Finnair MD-11 From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 158 posts, RR: 1 Posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1726 times:
-Do you use digital cameras???
-What camera is it and how expensive it is (approximately).
-Do you get good quality using it???????
I am going to upgrade my camera and was thinking about buying a digital camera because it is easy to get the photos to the internet and you don't have to buy the film : ) I also thought that when scanning e.g. from the negative the quality of the photo drops but when using a digital camera you don't have to scan the photo...
So if you could answer these questions, please I'd reaaly appreciate it
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
The latest stock of 3+MP digital cameras are certainly impressive and affordable. However, you would be restricted by the lenses. For casual shooting dig cams are fine for "fast turnaround", but at this period in time they are not the hot tip for aviation photography. The best exception is the Nikon D1, but they cost ~$5000. I would wait awhile...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Ed, you can't do it ... a 10x zoom simply indicates a range, not a focal length - you'd need to know the focal length at at least one end of the range.
As for digital cameras in general, the quality available from slide/neg scanners is still way above that from even the latest models. Not only are we looking at more "megapixels", there is also the fact that a scanner generated pixel will contain 10 or 12 bits of information whereas a digital camera contains only 8.
If you can stand the maths and theory, have a look at
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 848 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1459 times:
Re: the 'megapixel' equivalent of a 35mm print:
It all depends on how it's scanned. I have heard that a 2400dpi negative scan is about an 18 megapixel image. But...I can't back that statement up, so I'll say nothing more (and hope that someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, there IS a way to compute that figure, but I have no idea how to do it.
To Finnair MD-11: if you are seriously considering a digital camera, your best bets are either the Nikon CoolPix 990, or the Oly 3030 zoom. I've had a chance to tinker with both, and they produce STUNNING results. My personal favorite is the Nikon, but I'm holding out for the 4 megapixel replacement (due out next spring).
Want to see what people are doing with digital cameras? Check out http://digitalphotocontest.com/photooftheday.asp
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1449 times:
This one has been debated at length on various newsgroups, and their doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. To some extent it will depend on the photo finishing process, but the consensus of opinion from people whose opinion I respect suggests that there is no more than 200DPI of resolution in a standard print. There is much more than this in the negative however, hence slide/film scanners generally will produce better results than flatbeds.
You definitly need a good film and a very good scanner to even match this result. The lack of grain and the sharpness you get from a digital camera are very difficult to match with normal film or slide.
It's neither true that digital camera's produce 8 bit results. For example my Nikon D1 (and I know some Kodak's do as well) works at 12 bits internally and you can get that out of the camera when shooting in raw format. When shooting normal JPEG, you get 8-bits output, but it uses the 12-bit data for that.
The same goes for scanners by the way. The 12-bit models also give you 8-bit results as that's the standard to work with. Most consumer slide scanners aren't 12-bit either. Most are 10-bit or even 8-bit. Only the more expensive models (e.g. Nikon LS-2000, Canon, Minolta).
You are right in saying that scanners can produce larger files than most digital camera's. This important if you want to print the picture (especially if you need a large print) but is not at all important for use on the internet. I have to down-sample all my D1 images otherwise they would be to large to view.
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 848 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Good clarification, Milt. Yeah, for the web, a 3+ megapixel digital camera will smoke nearly any consumer level scanner availiable. But for prints, film is the only way to go. I'm guessing it'll be a good five years (or more) before we'll see sub-$1000(US) digital cameras that can truly compete with film.
Anyway, regarding that Martinair MD-11 shot...WOW!!!! I've never seen any aircraft shots taken with a D1, and I must say that I'm drooling all over my keyboard right now. Makes my digital images look as if they were shot with a .002 MP camera...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 1425 times:
In reply to Milt's comments:
What I was illustrating was, I accept, a theoretical superiority of the scanner over digital cameras. It is a simple fact that a scanner can extract more info from a slide/neg than can be captured by a digital camera. Incidently, MOST scanners are 10 bit, and even a number of consumer scanners are 12 bit capable BUT they are "crippled" by the supplied software which only uses 8 bits. 3rd party software will get around this limitation in many cases.
