This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Folks, I am a fan of Olympus MJU cameras and have been considering getting a new digital one. However, having spoken to a shop assistant about battery life it seems that you only get one day's use out of a digi camera before re-charging, which is obviously useless if you're off to the alps camping and have no access to power points (or 'Celebrity' Love Island, thank fcuk).
I am not impressed.
I am glad that this, apparently, does not seem to be another (yes another) essential of modern life. Remember life without mobile phones or personal computers? (Aaargh, I'm a victim). Anyway, what is wrong with film cameras?
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: the were shit qualty, and were expensive to have, as in buying film, developing. And how many picture do most people waste on a camera, but with digetal you can delete the rubbish ones. Then but them on your computer and email them to your granny in Australia, Basically a lot more, (i dont do the email to australia, but its a good point to make)
In reply to mac_climb:
Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
Battery life?
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
Battery life?
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: when i mean poor, its hard to explain, have you ever scanned a picture to a comptuer, and the tried to make it bigger well you can't and it so crap looking. well i have no idea why not in magazines, i guess they use very expensive cameras that give a very big pictuer, instead of the little post card size so it is ok, and mabye they dont want fake photos, In a climbing mag somebody climber glass, can be done.
In reply to mac_climb:
All my pics are scanned. I have never used a digi camera and as far as battery life goes, I really don't think I'll be converting unless someone can convince me of how I can get a reasonable use-to- charge ratio out of one of these new fangled contraptions.
All my pics are scanned. I have never used a digi camera and as far as battery life goes, I really don't think I'll be converting unless someone can convince me of how I can get a reasonable use-to- charge ratio out of one of these new fangled contraptions.
In reply to mac_climb:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the very fact that digi has pixels makes it less detailed/ accurate then any film shot?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the very fact that digi has pixels makes it less detailed/ accurate then any film shot?
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: i admit camera life is still a bit crap, but um why would you leave the camera on for a straight 24 hours seems a bit odd, unless you love taking picures all the time
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: nope, but when you scan the picture it gets pixels, and i think thats why when you scan them they turn shite.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: One option - camera that takes rechargeable AA size and a solar charger? Or there are solar chargers with attachments for mobile phones, laptops and presumably digi cameras.
I used to do everything on slide film, scanning some to PC but without spending silly money on a pro standard scanner dark or light slides always turned out looking shite and grainy, only the ones in the middle looked ok (though sort of retro 60's like you get in the big coffee table books of bonington's expeds that my parents had...)
On the subject of Olympus mju, the film cameras are great but I wouldn't touch a digi one - had a mju 400 and it broke (while in storage!) within the warranty, sent it back and they tried to charge me £100 to fix it. Then broke again 6 months later, had no excessive use. Also the delay between pressing shoot and the picture being taken was really annoying. Got a panasonic lumix now & really pleased with it (except for battery life!)
I used to do everything on slide film, scanning some to PC but without spending silly money on a pro standard scanner dark or light slides always turned out looking shite and grainy, only the ones in the middle looked ok (though sort of retro 60's like you get in the big coffee table books of bonington's expeds that my parents had...)
On the subject of Olympus mju, the film cameras are great but I wouldn't touch a digi one - had a mju 400 and it broke (while in storage!) within the warranty, sent it back and they tried to charge me £100 to fix it. Then broke again 6 months later, had no excessive use. Also the delay between pressing shoot and the picture being taken was really annoying. Got a panasonic lumix now & really pleased with it (except for battery life!)
In reply:
i might be being daft again here, but I think that the camera takes all the information hitting it and turns that into pixels rather then the scanning process. I am sure that digi still has a long way to go to eliminate this limitation...
i might be being daft again here, but I think that the camera takes all the information hitting it and turns that into pixels rather then the scanning process. I am sure that digi still has a long way to go to eliminate this limitation...
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
What exactly do you mean by composition?
My understanding of it would lead me to believe it would be entirely independent of format.
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
What exactly do you mean by composition?
My understanding of it would lead me to believe it would be entirely independent of format.
In reply to chris j:
I hear what you're saying. I am becoming less and less converted by the minute.
