5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
I was just curious if some of the pro's in this forum (Michael, Joe, Aric, AirNikon, Mark, etc...) have ever considered switching over to digital? I am very new to photography, and I have been considering the idea of getting a digital SLR instead of a film SLR. I am a little concerned that by purchasing a digital SLR, I will be be buying a piece of equipment that will be outdated soon after I buy it. What are everyone's thoughts about digital and taking the jump?
BTW, my number one choice right now would be the Fuji S1, just because of the price and superior image quality.
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
Do you currently have any SLR lenses? The Fuji S1 is a good option if you currently have AF Nikkors. Another affordable option to consider is the Canon EOS D30.
My personal opinion is that it is still too early to jump into dig SLRs, considering the prices that they demand (D1, D1X, D1H, etc.), plus a stable of lenses you will require.
I know that some of the names you mentioned do in fact use digital, either full-time or on a part-time basis, with excellent results. The other drawback to dig at this time is printing. Quality is impressive, but it is sure easier to get the slides/prints back all at once.
And thanks BA, we got to see your one picture again (with film).
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
Yeah, I don't really like that photo of mine, it turned out so grainy. So far my best results are with Fuji Film. I have been quite disappointed with Gold 100, it is just too grainy ESPECIALLY for 100 speed film.
FastGlass is right, it is too early to go digital now. It has its little quirks still. If I were you, I would stick with film.
There is one lovely thing about digital. In my experience with digital, there is no grain whatsoever. I could be mistaken, this is my experience with the Sony Mavica FD-95 2.1MP.
However, you use Provia 100 or Kodachrome, and you will get MUCH MUCH better results than digital if you have the proper scanning equipment.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1307 times:
Yes, I know that film still has better resolution than digital, but isn't film quality limited to what your scanner can produce? It seems like scanned slides or prints lack the quality of digital, or is that because digital has one less process to go through?
Fastglass - Yes, DEN is 5,280 MSL, but my nick just means "mile-high", which was already taken. :>
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
You are correct that digital cameras "avoid the middle man". When scanning a print, you are scanning a third generation image, which can often mean that you are at the mercy of whomever printed it. There is a margin of error. A slide scan is a second generation image, but dedicated slide scanners have optical resolutions of 2,800dpi+, whereas flatbed scanners don't come anywhere near that resolution unless it is interpolated resolution, which can severly degrade the scan.
The comparison of a scan to a digital image from a camera is directly related to the resolution. For example, a Nikon D1 has a maximum resolution of 2.7MP, which lacks the detail of a 3.34MP (or higher) camera for example. It's similar to having the ability to cram more crap into the same size bucket. Same thing for scans, scanning a print at 300dpi (or higher) cannot compare to the quality of a 2,800dpi scan of a slide. The simple reason for this is that a slide (or neg) is quite a bit smaller than a 4"X6" print, and requires higher scanning resolution.
Dig cams are certainly convenient, but I hate to see photogs jump into digital and spending thousands of dollars, before they have mastered the art of film SLRs. If you opt to start with film and dig some time down the road, I would suggest Nikon or Canon. That way you will already have the AF lenses that can be used on a dig SLR (of the same brand) when the resolution is up, and the prices are down.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
Hmmmmmm.......I just realized that Pentax doesn't make Digital SLRs. I'm sure they will soon though.
Yeah FastGlass is right. Once I developed my film at this one Camera lab and they did a very poor job. There were scratches all over the print and lots of dirt. I had to spend almost an hour with the eye dropper tool to remove them.
I'm sticking with Safeway, I haven't had a single problem with them yet.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Pentax IS making a digital SLR...release in 2002 sometime...
It will have 6.1MP and a CCD the "same size" as a 35mm frame(this can be a disadvantage--it means you don't get that "zoom bost" with the current CCD's only 3/4 the size of a 35mm frame), based on the new MZ-S.
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1280 times:
The D1, Fuji S1, and Canon D30 have all been available since last summer or so. Does anyone have any news on the next generation of cameras? I am particularly interested in the next Canon offering, as I already have Canon lenses. I almost bought the D30 this weekend, but thought I would wait to see if something better comes out in the next few months.
If nothing significantly new comes out by this summer, I'll get the D30.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1272 times:
I'd love to get a digital camera for the purpose of quick uploads of something new and hot but have no plans to go fulltime digital. For one, a main reason for my aviation/airliner shooting is the hobby of slide collecting, trading, etc.. Slide film (while available) will be my main source of shooting. The other purpose of my aviation/airliner shooting is for publication and ad use. Again, at this time, you can't do that with digital. While I'm sure that will probably change, chromes are what the editiors and art directors/buyers look for now.
So, yes you might see a digital in my camera bag within a year but it will only be a backup to film.
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5472 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1262 times:
I've been looking at some recently (I use a Kodak DC-290 at work), and 8x10 prints are unbelieveable. While retail is about $700, I've found some online for around $350-$400. It's 2.1 megapixel, and does a great job....now what it could do for aviation pics is another question....
Dsmav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
I recently purchased a Fuji S1 Pro as a backup body. I must say, I am very pleased with the results. However, I don't think going completely digital is something I am particularly interested in. I am mainly going to use my S1 for non-aviation purposes, just because of its practicality. The S1 does do a good job with aviation photography, but I think using digital kind of takes the "romance" or "art" out of it.
Will digital eventually replace film? I don't know, as far as I know, this could just be a passing fad. But, it sure makes a neat toy.
If you plan on just being a enthusiast photographer, sure, go for the digital... In the long run it may save you money. But, if you want to eventually get some of your work published or sell/trade slides, definetely go for a film SLR.
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
OK, I have gone fully digital. Reason. No longer do I have to wait to have my negs scratched or prints printed in some foreign colour. No longer do I have to wait and wait for the results.
As far as slides go. Yes thery can be done, and done good. I have prints made from the lowest resolution ( on my camera anyway) and it made a good copy without to much degradation to A3. The 35 mm neg would have done well to hold together so well.
Here is a few shots, taken today at Sydney. A 3 hour drive + from there to my door. I have the shots, I know which are good and crap and it costs me nothing in the form of film or processing anymore.
I can have prints printed in aviation magazines. (current Raaf news, Australian Aerospace, Pacific wings and classic wings soon to go to press and at least one English Aviation magazine.) All from sending digital Images. And it is printed with the full range of tonal ranges that you can't do wioth negs.
I had to use my Nikon F801 today as my battery supply died (my fault) 500+ shots will do that
I have never been so annoyed at having to shoot film.
Anyway, the shots here are all taken at the cameras lowest resolution and all 12 submitted were uploaded. Given Airliners tough acceptance, wouldn't you say that digital was worth it. Obviously not all will agree as I was once a firm believer in only medium format as a minimum before going back to 35mm
Andyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 53 Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1228 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I'm now shooting both, digital and slide. I'm using a F90 plus a Fuji S1 and I love the results. For all of my "imagey" stuff, I shoot this on digital as it is for me and only me. For trading, where I want to shoot full frame, then I go with slide.
Even if digital doesn't last, I'm having a whale of a time playing with the S1. It is termendous fun, and the results you can get are amazing. I've checked with some of the mags that I shoot for and they now accept digital. BTW, if you are shooting digital, you should also invest in a CD-ROM Writer, so you can burn all of your shots onto CD Roms.
Some examples of what the S1 can do (adn as Glenn said, the resolution is at the lowest!):