Poll: Do you use a Digital Camera?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Do you use a Digital Camera? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=180&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[woodsey]

YES

[melchior]

i'm on my third digital since a ****ty kodak in 1997

use a 2 year old Fuji 6900z that originally retailed for US$900. i have no immediate plans to upgrade, and probably won't until there is some significant advancement in low-light auto-focus OR digital SLR becomes accessible to the casual photographer. neither of these look set to happen in the next year.

i love my digital.

[gotohamish]

Yep, a Sony F505V - a stunning Carl Zeiss lens on a stunning camera.

[usersince86]

Originally posted by gotohamish
Yep, a Sony F505V - a stunning Carl Zeiss lens on a stunning camera.

If I remember right, Sony "Carl Zeiss" lenses are manufactured to Carl Zeiss specifications -- but not a Carl Zeiss manufactured lens. Still a great camera, from what I hear!

The Carl Zeiss/Sony thing might be a technicality, but it's good to know. An even worse, but similar thing, is Fuji's [old?] system of doubling the amount of pixel resolution through interpolation. For example, saying it's a 4 MP camera when in fact, it's only 2 with interpolation.

A great place for all this technical info and solid reviews is:

www.dpreview.com

There are alot of other good sites as well.

Sorry for rambling!

[MacFan25]

Don't have a digital camera right now, but I would like to get one.

[pivo6]

It so easy to pick up the digital camera when you're just taking family snapshots that you would use a point and shoot camera for. Just load into iPhoto and you're finished. The only thing I don't like about digital cameras are the amount of batteries I go through. Thank god for rechargeables.

[altglbrs]

I chose the no camera option... I've never owned a film camera, but my Nikon digital was stolen from my car last fall...

[melchior]

the problem i have with digital is i guess 2-fold. since i use a fairly old camera (only 3MP and 6 with the stupid interpolation thing) if i give the camera to someone else to take a photo you can zoom in the way i would with a 35mm print.... cropping means you have to settle for less pixels and it looks dodgy.... i guess it just means i need a native 6MP, huh... :rolleyes:

[yzedf]

Canon PowerShot S200. Works well for me. Pretty good at adapting between indoor and outdoor shots without much effort. Video capture option (with sound) is a nice thing to have too.

[Mr. Anderson]

Yep, I have one for 6 years, still with the point and shoot, and have a new Canon SLR that replaces my old Minolta that blew up on me in Arizona. In the next couple years depending on what becomes available, I'll probably get a Canon Digital SLR - but I want one with more than 6 mega pixels - and right now that's going to run over $3k. Needs to be a little cheaper.

D

[Trekkie]

I've been using a Canon D60 that replaced my last SLR film body in May of 2002.

Don't see a need to go back. I'd say the only drawback to digital is that I'm too lazy to ever print stuff out.

[eyelikeart]

I'm with u duke...$3k is just too much to spend on a camera, sans the lenses & all the extras.

My Minolta Dimage 7i is a great digital. 5MP, very capable lens, a little high priced, but well worth it. I scrapped my 35mm Nikon for it last August, and it's made my life so much easier ever since. ;)

[-hh]

Originally posted by MacFan25
Don't have a digital camera right now, but I would like to get one.

I agree that Digital is very convenient for making low-res images available for the Web, but the problem I have with Digital is with what I personally call its "Max Resolution Potential Problem.”

Most of my personal photography is not casual snapshots, but Serious Amateur. As such, my "Problem” is the question of how much I’ll hate myself in the morning if I’m fortunate enough to get a rare/phenomenal shot, but did so with a low-resolution system that doesn’t provide the option of making a nice enlargement.

The solution - - or rather, prevention - - is a “just in case” approach: always use a system at its Max Resolution Potential, and to not even consider using a low-resolution system.

The problem is that Digital still is not the equal of film. Yeah, they’ll eventually get there, but the closest that I’d currently consider is the new 11 Megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds SLR, and its retail price is a mere $8,000.

Now there will also be pragmatic approaches who ask: “how much resolution is enough?”

