I'll jump in, although I think I will tend to agree with most of the
previous statements.
I've owned a lower end digital camera for the last three years (although it
wasn't that low-end when I bought it). I like it, and still use it for
'family snapshots', but it was actually heavy use of the digicam that
brought me back to film:
1) Low ASA -- I shoot a lot of sports. Can't do it well with a consumer
level digital, particularly indoor sports. I like to acutally see my
children, not just colored blurs.
2) Focusing -- I suspect autofocus on better cameras is better, but the
combination of slow focus and shutter lag is a huge problem for me. I'm not
a Manual focus bigot. I want AF.
3) Quality -- I don't care if you buy the D1 and the best lenses, you're
just not getting the same amount of information I can get from a 4000dpi
scan.
I've got more, but you get the idea. So, I shoot negative film. I have it
processed at the grocery, where they all know me, and they do a great,
careful job with their automated processor. They're high-volume, so they
always have fresh chemicals and they properly maintain the equipment. Best
of all: $1.99 and 20 minute (usually 15 minute) service.
The remaining effort is a lot of work though. Scan, cleanup in photoshop,
and print the keepers is very, very timeconsuming. The roll film adapter
will help, no question.
As for storage, I actually save the originals in compressed TIFF files.
50-65mb each, so 10 to a CD. Do I care about that? Nope. I can usually
find a 50-pack of CD blanks with a rebate that makes them free, yes, free,
about once a month. Heck, even full price, I get a 100-pack a the WalMart
for $10. Just bought some for free this week. Combine that with a 16x
burrner that can burn a CD in 5 minutes, and storage isn't my problem. I
always burn two, one for the house and one for off-site storage.
Now, having said that, I'll dump the whole thing and switch to digital as
soon as I can get the results that I want. Getting the image directly into
the computer is a dream for me. I need a few things though, some of them
repeats from above:
1) 15-20 megapixels. Anything less and I'll stick with film
2) CCD as big as a 35mm frame. I don't want my 21mm to be a 35mm.
3) Speed. I want it to take pictures fast and save pictures fast. No
missing shots waiting for the camera's processor
4) High ASA. Anything less than 400, and preferably 800, doesn't cut it. I
am willing to live with small quality compromises when I have to go high
ASA. But I mean small.
5) Good, and I mean, good autofocus. I'd love to be able to rely on the
camera for that.
6) A system camera. I want something that can give me the equivalent of the
OM system. In particularly, a well thought out and implemented macro system.
An equally good OTF (OTCCD) flash system. You get the idea
7) Cheap storage. The IBM Microdrive is only 1Gb. That won't cut it if I
want original TIFF quality images. Remember, 50-60MB a piece. Storage
still has to come down in price first.
8) Reasonably affordable. I don't mean cheap, I mean fairly comparable to
equivalent pro equipment. I know the investment is going to be huge. Until
they fix (2) above, the lenses alone will kill me.
I know the 'buzz' is that we're there now, or a year away. I don't believe
it. I think we're 4-6 years away. Will I dump the OM then?
Yep.
Course I'll always keep my original OM-1.
Tom
From: <DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx>
<Excellent digital vs. film musings>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|