SLOT: THE Advantage Of Old(er) 35mm SLRs vs Digital.

[S8 Booster]

My kids got a HP DigiCam something with 3.2 mPix some time ago and allthough the thing takes "ok" pictures for its capacity it EATS batteries.

Not only will the RAM(BO) be filled up too soon but batteries are worn out in 1-2-3. With those cams they want to "see" the images alle the time too which also costs battery life of course.


Another 2 reasons to stay with my excellent old Ricoh XR2 - a contemporary of the popular Pentax 1000 and Practica cams of the 70´s.
My cam, and I guess many of those of the day can shoot even if their batteries die. The XR2 will be operate and will shoot all manual at a fixed 1/90th of a second so if there is film there will be images whatever.

Relief to me anyway.

Not to mention the wind up 8mm/S8 cams vs video ;-)

R

[Bunner]

The Hp digital cams that use batteries are awful. The place i used to work had one that was supposed to be 2-3megapixel and they used it for reference shots for web.. and the image resolution looked bad, and seemed like it was only thousands of colors instead of millions. I have used Canon digital, it seemed that the color balance has always been good, even when compared to a fuji professional digital slr. my little canon looked like like it had more yellows and reds rather than that drab blue look. See what everyone else thinks.. If i were to buy, id go canon digital. i want to get the digital rebel slr. seems like a good price point too. make sure you get a rechargable battery camera, no matter which brand you buy.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I have a Nikon coolpix 5700, and it takes really good pictures.

I think a 5 megapix camera is really the lowest you should go, if you want good pictures. A 3 mpix is just too little.

And yes, a rechargable battery (or if they use standard AA batteries, get some rechargable ones!) is necessary. If you have a fresh non-rechargable battery always with you as a backup, you will never run out of batteries.

But hey, if you keep on looking at all the pictures all the time, it isn´t strange if the camera eats batteries!

[downix]

Rating a camera by megapixels is about as smart as rating a car by how many barrels the carbeurator has. Sure, it sounds impressive, but the pixels don't actually tell you much.

Example, the above mentioned Coolpix 5700 has as large a sensor as a Fuji Finepix 601. The Fuji is a 3MP vs the Coolpix's 5MP. If you compare the two pictures (4x6 on a true photo machine, like a Fuji Fronteer), you will be hard pressed to spot a lick of difference.

Now, let's compare the same Coolpix 5700 with the Sony Cybershot T1. The Sony is also a 5 megapixel, but its sensor is about half the size of the 5700's. If you print pictures from the T1 and compare to the Coolpix, the Nikon blows the T1's doors off when it comes to picture clarity, color accuracy, and sharpness of image.

The most impressive camera I've delt with in the past few years remains the Panasonic FZ-20, not because of it's 5 megapixels (we have 8's and even 10's and 12's on the shelf at work) but because of the clarity of image it gives. Want to know the FZ-20's secret? That handy piece of glass on the front is a Leica. Even the FZ1, a 2MP camera, when combined with that Leica glass, gives pictures that blow away cameras with twice the pixel count. And it is a fixed-apeture lens too, 2.8, combined with image stabilization. This means a sharp picture even at maximum magnification.

I'd note the sensor in the FZ-20 is the same size as the one in the 5700, it is the lens that makes all of the difference in the world.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Sure, I didn´t mean pixels is everything you need to think about.

But if you want to be able to make bigger prints the pixels sure are good to have, a good 3mpx is not as good as a good 5mpix.

But 2 good 5mpix give different results too, it is only logical.

[downix]

Actually, I've seen 2MP's that give better big-print results than some 5MP's.

It's a combination of factors in the end, and saying "you need x number of pixels" is an easy way to get snookered into marketing hype.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Really? Must have been shitty cameras (the ones with 5mpix).

Well thanks for the lesson, there is always something to learn as long as we live

[downix]

Most definately.

They were the ones with smaller-than-normal sensors paired against 2mp's with larger-than-normal sensors. The smaller the sensor, the less light hits each pixel, which means a reduction in the quality of image. The Pentax 4 and 5MP's are infamous for this, heavy digital noise in images with less-than-ideal lighting.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I wonde rhow the Canon XL2 compares to the XL1S in low light....

I actually called Canon to see if they had any useful knowledge, but the guy was reading from a datasheet saying "it says that the XL2 has a lower minimum light so I guess it is better..."

Great. How skilful and intelligent their staff is.

The XL1S has relatively few pixels, wich should give more light to each pixel, wich should give better results in low-light conditions.

I explained this to the guy, but it was a waste of time.

Check this http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php for info about pixel-count on the Canons.

[downix]

Hmm, why not find out? A friend of mine has an XL1S and I know someone else with an XL2. Can't hurt to figure this out, could it?

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

That would be great!

I have been thinking of getting me a XL2, but if it is not as good as the XL1S I sure won´t.

Please let me know if you give it a try!

[S8 Booster]

But hey, if you keep on looking at all the pictures all the time, it isn´t strange if the camera eats batteries!

Isn´t that half the fun (for most users :?: ) :twisted:

R

[S8 Booster]

The Hp digital cams that use batteries are awful. The place i used to work had one that was supposed to be 2-3megapixel and they used it for reference shots for web.. and the image resolution looked bad, and seemed like it was only thousands of colors instead of millions.......

............make sure you get a rechargable battery camera, no matter which brand you buy.

I have rechargables but I will still need a "gun belt" with batteries to make it firmly operatable.

Sample image from the el-cheapo HP735 photosmart 3.2 mpix for reference.

Click Image to see original image:


R

[Bunner]

The Hp digital cams that use batteries are awful. The place i used to work had one that was supposed to be 2-3megapixel and they used it for reference shots for web.. and the image resolution looked bad, and seemed like it was only thousands of colors instead of millions.......

............make sure you get a rechargable battery camera, no matter which brand you buy.

I have rechargables but I will still need a "gun belt" with batteries to make it firmly operatable.

Sample image from the el-cheapo HP735 photosmart 3.2 mpix for reference.
R

Hey, that picture from the HP doesnt look so bad at all. I dont know what model they had, or settings, but the pictures that the engineers were showing me that they had taken with their HP digital made me weep they were so bad. cause they wanted me to do 'something' with them. yeah right, i just deleted them and used the company canon 10d from our department to reshoot.

[agingeri]

nobody can take away my trusty Pentax K1000, no matter what high-priced piece of plastic they wave in my face!