For example, some people will say that 4-6 Megapixels is fine for an 8”x12”, and regardless of if that’s true or not, if that’s not the upper size limit of what you want, then you need more than 4-6 Megapixels. For example, if for the moment we accept this claim, the implications that you’ll need 6-10 Megapixels for just an 11”x14”, and for a nice 24”x36”, 36-54 Megapixels are required.

There are endless debates over what film is equivalent to, but in my opinion it’s probably in the range of 48 Megapixels to be equivalent for 35mm. For Medium Format, it’s 3x this value for 6x4.5 (yes, that’s roughly 150 Megapixels).

In the end, it is but a trade-off, and I’ve not yet concluded that the advantages in convenience are worth the loss of image resolution potential. This is a YMMV of personal preferences as to what constitutes "best"...just like how we like Mac's despite them not being as fiscally inexpensive as Windows PC's at equivalent clockspeeds.

Personally, I get tempted every few years to get back into Medium Format, but the wide variety of nice lenses in 35mm has offset the temptation. For example, take a peek at Canon’s website for their very sweet Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. At a mere $5,300 a copy, it helps make Mac's look inexpensive :D


-hh

[mactastic]

I love my little Canon Powershot S230, it takes great pictures, fits in my pocket, and since I bought a 256MB CF card I can take 150+ pictures before having to "reload". However when I am looking for really high quality photos, or ones that can be cropped and enlarged I still use my old but trusty Nikon 35 mm SLR.
What I really need is to be able to download from my Canon direct to an iPod so I can take pictures forever on the road without my Powerbook in tow. Now that would really make an iPod necessary to me. (Not that I don't already want one!)

[-hh]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I'm with u duke...$3k is just too much to spend on a camera, sans the lenses & all the extras.


Bottom line is that certain features carry a price.

For example, SLR bayonet lens mount and No shutter lag are simply two things that separate a "serious" camera from a PhD ("Push here, Dummy" :p) camera.





-hh

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I'm with u Mr. Anderson...$3k is just too much to spend on a camera, sans the lenses & all the extras.

I scrapped my 35mm Nikon for it last August, and it's made my life so much easier ever since. ;)

That's the thing - digital is so much easier - and I have an Epson 2200 printer which does fantastic large size prints. I'll be getting a new Nikon Coolscan 4000 scanner soon so that I can scan in all my old slides (1000s of them) and slowing make the transition to all digital. And in the mean time, I'll still shoot with the Canon Elan and scan in the pics I like.

The 4000 dpi Nikon scanner can get me 12 MegaPixels if I need it. That will probably be the limiting factor on when I make the switch to all digital - price and high res.

D

[jimjiminyjim]

The resolution limitation thing is a major drawback. I've never made an 8 by 10 in my life though. So my 2.1 MP olympus d-510 is wonderful. The amount of pictures I've taken that I wouldn't have because they 'might have been a waste' is quite staggering. And The money I've saved by printing (at the photo shop with equal quality to a 35 mm film print at 4 x 6) only the photos I want begins to mount.

[Codemonkey]

I have a Fuji 2800 (2-ish MP), and it was great until I used my inlaws 4mp Canon Digital-ELPH S400. YUM.

Basically, the case for digital is twofold:

Cost:For people who are concerned about the costs involved with film processing, the objection becomes moot: No film purchase, no waste of prints. The result is only the shots you WANT end up on the camera. Not 22 bad ones and 2 good ones.

Procrastination: Who has rolls of undeveloped (but used) film lying around? I know my parents do. But there will always be procrastination, I suppose. After our first child was born (on April 22!!!), I took my SmartMedia card over to Costco with the 45 shots we took and 1 hour later had beautiful 4x6 prints with borders, for 2 cents CDN more per print than conventional film.

It's that easy.

As a designer, the max resolution is a hinderance, as cropping post-production is common and familiar for me. Cropping my 2mp camera means the shots are screen-only. Cropping on the 4mp camera means, in most cases, I can still do 4x6's.

