>That's smaller than the _film_ size I want to use. Seriously, I have a
>few 5*4" sheet film cameras. Perhaps that's why I don't think digital
>cameras have even marginally useable resolution.
I don't suppose you happen to know about the availability of
materials for a camera that expects to shoot to glass slides? I'll
admit I've never really researched it for the simple fact I don't
really expect to be able to use that 3D camera.
I'm not worried about having to do my own developing, I used to do a
lot of that. Though I don't have any place to do it at the moment if
it has to be done in a well ventilated location.
> > Kodak 3.1-Megapixel model we have with the Kodak photo printer
> > actually produces results that are about as good as film based!
>
>Kodak cammeas had better have improved since the ones I've worked on,
>then. I can't think of a single Kodak -- including the Retina and Retina
>Reflex -- that's well built.
The build quality is my chief concern about the camera. It feels
like cheap junk, and I pray that it lasts till we're ready to replace
it! I also don't like the unresponsiveness of it, it isn't good for
getting quick shots, or several rapid shots. Having said this, it
does produce nice 3.1 Megapixel pictures.
I wish Nikon would get something like their D70 up to the 11M-pixel
range (the D70 is 6.1), just as well they haven't though, it would be
a bit to hard to resist. The other thing I don't like about the D70,
is it's USB 1.1 (ouch!).
>I can well believe that a Kodak digital camera produces results about as
>good as a Kodak P&S, but I will not believe that a 3M pixel camera can
>produce results as good as a _good_ 35mm camera (Leica, Nikon, old
>Contax, etc), let alone medium or large format film cameras.
I'm not about to claim that *ANY* digital camera can produce as good
of results as a good 35mm camera. The choice between digital and
film really depends on several factors, with the use of the picture
being probably the key factor. If you're going to web, or DVD (I
make Widescreen Anamorphic DVD home movies) then digital is the way
to go, and for DVD 1M-pixel is good enough. If you're going to print
it in a publication then digital or film will work, but a Pro digital
camera is likely the best choice. If you're doing portrait or art
photography, film wins hands down, and preferably the medium or large
format film.
Another factor is cost, for a parent with a young child a digital
camera is great because you can afford to shoot tons of photos. In
the past year, my wife and I have shot more than 2,500 pictures, we
couldn't afford to do that with a film camera!
>FWIW, doing your own camera repairs is not that hard, and great fun. Keep
I repaired the 50mm lens for my Nikon in the late 80's when I was
sitting on a ship in the middle of the Persian Gulf. While I can
work on things like that, I prefer not to. For one thing my hands
really aren't steady enough any more.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh_at_aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 17:17:05 BST