But theory aside, it is also true that unless the neg/slide is pin sharp and perfectly exposed, the resolution available may not be any greater than the current crop of digital cameras. And of course there is a difference between, say 400ASA and Kodachrome 25!
With regards to the need for "more pixels", it is true that 3 megapixels is more than adequate for many applications ... but 10 megapixels is real nice if you want to crop to just a portion of the image.
Personally, I imagine I will stay in the "traditional" film world for the forseeable future, partly, I admit, because I've used film and essentially the same equipment for the last 20 years and can't imagine becoming anything like as proficient in the new medium anytime soon! Also, I'm concerned about the "hidden" costs - how much memory would I need to cart around to get the equivalent of 10-20 rolls of "best" quality images?
But if anyone out there wants to prove me wrong, I'll happily accept a Nikon D1 on trial!
Gabriel From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
Answering your question about how for convert 10X zoom to a mm value:
The focal length is directly proportional to the ampliation of the image. So if you consider a picture took with a 50 mm lenses as an 1X scale, the same picture shoot with a 100 mm lenses would be a 2X scale.
The problem is to fit the 1x scale with a focal length.
I'll try to explain it:
1) If you want to compare the power of ampliation of your tele-lenses with binoculars, try to do this:
Place your camera verticaly, look trough the ocular a building with the left eye. Look the same building with the right eye out of the ocular at the same time. Move the zoom until the images you get from both eyes are big the same. At that point you'll get the 1x focal length in your lenses.
i.e. with my camera I get the 1x at 70mm.
So a 10x binocular would ampliate the image as a 70 x 10 = 700 mm tele-lent.
2)If you want to get the exact 1x scale in your print copies, it's more difficult because it depends on the film format you are using (35 mm, etc).
Alex Logan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
I have taken these three photos with my digital cam. It is a Canon Power Shot A50. It is relatively inexpensive (399.99 for the cam, 200.00 for the 64 meg card and 100.00 for the rechargeable batteries ~$700.00)
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Your shots look great, and there is no question that digital cams can produce more than the required quality for web or other on-screen applications. But you cannot make a fair comparison between ultimate quality based on the display of an average monitor. I think you'll find that an A4 size print on top qality equipment from a scanned quality slide/neg will still beat a print from a digital camera. Obviously a major consideration on whether to go digital or not is your intended purpose. If hard copy of A4 and larger is required, scanners still have a significant edge. Otherwise digital cameras offer some advantages.
But to put a different perspective on this discussion - a thought picked up from one of the phot mags - what if for tha last 20 years we'd been using digi -cams and then someone came up with a new system which involved inserting a cheap cartridge into the camera which allowed for the archival storage of 36 higher resolution pics?
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
Well stated Colin!
Eventually we will be afforded 4-6 MP dig cams (or higher?) with interchangeable lenses, at an affordable price. The current stock of dig cams are fun to play with. Even the Nikon D1 is only in the 2.7MP range. That's just not enough resolution. The 3.3MP cameras available now are weakened by their poor lenses and optical zooms.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10051 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
Wait 2 years and there will be Digi-SLR-cameras competitive enough to rival the "Classic" SLR, with comparable resolution and enough lenses to choose from. But the price will still be considerably higher. Not to talk about batteries...
I agree with you, FastGlass: Over all today there is no digital camera giving the high resolution of a professional (and even amateur) 35mm slide shot, even if you are going to pay 5 times more than for a upper middle class "classic" camera like the Canon EOS 50E.
So I don´t think I´m going digital over the next 24 months, at least not if comes to aviation photography.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
All my photos are made with a digital camera. In my case it's a NIKON Coolpix 990 with a Teleconverter (*2 --> 230mm or *3 --> 345 mm). I have to say that the digicam motivated me to take photos again. I once did it with an analog NIKON SLR but i simply was too lazy to bring my films to the shop and pick the photos up there and then scan them in. Now it's all very simple and I have to say I like the results. Even if you make real photos out of the files (not by printing them but by using any kind of online Lab) the A4 results look really good. I like it digital!!!