My other beef: Shutter-lag. Try capturing motion. It's 98% luck.

But boy, is it nice when you luck out on those shots. :-)

Anyway. My .02 CDN. Which is worth slightly more these days...

[fixyourthinking]

Even with the older iPod, but especially, the new thinner iPods, I don't see why some enterprising company (or even Apple) doesn't create a "sleeve" for the iPod like iPaqs have.

A thin OLED and a megapixel camera could easily be fit into a compact sleeve. It would be neat to "reuse" the jog dial and buttons for controls. You'd use the iPod like a removable storage medium (Compact Flash, SD, etc)

It would also be neat if the device had 640x480 MPEG-4 movie capability, only limited to iPod hard drive size.

Samsung produced a hard drive camcorder I believe not too long ago, and with the size of megapixel cameras getting smaller and smaller, the thinness of an OLED, I believe the technology is all there

It would also be nice to be able to transfer all the data over firewire and to watch mini movies or even the videos to the songs you download.

I'd like to be able to SEE Sheryl Crow in my pocket rather just be listen to her.

[-hh]

Originally posted by jimjiminyjim
The resolution limitation thing is a major drawback. I've never made an 8 by 10 in my life though.

This is a classical example of personal YMMV's:

I have five of my own 8x10's/8x12's hanging up in my cubicle at the moment (here's (http://www.webspan.net/~hummer/pic/ys-canyon.jpg) a small version of the only one that I happen to have on a public webdirectory).



The amount of pictures I've taken that I wouldn't have because they 'might have been a waste' is quite staggering. And The money I've saved by printing (at the photo shop with equal quality to a 35 mm film print at 4 x 6) only the photos I want begins to mount.

Be very wary of claims and perceptions on economies:

There's the obvious costs of glosssy paper and inks, but then there's also the less obvious capital expenses of CD-R media to back up the image data, the hardware (printer, PC, etc) and software.

And what most people miss is the insiduous cost of your time.

The reason the photo store costs more is because they're providing more than just the physical medium printing; they're also providing services. Some people consider their time to be 'free', but if that's the case, I have a lawn that needs mowing that I'd love for you to come over and do. Ditto for the hedge trimming. Even if you enjoy working on your photos, there's other things you could be doing that you also enjoy - perhaps even going out and taking more photos.


Finally, you really need to be quite careful about when you decide that a particular image is "trash". I typically shoot around a thousand images per vacation-week, and I almost always find a pleasant surprize of one sort or another hidden within an image that I took a few weeks earlier that I probably would have erased immediately after I took it, had it been digital.

Not only may you spot things of value to you later when you're in a different mood or whatever, you should keep your "bad" shots for at least a few months, if for no other reason than to serve as examples of your errors that you can review and improve your technique so that you won't make the same mistakes again.


-hh

{EDIT}

PS: Also, there's some very insiduous hidden costs in Archiving: digital formats have a history of becoming unsupported and obsolete very quickly - - today's ubiquitous CD-R is yesterday's 5.25" floppy disk. Its nothing that some time & effort won't solve, but that's exactly what makes it just another hidden cost.

For more info on this subject, I suggest reading Clifford Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway"


{/EDIT}

[AllenPSU]

Currently we use both a digital and 35mm film camera. I use a 35mm SLR camera for the high resolution jobs and the digitial camera for the bulk stuff. It has been a bonus having the ability to screen and download pictures at will using the digital camera.

When digital SLR cameras come down in price I will probably go to a digital only format.

[wdlove]

Yes, I have a HP Digital camera. I'm taking alot more pictures now, my wife puts them into iPhoto on her iBook! ;)

[eric_n_dfw]

Not digital yet here either, use a consumer level Canon SLR (Rebel 2000) and scan prints in when I need digital.

I'm stuck on the fact that in order to get a digital SLR (with interchangeable lenses) I'd have to drop $1500+ plus. And then, at 6MP I'll spend a bunch on CF cards and whatnot (since I doubt I'd use any smaller resolution - ever).