My wee battery for the MJU lasts about 10 rolls of film which is ok. The only real reasons I would go with another MJU camera is because of lens quality and supposed water resistance...
I hear what you're saying. I am becoming less and less converted by the minute.
My wee battery for the MJU lasts about 10 rolls of film which is ok. The only real reasons I would go with another MJU camera is because of lens quality and supposed water resistance...
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: when you scan a film picture to a computer, it has to has pixels, because you screen has pixels. So the original size is the biggestest you can get it because when you make it bigger you are strectching it so it goes crappy, if u dont get well, i dont blame you
In reply to karl walton:
You are quite right, either you can compose a photie or you can't. Digi seems to take the edge off the importance of trying to get it right first time. If you can look through a wee screen and see a mini version of what the end result will be then somehow it seems like cheating!
You are quite right, either you can compose a photie or you can't. Digi seems to take the edge off the importance of trying to get it right first time. If you can look through a wee screen and see a mini version of what the end result will be then somehow it seems like cheating!
In reply to mac_climb:
But to post things on here they invariably end up wee- er than they were in reality so the quality shouldn't be lost.
But to post things on here they invariably end up wee- er than they were in reality so the quality shouldn't be lost.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: yes so, if i were you i would keep to the film, until , whenever. Yep when you upload the picture it will be the size you scanned it so, it dont matter
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: Digi works for me and why not? I'm a punter and spent too much on normal film to get the odd decent photo. I have no intention of doing something for any magazine other than the club comic which has had more decent, readable stuff than most of what I've read on the shelves for a while. Composing is a piece of duff with digi screens and it isn't cheating in the same way anti-lock breaks aren't cheating.
if photography is a hobby then it'd be a different matter but for folks like me, digi produces more satisfactory photos resulting in a greater willingness to actually get the camera out in the first place.
I think digital has actually made photography more popular.
if photography is a hobby then it'd be a different matter but for folks like me, digi produces more satisfactory photos resulting in a greater willingness to actually get the camera out in the first place.
I think digital has actually made photography more popular.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Most magazines do accept digital material.
Switch off the monitor and you save stacks of power. Of course there are issues with temp, but if it is one of those titchy toy digi cams you want, then it shouldn't be a problem keeping it inside your layers.
The "Craft" is in the same place. It has just become more refined in terms of convenience of viewing results. In point of fact, ones composition skills are likely to develop quicker through the digi process due to experimentation and attempting to rectify the duff shots that with film you wouldn't know you had until you get home and process (by which time it is too late to try a different approach).
If that is still insufficiently pure, switch off your monitor and play "Lets pretend" you have a film camera and wait till you get home where you can proceed to kick yourself because you screwed up on that one shot that you really wanted.
jim.
> (In reply to mac_climb)
>
> Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
>
> Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
Most magazines do accept digital material.
> Battery life?
Switch off the monitor and you save stacks of power. Of course there are issues with temp, but if it is one of those titchy toy digi cams you want, then it shouldn't be a problem keeping it inside your layers.
> Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
The "Craft" is in the same place. It has just become more refined in terms of convenience of viewing results. In point of fact, ones composition skills are likely to develop quicker through the digi process due to experimentation and attempting to rectify the duff shots that with film you wouldn't know you had until you get home and process (by which time it is too late to try a different approach).
If that is still insufficiently pure, switch off your monitor and play "Lets pretend" you have a film camera and wait till you get home where you can proceed to kick yourself because you screwed up on that one shot that you really wanted.
jim.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
single battery charge can last several days with a little care - use the viewfinder & turn the screen off, don't keep looking at the photos on said screen & turn off when not being used. I've found a single charged battery for my Canon IXUS will last several days like that, 2 battery packs lasting for maybe 10 days/ 200+ images.
Or do all the above but buy a camera that uses AA batteries & if all else fails you buy some batteries (assuming you pass a village from time to time)
single battery charge can last several days with a little care - use the viewfinder & turn the screen off, don't keep looking at the photos on said screen & turn off when not being used. I've found a single charged battery for my Canon IXUS will last several days like that, 2 battery packs lasting for maybe 10 days/ 200+ images.
