I shot them, whether it was last week or 30 years ago. As for digital, no one can tell me that they know for a fact a digital image on a diskette will last 15 or 20 years or longer. It ain't happened yet. Joe also mentioned: "I think Mark took the words of a famous photographer and turned them around...when asked about wide angle lens the answer was 'best wide angle lens? take a few steps back'...." I don't have any idea what this means. BTW Joe, for the record, people had fun taking photos when George Eastman first came out with the refillable camera, and people STILL have fun shooting photos, whether with film or pixels. As to web sites, I subscribe to APUG.org (The Analog Photographers Users Group) among others. And, no, I don't teach full time. One other thing Joe: It's really uncool to take a technical argument and for lack of support, turn it into a personal attack. You don't know me at all. Your comment about my not changing with the times is not only inappropriate but untrue. As for showing my works, I don't need to show them. I sell them through a number of publishers and stock agencies that protect them from being pirated by the general public. And, speaking of personal attacks....Aaah yes, Diane. Welcome to the party. Diane said: "How come every q&a I've seen today has you spouting your film is so much better speech." Well, beyond the fact that your claim is a gross exaggeration, the obvious answer is because IT IS. LOL !!! You REALLY walked into that one. (I knew we'd get to that eventually As to your contention that I'm on a "soapbox", that's a pretty pathetic argument to muster against the facts I posed regarding film and lens variations, etc. Instead of offering your visceral, rather defensive attitude, you could have simply recognized that I'm entitled to express my opinions and second, that they DO have some merit. Then, you could have just shut up and sat down. I bet you voted republican didn't ya? LOL !! Don't you worry a bit Diane, I don't think the film police will try to confiscate your digital whatever and I'm pretty sure your Photoshop is safe too. Personally, I think Sharon is of the right mind set here, and I agree with her. Take it light guys.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Samuel Smith |
well,well,well.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Diane is Canadian. I don't think they have Republicans up there LOL.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
wow you guys really got off the original question.... check my 1st answer..it's still the best and most to the point.... got ya on the sound equiptment thing...just knew it...vacuum tubes and vinyl...better sound, truer, bluer and certainly more pops, hisses and clicks, just for old time sake...ha anyway back to capturing the moment...just came from a spring trainning baseball game. My digital on rapid fire got the pictures complete 'beauty in motion wind and throw' it tool 12 frames...then I did it again...yeah right tell the boys and girls to go shoot film...very funny if your wealthy I guess...but not practical in the least. too bad you couldn't stick to the question and more important answer it in a useful manner. one answer could have also included a digital SLR with only 2 lens....18-55mm and 70-300mm...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I think if you take the time to read my original answer, I not only answered her original question but provided additional information for people who perouse this site looking for just that. Try rereading it a couple of more times til you understand it. By the way, three people have e-mailed me telling me how useful they happened to think my original answer is. One is rethinking his shooting technique, another is going to go with the smaller zooms, and the other is interested in buying a FILM slr now. I'm certainly glad how proud you are of how well your first answer turned out. Honest. Now, can you just get over yourself. Clicks, pops, hisses? From what? You mean a vinyl recording that wasn't properly cared for over the years?? Otherwise, turn the treble down a notch. The depth of the sound is much better than DIGITAL RECORDIJGS !!!!! So, what about those recordings I thought you were offering me or did you offer them to Sharon. Betcha she appreciates them too. Mark
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Samuel Smith |
as I sit here lmbo,i realized I shoot film and still have some classic vinyl records.i must be sick. anyway cheryl that 28-300 sounded like a good idea to me. i also have a 1962 coldspot upright freezer that has never been worked on and is still working,still sits in the same place as the day it was bought. have fun,sam
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
"wow you guys really got off the original question...." It doesn't matter. I think Cheryl moved :o)!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joe Ciccone |
Mark unfornatley I moved 4 or 5 months ago...had to leave some things behind...room is scarce, so everything I have I actually use most everyday. What I am saying is the 33's and 45's and 78's of course have all been tossed. I'm sure some were held on to for the time being....anyway sorry. On paper your film story is perfect...in the real world it almost borderlines on the insance. Your like stuck in a time warp, but it's very normal for a tiny percent of people, never stop eating Campbells Soup, or still use Old Spice, search and find and my Vanilla Mello Rolls (because they taste better than cones). Sam...the electric company is just loving you dummies that don't hear the spinning of their electric meters in the basement. Keep that upright freezer, I hope you have some 10-15 year old Fredrichs Air Conditioners on hand? don't ever stop using those 'suckers'...ha Saron, I answered it twice...and now I will go on and leave this discussion in your hands....gl all
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||