Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3172 times:
I think for a number of reasons SLRs are still the best bet for most photographers, however, if I were starting from afresh, I would be sure to choose an SLR from a company which was also producing good digital cameras in order to ensure any investment in lenses is protected - that way you can add a digital body to your outfit at a later date.
Blackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3172 times:
That's what Colin means I guess. So you guys wouldn't go for something without interchangable lenses and a digital zoom but for a digital body with interchangable lenses like the Canon EOS digitial bodies?
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
Fuji, Canon and Olympus all either make digital cameras with integral lenses that are 6x or 10x (35mm-210mm or 380mm equivalent) or have cameras that accept lenses from Nikon etc. SLRs. Some Sony Mavica also have 10x lenses.
All of the above have digital zoom in addition.
The problem at present is with the quality of the image with cameras offering only 2 or 3 megapixals.
If you have a few thousand dollars you can buy professional digital cameras which accept SLR lenses and get 6 or 7 megapixel quality which comes very close to slide film.
Many professional news photographers use these (including my brother in law) and the results are first class.
What is really interesting is that in June, the Fuji Finepix 6900z will hit the streets. Like the 4900z, this will have a 6x lens, a wide range of shutter and aperture priorities and a wide range of shooting modes, 5 frames per second burst shooting and an interpolated 3.3 megapixel CCD which will give the equivalent of a 6 megapixel image.
I have seen results from the 4900z which has 2.4 megapixel CCD giving interpolated 4.3 megapixel images and they are outstanding - so the 6900z should be much better.
Price is rumoured to be around $1300, but could be a lot less buying on line.
If anyone has used the 4900z for aircraft photography, I'd love to know how you feel about it as I will probably buy a 6900z for general use.
DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3165 times:
Digital cannot give the same results as film? I have to disagree with that one. I recently purchased a Fuji S1 as a backup for my F5, the results I have gotten so far have really impressed me. I would even go as far to say that digital is better than film in some respects.
Here is the very first shot I ever took with the S1:
Lens: Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8
Quality: Fine (second from the top)
Will digital ever replace my F5? Hell no, but it sure opens up opportunities that film cannot provide. The fact that one can be creative and try new approaches to photography without blowing $$$ on film is great. You also get instant results and don't have to fork over even more $$$ for processing.
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home