Or do all the above but buy a camera that uses AA batteries & if all else fails you buy some batteries (assuming you pass a village from time to time)
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: use lithium bateries rather than the usual pap, they last lots longer and even work in extreme cold
In reply to Doug: Recent digital cameras are much better at preserving battery life, and the battery technology has improved as well.
eg, Canon EOS 20D with LiIon battery does 1000 shots (same as 27 rolls of film!) on a single battery charge @ 20C, or 750 shots @ 0C.
When I went to Mexico for 3 weeks with my EOS 300D I only took 2 batteries, and they lasted for over 1000 shots with a lot of flash in the evenings and plenty of reviewing/deleting shots on the LCD.
eg, Canon EOS 20D with LiIon battery does 1000 shots (same as 27 rolls of film!) on a single battery charge @ 20C, or 750 shots @ 0C.
When I went to Mexico for 3 weeks with my EOS 300D I only took 2 batteries, and they lasted for over 1000 shots with a lot of flash in the evenings and plenty of reviewing/deleting shots on the LCD.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:Are you camping wild all the time if not the campsite will prob have a powerpoint or two for shaving in the loos. Are you driving out there? If so get an inverter from maplins for about £20 great for charging laptops radios cameras etc. Cafes are another option find one with a handy socket near a table and just pop in for coffee occasionally. If all else fails Cotswold do a handy packable solar panel designed for recharging...
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
>If you can look through a wee screen and see a mini version of what the end result will be then somehow it seems like cheating!
ROF, er do you mean with your present camera you do not use the viewfinder to compose the camera? Some guff been talked on this thread, better do a search for previous discussions on the merits of different cameras, and the links to photographic sites.
Now how much does a film cost and how much a set of spare,rechargeable batteries? If you have a set of batteries they should last at least as long as it takes to shoot the equivalent of two films, then change the batteries and carry on shooting.
The major problem by far is the delay in being ready to shoot and actually pressing the shutter, even the most expensive ones need to be readied unlike a film one where you can lift a camera to the eye with speed and aperture preset and shoot instantly. They also rarely have a cable release, This is disenfranchising thousands of disabled people who cannot press a shutter button.
For most people, most of the time Digital is good, but not all the time for all people. It is cheaper too than using film.
>If you can look through a wee screen and see a mini version of what the end result will be then somehow it seems like cheating!
ROF, er do you mean with your present camera you do not use the viewfinder to compose the camera? Some guff been talked on this thread, better do a search for previous discussions on the merits of different cameras, and the links to photographic sites.
Now how much does a film cost and how much a set of spare,rechargeable batteries? If you have a set of batteries they should last at least as long as it takes to shoot the equivalent of two films, then change the batteries and carry on shooting.
The major problem by far is the delay in being ready to shoot and actually pressing the shutter, even the most expensive ones need to be readied unlike a film one where you can lift a camera to the eye with speed and aperture preset and shoot instantly. They also rarely have a cable release, This is disenfranchising thousands of disabled people who cannot press a shutter button.
For most people, most of the time Digital is good, but not all the time for all people. It is cheaper too than using film.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: I have a Fuji S5500 with 1.2V - 2300mAh Ni-MH rechargeable batteries and it lasts about a week taking upwards of 100 photos per day!
The results from the camera are very good aswell. I think you can get one for about £200 now.
The results from the camera are very good aswell. I think you can get one for about £200 now.
In reply to sutty:
You might be better off with a digital SLR - instant on, no shutter delays and they will take a cable release. Although I know that compact digital cameras have got a lot faster in the last 18 months.
Cheers
> The major problem by far is the delay in being ready to shoot and actually pressing the shutter, even the most expensive ones need to be readied unlike a film one where you can lift a camera to the eye with speed and aperture preset and shoot instantly. They also rarely have a cable release, This is disenfranchising thousands of disabled people who cannot press a shutter button.
You might be better off with a digital SLR - instant on, no shutter delays and they will take a cable release. Although I know that compact digital cameras have got a lot faster in the last 18 months.
