Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

How good are digital cameras ?

Ravi 16 4
27 Jul 2002 11:33AM
I am new to photography and recently purchased a Dynax 5 about 6 months ago. One of the main reasons for choosing an SLR is that there is great flexibility with lens choices and also with the exposure settings etc. However, the downside is that as a novice, I need to uses rolls of film before I see my results and this can be expensive too.

I am apprehensive about buying a digital camera as once you've got it you're stuck with it (unless one gets a hugely expensive digital SLR). Do 5Meg DC's take macro shots and how good are they ? What are they like with extreme zooms ?

Any recommendations ?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

J-P 15 396
27 Jul 2002 12:46PM
You have the smallest, lightest SLR in the world. It has multi mode auto, a spot meter, auto bracketing, very fast AF and a battery that lasts 3600 shots. It can also shoot at 3fps. No digital camera could do this let alone in a 335g body. Anything close will be very expensive. Lenses are cheap and plentiful. Sure you have to buy film but you can get Sensia 100 36 exp for 1.90 a roll. You still have to print off digital images to really see results and this takes time. Save time and money and stick with your Dynax.
Ravi 16 4
27 Jul 2002 2:02PM
Thank you - you have confirmed my suspicions and reassured me.
cdxpat 15 3
29 Jul 2002 7:10AM

I had invested a lot in Nikon lenses and have also owned a few digital cameras some good some not so good. All were great in good light most sucked in bad light. Digital has trashed the low end market (take a look at the next wedding or meal out you go to)

I just jumped in and bought a Nikon D100. As an average photographer who still points and shoots quite a lot Digital has a lot of benefits. I can just delete what i dont like and with the D100 i can use all the cool lenses and effects and see the results as i take them. Plus i have full control of the post processing including colouring cropping etc. And an awful lot of output now is going onto email, the web or CD so taking direct digital is a much better way to go (scanning is slow digital protography).

However like all emerging technologies things it still isnt quite there where you can get the quality, the ease of use, the capacity and the flexibility that you can in the film world. And its still expensive. The three basic components memory CPU and imaging devices are all there - film still has a benefit of standard and very cheap media.

Probably one more generation of cameras and printers needed in my opinion to get everything in the box and after that the only thing that will change is the price downwards which still needs to happen. I suspect my D100 will be a white elephant in two years and i'm sure Nikon, Minolta etc will have a new range of Digital SLRs twice as good at half the price.

I dont see a lot more new film SLRs coming out and i think thats a clear sign of whats happening in the market.

Now if i were shooting a wedding i'd take the film SLR. For eveything else i'll take the digital.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.