I got the Sony DSC-F707:Originally posted by dukestreet
I love them. I've been taking pictures for almost 20 years now and when I finally got a digital camera that could take high res pics I've found myself using that instead the old 35mm because its so easy. I end up scanning in all the slides and film anyway, so for candid shots its the best way to go. I'll still have a 35mm around, because the quality is still better.
Congrats on the new camera - what type did you get, btw?
I dont know.... I am currently working on being the first PPA member to get a masters without ever shooting film profesionally. I have gotten portrait results up to 30x40 inches that rival the output you would get from 35 mm film at that size, and come close to 645, and 8x10-20x24 results that are indestiguishable from film. Currently using the D1X, and they will only get betterOriginally posted by dukestreet
the quality is still better.
D1X is Nikons Pro Digital SLR and is at almost 6 mega pixels it produces a 17 megabite file. Which is just a bit more info than you would get scaning a neg at 8x10 250 DPI. From there I have a few tricks in photoshop that I dont to fool the eye into thinking it is looking at a print from film, There are some distinguishable differences between digital and film and I just try to minimise those, simple stuf you can really do whatever you want. After all the digital work is done I use a program called Genuine Fractals by altimira group to upsize the file in 50% increments, it is a much more powerful tool for upsizing files than photoshop is and very effective. Final output is done on a lightjet printer that is exposing regular RC photopapers and the prints are wonderful. The hardest part is getting the color right, especially in Portraiture.Originally posted by Grokgod
What is a DX1, what are the specs, in order to understand how your getting these results.
Ouch... $1000 for a camera??? Does it make coffee, your bed, and make dates for you too??? Man, the $400 I paid for the scanner is looking smarter and smarter all the time.Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Here's a link to the Sony page for my camera...for those interested:
The great thing I read in the reviews about this camera is the overall picture quality...plus the price tag is damn fine for a 5+MP.
Keep in mind that's the list price. You can find it for around 700 online.Originally posted by AlphaTech
Ouch... $1000 for a camera??? Does it make coffee, your bed, and make dates for you too??? Man, the $400 I paid for the scanner is looking smarter and smarter all the time.
Never mind that I paid only a couple of hundred for my SLR, with a 35-80 zoom, and it uses the 75-300 zoom that I already had. I can get larger or smaller lenses as I want later, to expand it's capabilities.
Really??? How the F do you attach them?? It doesn't look like you can replace the lense tube with a different one, so it has to be attachments that go onto the end (i.e. very non-Scottish).Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Telephoto and wide-angle lenses are available for digital cameras too you know.
Yes, they are attachments that go on the end.Originally posted by AlphaTech
Really??? How the F do you attach them?? It doesn't look like you can replace the lense tube with a different one, so it has to be attachments that go onto the end (i.e. very non-Scottish).
Considering how I can get lenses over 700mm for my camera, if I want to lug one of those around, I don't see it coming close to competing with my film camera.
The day that a digital camera passes the quality of my scanner/SLR combo, and is the same price I paid for my SLR body (with a good zoom lense too), is the day I seriously consider switching.Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yes, they are attachments that go on the end.
Digital hasn't passed film quality yet...but it's definitely getting there. Just look at Foveon.
Let's discuss cost and time a little bit.Originally posted by AlphaTech
The day that a digital camera passes the quality of my scanner/SLR combo, and is the same price I paid for my SLR body (with a good zoom lense too), is the day I seriously consider switching.
Unfortunately (for the digital camera makers), I will always want/need black and white film capability. When I actually get a house, I will be setting up a black and white photo lab inside it, just so that I can make my own prints that way.
With the way things are now, that will be in about 5-7 years or so. Since I will want at least the truck paid for, and the Harley mostly paid for before I go into a house. By then, who knows where technology will be.
Film is still cheaper then the media you store digital images with. To get really high quality images with a digital camera, you need to get a lot of media. Otherwise your shooting session is cut short.Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Let's discuss cost and time a little bit.
How much do you spend on film? Processing?
What happens if you mess up a shot on film vs digital?
These are some of the other key factors for me. I want to take my pictures and be able to use them immediately.
Initially film is cheaper true. A 512 MB card is costing around 250$ these days, well as a profesional it is fairly easy to burn more than that in film every month so say I buy six cards more than enough, after 6 months there is no film cost 0 not only is there no cost but that translates into profit for me so after another 6 months it is like the cards were free, and after that well you get the picture...And that doesnt even take into consideration the processing costs, sure some people love to develop thier own film and be in the darkroom but this is only a matter of preference I will take my powerbook and Digi any day over a smelly a@@ darkroom full of chemicals I have been there plenty no thanks. Not to mention that once you have the neg if you want any digital manipu;ation capabilities you have to scan it. You guys make scanning film sound like a pleasure, well it is a pain, it is too time consuming I have owned and worked on plenty of film scanners from 100 scanners to 10,000 dollar scanners and none of them were fun. They are only one step in taking film to a digital file and in my opinion one that can be avoided completely.Originally posted by AlphaTech
Film is still cheaper then the media you store digital images with.
Many people that do their own processing don't do it for the cost savings, but more for the pleasure in creating.
I guess it all comes down to what you like.
Well, I can tell you that using the Epson scanner is a snap... you slip the film into the holder, put it on the glass, make sure you have the cover off the lid so that you get the second lamp, and scan away. You get to set the resolution along with several other settings to tweak the scan as you make it. Then it's up to you to do as you want with the image.You guys make scanning film sound like a pleasure, well it is a pain, it is too time consuming I have owned and worked on plenty of film scanners from 100 scanners to 10,000 dollar scanners and none of them were fun. They are only one step in taking film to a digital file and in my opinion one that can be avoided completely.