Cheers
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Who the hell told you that batteries in digital cameras lasted only a day? Maybe if you take 500 shots a day using the flash and have the LCD monitor on all the time. Under normal usage, I reckon on between 1 and 2 weeks (this is on a compact using 2 x AA size rechargables). Normal usage equates to the equivalent of a roll of film a day since you do take more shots with digital as to all intents and purposes they cost nothing once the kit is bought.
Of course, the camera manufacturers (and shop sales staff) are going to want to sell you new kit, but if you are happy with film then stick with it. The downsides are:
1. the ongoing cost of purchasing and developing films.
2. If you want the shots to appear on the web or you wish to email them to someone, then you will need to either have them scanned or purchase a slide scanner yourself.
There is nothing wrong with film cameras - I still have my Canon T90 - a truly excellent camera. I also have a film compact - Pentax Optio but havn't used it in years.
To Sutty:
My digital SLR (Nikon D70) has a remote trigger (extra cost - £15) that is probably suitable for those with limited hand movement. I don't know how far down the cost ladder you can go and still get this sort of feature. I can't remember seeing a cable release thread on any film compact, never mind a digital one. The T90 mentioned above could also use a remote cable release, but again it was IR not cable in operation.
Bob
Who the hell told you that batteries in digital cameras lasted only a day? Maybe if you take 500 shots a day using the flash and have the LCD monitor on all the time. Under normal usage, I reckon on between 1 and 2 weeks (this is on a compact using 2 x AA size rechargables). Normal usage equates to the equivalent of a roll of film a day since you do take more shots with digital as to all intents and purposes they cost nothing once the kit is bought.
Of course, the camera manufacturers (and shop sales staff) are going to want to sell you new kit, but if you are happy with film then stick with it. The downsides are:
1. the ongoing cost of purchasing and developing films.
2. If you want the shots to appear on the web or you wish to email them to someone, then you will need to either have them scanned or purchase a slide scanner yourself.
There is nothing wrong with film cameras - I still have my Canon T90 - a truly excellent camera. I also have a film compact - Pentax Optio but havn't used it in years.
To Sutty:
My digital SLR (Nikon D70) has a remote trigger (extra cost - £15) that is probably suitable for those with limited hand movement. I don't know how far down the cost ladder you can go and still get this sort of feature. I can't remember seeing a cable release thread on any film compact, never mind a digital one. The T90 mentioned above could also use a remote cable release, but again it was IR not cable in operation.
Bob
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Indeed, my D70 is so fast at startup and grabbing images that dpreview don't even give timings for shutter lag etc. : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page10.asp Of course you pay for this kind of performance.
I have been told that the Ricoh compacts are very fast with short to practically non-existant shutter lag but can't confirm it.
Bob
Indeed, my D70 is so fast at startup and grabbing images that dpreview don't even give timings for shutter lag etc. : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page10.asp Of course you pay for this kind of performance.
I have been told that the Ricoh compacts are very fast with short to practically non-existant shutter lag but can't confirm it.
Bob
In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Unfortunately people on invalidity benefit are unlikely to be able to afford SLRs, I know that the person I have been helping out on one site is using her mouth to type on her computer, supplied by a charity to control some of the lights and heating in her house. She is getting an adaptor made to press the shutter and looking for a cable release she can use with her mouth. Cable releases were on everything at one time, now it is only expensive cameras that have them. Not one compact seems to have them, but they have been warned that they need to make some to comply with DDA. Perhaps an eminent photographer who ends up disabled may take up the cause. DRC seems toothless.
Unfortunately people on invalidity benefit are unlikely to be able to afford SLRs, I know that the person I have been helping out on one site is using her mouth to type on her computer, supplied by a charity to control some of the lights and heating in her house. She is getting an adaptor made to press the shutter and looking for a cable release she can use with her mouth. Cable releases were on everything at one time, now it is only expensive cameras that have them. Not one compact seems to have them, but they have been warned that they need to make some to comply with DDA. Perhaps an eminent photographer who ends up disabled may take up the cause. DRC seems toothless.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Battery life is not too bad - certainly you can not go away without thinking about it, but a spare fully charged proprietary battery as well as the one in the camera would see most people through a two week holiday.
