Analogue vs Digital.

wolfgang

wolfgang

Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
814
Reaction score
0
Location
Scotland
Since going the digital route years ago I have not been really interested in any of the digital Slr as in my mind they are expensive toys for what they offer. Is the Canon EOS 350D the one that will change all that?
inhand02-001.jpg
 
I have to admit, if I had the money, I'd get a Nikon digi SLR body and use my lenses (all two of them!) from my F301; digital isn't as userfriendly (IMHO) for night time etc, but it's getting better all the time...
 
The image quality produced by DSLRs is far in advance of anything a P&S can do, and in many cases, it now exceeds what film can do, especially at greater than ISO400.

I've just sold my EOS D30 and EOS 3, and will be ordering myself an EOS 20D this week. My father has a 20D, and since he got it he's put only 1 roll of film through his EOS 1v, which he's thinking of selling. The 20D is not perfect, and I'd rather have a 1DSII, but haven't got that kind of money. The ISO1600 performance of the 20D on an A4 print walks all over any ISO800 film.

However, wait a week or two. Nikon are about to release the D50 and D70s. The D70 truly beat the EOS 300D although it was a little more expensive. The D50 is aimed to be cheaper than the 350D, although it will likely lack quite a few features as the 300D did. The 350D is a big step up on the 300D. Once the D50 is a known quantity then you'll be in a better position to make the call.
 
I haven't tried the nikons dom. I've been shooting with canon EOS since 1991 and have far too much invested in the canon system with no good reason to switch. However, Nikon know what they're doing and the D70 was a superb camera (far better than the EOS 300D, and pushed pretty hard at the 10D as well). The D100 is hopelessly outdated now, and the D70s (update on the D70) will probably replace it and the D70 at a slightly higher price, with the D50 taking a lower price point.

The problem Nikon have is that they don't have Canon's R&D budget, and they're also reliant on other people (mainly sony) for their sensors and image processing engines. Canon are the only digital camera manufacturer to produce their own sensors (and Canon's CMOS sensors have gained an excellent reputation) and image processing engines (DiGiC and DiGiC II, both of which are again very highly regarded).
 
Isaac Sibson said:
it now exceeds what film can do, especially at greater than ISO400
Click to expand...

No way Jose, digital cameras are for taking snaps.

For photographs you need a film camera.
 
Except that film resolution is limited by the silver halide grains and the top digitals exceed that level of resolution at ISO100 with dynamic range similar to or greater than slide film. At higher ISOs resolution is not lost, unlike with film. You can produce a better 30"x20" print from an EOS 1DS or 1DSII than from a 35mm film negative. I suggest a read of Michael Reichmann's reviews of the EOS 1DS and comparisons to drum scanned 35mm film and medium format. For a quick summary, the 1DS beat the 100 ISO 35mm and ran ISO100 6x7 extremely close. The EOS 1DSII offers higher resolution and lower noise than the EOS 1DS did, so the advantage grows further.
 
But the end results speak for themselves.

A photograph comes from film, a snap shot comes from a digital chip.
 
Levi my GF is a pro social photographer and for studio shots she uses digital. Blads are used for weddings but only because
a) people expect it
b) 6x6 suits formal wedding shots
but they could be done digital.
A digital SLR will produce 40' by 30' prints. That's 40 by 30 inches not centimetres.
 
Levi_501 said:
But the end results speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. And a 30"x20" print from a decent digital SLR slays film.

A photograph comes from film, a snap shot comes from a digital chip.
Click to expand...

Nicely reasoned argument there.

A photograph is a piece of art created by the photographer. The means to generating it are largely irrelevant. Digital produces higher image quality with much greater flexibility (no changing film, change ISO on the fly, no expense to bracketing, etc) at much lower environmental impact (delete the rubbish without printing, no nasty chemicals involved in the D&P process, etc).
 
A clueless newbie asks ...

.. for any suggestions for a good digital camera? In particular, could I use lenses from my analogue Pentax SLR camera on a digital SLR camera? What would be a reasonable ballpark figure to get results equivalent to a mid-range analogue SLR? I was an enthuiasatic amateur photographer a while back and did a fair amount of developing and printing, but am out of touch with regards to the 'state of the art' in photography.
 
Hi Joe,
I believe the Pentax *ist series of digital SLRs have a PKA mount so will take your Pentax PKA or PK lenses. From what I have seen they are very good. If you want to leave Pentax then I reccomend the Nikon D70 or as Isaac says wait for the D50 or D70s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As A0S says, Pentax have their own DSLRs that will use your lenses. Otherwise there are the nikon and canon models. The canon 300D can be picked up around £500 with its kit lens.
 
Who makes the guts for older Olympus? I have a D-SLR (non-changeable lens) 1400XL from 2000 that still kicks arse image-wise, even though it's only 1.3 mp (very sharp) - although its low-light focusing performance is crap!
 
do digital cameras still have that glacial wait between pressing the button and it taking the picture? thus ensuring you get a picture of someones arse, foot or an empty shot?
if not which ones are best for eliminating this kind of thing?
cheers


julian.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top