I'll stick with my Canon SLR and probably bite the bullet for a Nikon film scanner soon. I also am thinking about grabbing the new Canon 4MP digital Elph for my wife as she wants something she can fit in her purse.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Trekkie
I've been using a Canon D60 that replaced my last SLR film body in May of 2002.

Don't see a need to go back. I'd say the only drawback to digital is that I'm too lazy to ever print stuff out.
What's your thoughts on the fact that the smaller CMOS sensor (as opposed to a 35mm neg size) causes the focal length of your lens to change?

I'm concerned that my 28mm lens would be too long and will have to drop some serious change on a wider angle lens.

[bryanc]

For the time being I'm shooting slide film (velvia) and scanning the good shots.

I'd love to have a D1x, but they're still too pricey, don't provide quite enough resolution, and have the irritating 'feature' of a chip that dosen't match a 35mm negative, making all our lenses effectively longer.

When Nikon puts out a high resolution digital SLR with a 35 mm chip (and I have a little more cash), I'll be eager to add a digital back to my camera bag.

However, for the vast majority of point-n-shoot users, digital is already a vastly superior format, and will continue to get better.

Film is only for serious amatures and professionals (which is making print film extinct).

Cheers

[digitalgiant]

only digital camera, The mighty QuickTake 150!! Half a MP at high resolution Of course I use a coolpix 5000 now.:D

[rainman::|:|]

digital photography is just a good idea-- superior in almost every way. But real film is just ...romantic :)

so i use both. for now. Maybe soon they'll make a digicam with some personality to it...

pnw

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
digital photography is just a good idea-- superior in almost every way. But real film is just ...romantic :)

so i use both. for now. Maybe soon they'll make a digicam with some personality to it...

pnw
Wanting a real zoom lens is romantic?

That's a highly subjective comment.

It's a lot like the analog vs. digital music recording industry where many still swear by high quality analog tape.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
... many still swear by high quality analog tape.

Poor schmucks.

:D

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Codemonkey
Poor schmucks.

:D hehe - you brave man!

Remember, human's are analog beasts.

[Codemonkey]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
hehe - you brave man!

Remember, human's are analog beasts.

Yeah, I'm mostly teasing, as it seems that those individuals are used to it.

I know some audiophiles that think records still sound better than any thing digital, ever ever ever ever.

LOL.

It amuses me. :-)

[Eniregnat]

I use a Polaroid (www.polaroid.com) Mio (http://www.polaroid.com/mio/mio.jsp) a camera that has not had a wide release in the U.S. I find it a perfect tool when traveling in areas where technolgy is sparce and conditions are harsh. You would be suprise at how happy people are to recieve a photograph of themselves nearly instantly. The photos are smallish and grainy, but they are perfect for journalng.

I have one small chepo digital pen cam. It sucks, but looks cool.

When I can afford a good digital camera, I will make the investmetn. I am thinking of purchacing a Sony CD Mavica (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=eE_2vDLSVkH2mwxtkPr8t33c10vuWPJEx44=?ProductID=CHQKC0%2eNw_UAAAD1d9Xx3AxE&Dept=dcc&CatalogCategoryID=waAKC0%2eNSxEAAAD1Flfx3AxA), because of the durablity and cost advantages of the media.

[senseibiz]

I just purchased a Canon Poweshot s10.
I used it a few times , and its a great camera.

[scem0]

I own a digital camera, but I use a film
sometimes. I prefer the digital though.

[Makosuke]

Personally, I decided last year that digital cameras finally reached the point that it was worth taking the plunge and going all-digital.

Camera-wise, the way small size, long exposure features, and spiffy image quality of the Olympus D40 made it an easy choice (it was, at the time, the only 4MP camera in that size range), and I really like it. I just wish it's 5MP replacement (the C-50) could also do 16 second exposures with a dark frame, or I'd have bought it instead.