Shutter lag has been mentioned and is very much improved on many compact cameras compared to the earlier models for most landscapes that isn't a problem, but capturing someone completing a move might be awkward. Do note that although the shutter lag has been fixed getting the image onto the card has not on some cameras- so read the reviews in AP or on the web at http:www.dpreview.com.
If you are really are into taking hundreds of pictures then you need to either get massive numbers of storage cards or carry some form of download system around with you - this can be quite expensive/heavy/a security risk and so in that situation film might win out. On the other hand look at the number of pictures you take each year, what you do with them and how many you put in albums, put on the wall etc if its under 360 (10 films) you could get all you film photos scanned at the time of processing for less that the cost of the digital camera (which due to the fact that many of these cameras will be made obsolete through computer software updates, poor built quality and the fact that there is bound to be something so much better in 2 years).
Hope this helps - perhaps the best solution is to have both!
Battery life is not too bad - certainly you can not go away without thinking about it, but a spare fully charged proprietary battery as well as the one in the camera would see most people through a two week holiday.
Shutter lag has been mentioned and is very much improved on many compact cameras compared to the earlier models for most landscapes that isn't a problem, but capturing someone completing a move might be awkward. Do note that although the shutter lag has been fixed getting the image onto the card has not on some cameras- so read the reviews in AP or on the web at http:www.dpreview.com.
If you are really are into taking hundreds of pictures then you need to either get massive numbers of storage cards or carry some form of download system around with you - this can be quite expensive/heavy/a security risk and so in that situation film might win out. On the other hand look at the number of pictures you take each year, what you do with them and how many you put in albums, put on the wall etc if its under 360 (10 films) you could get all you film photos scanned at the time of processing for less that the cost of the digital camera (which due to the fact that many of these cameras will be made obsolete through computer software updates, poor built quality and the fact that there is bound to be something so much better in 2 years).
Hope this helps - perhaps the best solution is to have both!
In reply to Bob:
> (In reply to I am the God of Strathyre)
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with film cameras - I still have my Canon T90 - a truly excellent camera. I also have a film compact - Pentax Optio but havn't used it in years.
I can't remember seeing a cable release thread on any film compact, never mind a digital one. The T90 mentioned above could also use a remote cable release, but again it was IR not cable in operation.
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with film cameras - I still have my Canon T90 - a truly excellent camera. I also have a film compact - Pentax Optio but havn't used it in years.
>
Olympus sold an optional IR release for the (film) Mju II, it was not expensive, about £20 I think In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
The magazines generally won't accept small sized digital shots, or size altered shots from home, as they need a large base to compress them down for printing. [the bigger the image the better]. If the digital shot has a large megabite sizeit usually compresses well enough for print & keeps it's quality.
Battery Life? - Buy some high quality rechargeables & a charger.
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi? - There is still a need for the photographer to have 'an eye' for the composition, especially when it comes to explaining a climbs steepness, capturing a moment of desperation, or run-out terror or the shere overall aesthetic atmosphere of a climb. The best slr equipment on the planet is just a plain metal box with dials if you don't have this.
> (In reply to mac_climb)
>
> Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
> Battery life?
> Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
>
> Why won't magazines accept digi shots for publication then if film shots are poor quality?
> Battery life?
> Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi?
The magazines generally won't accept small sized digital shots, or size altered shots from home, as they need a large base to compress them down for printing. [the bigger the image the better]. If the digital shot has a large megabite sizeit usually compresses well enough for print & keeps it's quality.
Battery Life? - Buy some high quality rechargeables & a charger.
Where's the craft in developing your composition skills in digi? - There is still a need for the photographer to have 'an eye' for the composition, especially when it comes to explaining a climbs steepness, capturing a moment of desperation, or run-out terror or the shere overall aesthetic atmosphere of a climb. The best slr equipment on the planet is just a plain metal box with dials if you don't have this.
In reply:
I am gathering from replies so far that only some digi cameras have a usable longish term of battery life.
That is basically what the post was to find about. However, I don't doubt that battery technology is going to take a huge leap forward and this longevity problem will be sorted out (look at the leaps in mobile phone technology in the last 3 years).
I don't doubt that digi cameras are more then adequate for my 'level' (which is just for snaps of good days out) so I think at this stage I'll just hold onto my 35mm MJU camera as it is an excellent piece of kit.
I am gathering from replies so far that only some digi cameras have a usable longish term of battery life.
That is basically what the post was to find about. However, I don't doubt that battery technology is going to take a huge leap forward and this longevity problem will be sorted out (look at the leaps in mobile phone technology in the last 3 years).
I don't doubt that digi cameras are more then adequate for my 'level' (which is just for snaps of good days out) so I think at this stage I'll just hold onto my 35mm MJU camera as it is an excellent piece of kit.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Of the three cameras that I have experience of, the shortest battery life is at least two weeks and that is quite an old (by digital camera standards) compact model. The quoted battery life for my wife's camera is 800-1000 shots depending on temperature and usage of LCD.
One further point is that both compacts use AA batteries which means that a lot of the volume of the battery store is taken up by the cases. Cameras that have dedicated battery packs typically have longer life as there is less casing per volume of battery. The downside is that you cannot nip into just about any shop and purchase them like you can AAs.
Bob
Of the three cameras that I have experience of, the shortest battery life is at least two weeks and that is quite an old (by digital camera standards) compact model. The quoted battery life for my wife's camera is 800-1000 shots depending on temperature and usage of LCD.
One further point is that both compacts use AA batteries which means that a lot of the volume of the battery store is taken up by the cases. Cameras that have dedicated battery packs typically have longer life as there is less casing per volume of battery. The downside is that you cannot nip into just about any shop and purchase them like you can AAs.
Bob
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
I have been using a borrowed Olympus C220 digital camera lately - not at all top of the range - and the batteries last for several days, as said above, especially if you don't use the screen, just the viewfinder and don't play about with the zoom too much.
To charge them it's easy enough in a campsite or in a car on the lighter socket. If you were away from it all for several weeks there are solar chargers for not too much, or just carry a few ordinary batteries. The camera is so much lighter than my old reflex (Canon) that I could carry a dozen batterries and still be less than half the weight. The lens isn't so good though, but the price difference accounts for this, not the different technology.
The only fragile thing I've noticed on the Olympus is the lens cover which will jam the lens if you don't wait for the click when closing it and this will damage the mechanism (same for the MJU, I think?)
It works out so much cheaper than slides if you don't want to project your photos and concerning the creativity I don't really see the difference between cropping with software or when you crop your own prints during enlargement... or use filters.
The advantage of digital is that you can often recover an underexposed shot, and make adjustments for colour cast and so on, in many ways it can be more creative as not many people are able to master colour printing techniques, with a PC it's easy and costs nothing.
Digital is more ecological too.
It won't give you the very rare spendid slide that a you can show to a whole group of people though... the question is do you need this?
I have been using a borrowed Olympus C220 digital camera lately - not at all top of the range - and the batteries last for several days, as said above, especially if you don't use the screen, just the viewfinder and don't play about with the zoom too much.
To charge them it's easy enough in a campsite or in a car on the lighter socket. If you were away from it all for several weeks there are solar chargers for not too much, or just carry a few ordinary batteries. The camera is so much lighter than my old reflex (Canon) that I could carry a dozen batterries and still be less than half the weight. The lens isn't so good though, but the price difference accounts for this, not the different technology.
The only fragile thing I've noticed on the Olympus is the lens cover which will jam the lens if you don't wait for the click when closing it and this will damage the mechanism (same for the MJU, I think?)
It works out so much cheaper than slides if you don't want to project your photos and concerning the creativity I don't really see the difference between cropping with software or when you crop your own prints during enlargement... or use filters.
The advantage of digital is that you can often recover an underexposed shot, and make adjustments for colour cast and so on, in many ways it can be more creative as not many people are able to master colour printing techniques, with a PC it's easy and costs nothing.
Digital is more ecological too.
It won't give you the very rare spendid slide that a you can show to a whole group of people though... the question is do you need this?
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: I use the Sony T1 camera. I can take around 200 photos (at 5mp) and spend maybe 40-50 minutes showing people the pics and vids (at 640-480, 30 frames a second I think).