I can say as far as the way I take pictures, there's no comparison. I take far more pictures with the digital, since I don't have to worry about paying for film or developing; if I screw up a shot, I know immediately and try again, since I can check (no more "oh, crap, the good one was blurry!); the quality, even with some cropping, is more than enough for my simple vacation-photographer needs; I can store the camera and enough "film" for a couple hundred pictures in my shirt pocket (plus, since I delete the blurry screw-ups immediately, I get more than I would shooting blind); and the fact that I can enjoy my photos in the hotel room is an added bonus.

There are, of course, professional photographers with other needs, but for me there's only one way to go. A 5 or 6MP camera would be nice, but 3 or 4 is enough for most consumers (and I'd put Kodak's 14MP up against almost any 35mm film).

As far as comsumer video cameras go (got one in my digital push), there isn't even a competition. I do hope there's nobody arguing that a MiniDV camera isn't vastly superior to any consumer-level analog format.

[Billicus]

Originally posted by wdlove
Yes, I have a HP Digital camera. I'm taking alot more pictures now, my wife puts them into iPhoto on her iBook! ;)

What model? My family has one too. That's the camera we use primarily. We origanally bought it for my trip to New York City last year.

[Mudbug]

which was (and still is) an Olympus C-3040 zoom then I decided that I was tired of my wife taking my camera all of the time, and got her her own Olympus C-4000 zoom. The difference is negligible save for higher resolution, and the happiness factor is immeasureable.

I love it - went to an airshow this weekend and shot 125 shots on 2 cards, then took them home and put in sequence a quicktime movie of them. This is too slick.

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
What's your thoughts on the fact that the smaller CMOS sensor (as opposed to a 35mm neg size) causes the focal length of your lens to change?

I'm concerned that my 28mm lens would be too long and will have to drop some serious change on a wider angle lens.

Honestly, I never noticed it.

but, when I had extra money I picked up the 16-35mm F/2.8L lens for nature shots when I went hiking outside of seattle.

[dreamlance]

I use both. I tote my Nikon N65 on most photo outings because it's light and I like being forced to think about setting up the shot but for shooting sports events and such I alternate between a Nikon D1H and a D100. I have to agree with -hh's comment about the problems saving digital formats over time. And Paul's comment about the romantic aspect of film.

[szark]

Almost exclusively digital, though I keep my Canon Rebel 35mm around for backup.

I sprung for a Canon D30 and have never regretted it -- though I would love to have that EOS 1Ds... :D

[Rower_CPU]

I got my first digital almost a year ago (Sony F707) and it's been great. My only gripes are not having bigger storage on the Memory Sticks...I go through 128MB in 60 shots, which is not good if you're out on a long shoot.

PS. -hh, love the Yellowstone shot. Visiting that park is why I got the digital in the first place. :)

[OutThere]

yea-sony digital 8 video camera, nice piece of machinery

[dkeninitz]

Yes, a 3mp model, but I still rely mostly on my Canon 35mm SLR. I scan my slides into PhotoImpact using a dedicated film scanner. When the Canon or Nikon 5mp models get down to around $400 - $500 I'll probably upgrade; guess that won't be for a while.

[runningman]

Sony 3.2 mp takes great shots the only problem is it occasionally focuses on a distant object. The colors are clear and my wife figured it out in no time which has saved me a fortune in film and developing has she can motor through 60 shots in a day. Then I dump them on my hard drive and figure out which ones we want. As far as memory capabilities on the sony they recently released a 256mb memory stick.

[chanoc]

Yes, I own an Olympus C-700 Ultra Zoom.:D

[-hh]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
What's your thoughts on the fact that the smaller CMOS sensor (as opposed to a 35mm neg size) causes the focal length of your lens to change?

I'm concerned that my 28mm lens would be too long and will have to drop some serious change on a wider angle lens.


I've run the numbers. Essentially, the smaller CMOS sensor is a good thing for telephoto, and a bad thing for wide angle.

So it really depends on your personal applications as to which end of the spectrum you're spending most of your money on glass.

If you're an amateur and you want broad flexibility, my very general rule of thumb is that if your lens selections are going to be based on your budget (and definition of how good you consider a "reasonably good" lens to be). Personally, my budget is ~$500/lens and my system thusly is limited to focal lengths between ~20mm and 300mm.

From this, if I apply the reduced size CMOS (which provides ~1.3x manification) these endpoints move to ~28mm and ~400mm respectively.

If I then want to get back down to ~20mm, I'll need to get something like the Canon EF EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, or 16-35mm f/2.8L USM, and the pocketbook damage is $800 or $1400 respectively to replace my current $400 lens.

For the other end, its a bit more complicated. The way I assess it is to assume 400mm as the standard, and then look at how expensive it is to move film up to there from 300mm. The reason I do this is because while I have 300mm, I'd really like to have more. There's a couple of options:

a) Simple post-production crop & zoom (cheap; what I'm doing now).

b) Use of a 1.4x converter (~$200). Be careful not to lose AF capability (body dependant).

c) Glass: get an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ($1400) instead of an EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS USM ($400)**

There's trades for all of the above - the first two lose some image resolution (although its probably not resolvable for a <6 megapixel system), the second also loses an f/stop, and while the third is the best way to go, it adds weight as well as cost.

Bottom line - there's no such thing as a free lunch.


-hh

** = although I'd much rather prefer the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) IS USM, as it works nicely both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, which provides 560mm @ f/5.6 and 800mm @ f/8. This enhancement runs a mere $5500...once I hit the lottery, its a mere pittance! :D

[Moxiemike]

I used to shoot on a VERY old and creaky Nikon up until 1999.

I used that nikon but never used it for any "professional" applications. That summer I bought a Nikon Coolpix 880 (after using one at my ad agency) and it was the darn coolest thing i had ever played with.

We used it for everything-- comp images, web images, all the way up to billboard graphics.

We started saving mad cash on stock photos. :) So i bought one, and soon went freelance. After awhile, I started to long for the flexibiility of my old nikon 35mm and bought a Fuji 602z. Interpolation BUGGED the heck out of me, and the artifacts on it just annoyed me so I returned it and got a Minolta 7i. Except that RITZ didn't have the 7i in stock, so i got a loaner 7 model. That thing ATE batteries, but was a neat camera, and the 7i, when i got it, had SUCH a quick AF (compared to the 880 and the 7)

My 7i however, was the victim fo a horrid accident, and my insurance covered enough to grab a 7hi. The speed of a 64mb buffer was awesome, but I started to see deficiencies when shooting high ISO for a client.

So In March I bought a d100. At $1699, it was affordable, I was able to start collecting lenses, and the quality REALLY blows away the P&S/Prosumer ilk of camera. 6mp is enough for now, and i have managed, with some slick PS knowledge, to get 8-9mp sized files out of it, when shooting in RAW.

I use the heck of out that nikon, and have essentially made my money back. (through acquiring a very large project which includes a gajillion product shots)

As far as wanting more pixels (anderson and eye. ;) ) I would love 10-12-14 or whatever. The difference is that i know the prices won't come down too much anytime soon, and I can use my 6mp in so many practical situations for clients that I can make a ton of money on it and afford one when they're down to around $2500.

Of course, i'm plugged into the whole Nikon system and yea...i'll be buying another. That said, the D100 will be the PERFECT backup camera.

The battery life is amazing (i've shot over 3k shots since getting it in march and have changed the battery five, yep, five times. amazing. 600 shots per charge. I dunno if i'm lucky or what....)

I'll also carry a N65 or N80 around when i can find one cheap on ebay, since my 19-35 lens becomes a 28-50 on the d100.

That said, for my applications, I don't think shooting film for anything other than the VERY odd landscape is worthwhile in the slightest. My workflow allows for digital, and is very loving. :)

I've printed 22*30's from the d100 and it's crisp sharp and amazing. With a cheap Nikon lens too! :)

And I recently got my first magazine credit. Shot with the D100. And the magazine people think i scanned my image in from a film camera. None the wiser!

Sorry for the long post. Felt it was pertinent to explain my digital camera oddessey. :D