Good points - very small (no 'is that a canoe in your pocket..') upto 5mega pixel, good quality videos, easy to use, lots of manual settings ie iso, multi focus, quick multi burst, ready to take a photo within about 2 seconds. huge 2.5inch display, in good light you can turn off the back lit display and still see the picture well.
Bad points - crap at low light conditions, sony own memory and batterys are expensive but very good otherwise, no view finder so u have to use the large display. Easy to use, even the manual settings. good point and click too.
Using normal AA batterys (especially with a flash) means they don't last long especilly with my old Nikon 2100 but otherwise that was a great camera with the rechargable batterys.
Good points - very small (no 'is that a canoe in your pocket..') upto 5mega pixel, good quality videos, easy to use, lots of manual settings ie iso, multi focus, quick multi burst, ready to take a photo within about 2 seconds. huge 2.5inch display, in good light you can turn off the back lit display and still see the picture well.
Bad points - crap at low light conditions, sony own memory and batterys are expensive but very good otherwise, no view finder so u have to use the large display. Easy to use, even the manual settings. good point and click too.
Using normal AA batterys (especially with a flash) means they don't last long especilly with my old Nikon 2100 but otherwise that was a great camera with the rechargable batterys.
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Another vote for the 'the shop assistant was talking out of his arse' camp. I have a Kodak digital camera which I took to south america for a month. I took around 700 photos and videos, and only needed to charge the camera once.
When I got home I trawled through them all, selected the 200 best and sent them off to be printed at 5x7, total cost £40. To sift out the same 200 photos out of 700 film prints would be vastly more expensive.
Essentially if you're a serious photographer than there is still a lot of mileage to be had with 35mm. If you're a punter (and let's face it, the vast majority of us are - even those who know a bit about depth of field and shutter speeds and the rule of thirds etc) then going digital is a no brainer.
> However, having spoken to a shop assistant about battery life it seems that you only get one day's use out of a digi camera before re-charging
Another vote for the 'the shop assistant was talking out of his arse' camp. I have a Kodak digital camera which I took to south america for a month. I took around 700 photos and videos, and only needed to charge the camera once.
When I got home I trawled through them all, selected the 200 best and sent them off to be printed at 5x7, total cost £40. To sift out the same 200 photos out of 700 film prints would be vastly more expensive.
Essentially if you're a serious photographer than there is still a lot of mileage to be had with 35mm. If you're a punter (and let's face it, the vast majority of us are - even those who know a bit about depth of field and shutter speeds and the rule of thirds etc) then going digital is a no brainer.
In reply to Alun:
Rule of thirds? I am not having my pictures cut into three just to satisfy some photographic comp judge. Imagine it, legs on one bit of paper, torso on the next and head on the next. Imagine the confusion when the processor drops a boxful of prints and tries to put them together again.
Marc Cs head with JCTs body and Satoris legs.
Rule of thirds? I am not having my pictures cut into three just to satisfy some photographic comp judge. Imagine it, legs on one bit of paper, torso on the next and head on the next. Imagine the confusion when the processor drops a boxful of prints and tries to put them together again.
Marc Cs head with JCTs body and Satoris legs.
In reply to Alun:
Whereas my panasonic does last for a day at most (tiny battery and lcd display double the normal size) so depending what camera he was talking about it might not have been out of his arse! Don't be so hasty...
> (In reply to I am the God of Strathyre)
> [...]
>
> Another vote for the 'the shop assistant was talking out of his arse' camp. I have a Kodak digital camera which I took to south america for a month. I took around 700 photos and videos, and only needed to charge the camera once.
> [...]
>
> Another vote for the 'the shop assistant was talking out of his arse' camp. I have a Kodak digital camera which I took to south america for a month. I took around 700 photos and videos, and only needed to charge the camera once.
Whereas my panasonic does last for a day at most (tiny battery and lcd display double the normal size) so depending what camera he was talking about it might not have been out of his arse! Don't be so hasty...
In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: allright mate, the problem with the Mju digi is that it is one of these batteries which is recharge only. Ive just bought a Sony and this takes rechargeable AA as well as normall AA batteries, much more practical.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...