Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5550 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
Very nice article indeed.
I have to agree on the printing of D30 images. I have done some from my Singapore trip and no grain can be seen whatsoever. Only 'grain' to be seen is from the dots the printer shows.
A HP 720C is what I am currently using but after doing some window shopping in Singapore while waiting for Mr Hunt to park the car, I spotted a very nice Epson photo printer. Cannot remember the model number but the quality of the sample print was excellent.
Digital v Film is always has its pro's and con's but I have to conclude in saying that I will probably not go back to prints. Yes, I will still keep some print film, Kodak Professional, in my bag and use it when I feel the need to.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Well Gary, I think the answer is YES, the only remaining question is when
The only thing that's really holding me back is that the EOS 3 is, I believe, a superior camera, particularly with regard to autofocus - otherwise I might be very tempted to trade one of 'em in aginst a D30. I'm thinking of hiring a D30 for a week or so to use in the field alongside my EOS 3 kit and see how it all works out in practice.
I'm starting to think along the lines "well, if I buy an D30, I won't need to buy a 600mm lens, as it will magically transform my 100-400, so I'll actually be SAVING money" this is a very bad sign. The next stage to ruination is when I start trying to explain this logic to my wife!
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5550 posts, RR: 65 Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
The D30 purchase for me was a LOT of money.
But once I started using it, I feel like I got it for free and haven't thought about the money....until I posted this
I would like one of the Sigma lenses that Paul D and Andrew H have. A bit expensive since I just paid out for the D30 but I have managed to sell the Sony S70 at a good price. Might keep the money back for the lens.
Go on Colin, be a little devil and get a D30......but don't tell the wife
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Well, I'm coming round ... I've never been AGAINST digital, I've just believed film was currently better. I think in THEORY it still is ... but "in the field" can never achieve theoretical possibilities anyway, and what I'm seeing, and what I'm reading, is pretty convincing.
What I've yet to do is produce a digital print taken by me and produced on my equipment. And there is the small matter of finding the dosh, which might take a little time!
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1998 times:
So what? Most sane people dont spend a few grand on a digital SLR just to take airplane pictures. Obviously something that costs 8x times that of a regualr SLR is gonna produce better pics and I do not see the point in comparing digital vs. film. I think it would be more fair to compare a $300 digital cam against a film SLR of the same price.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
hhmmmm, nice review.
Canon EOS 1V 35mm SLR Body Only
Canon EOS D30 Digital Camera (I)
Not much price difference there. This is at Royalcamera.com btw (i know people who have ordered from here). Taking a camera that cost exactly the same price (lets say the Minolta Dimage 7, at most shops), would be like comparing an average SLR with a top range point & shoot, there is absolutly no point because they are essentially different.
I'd have to say, that at a lower level digital is still bringing out the results in terms of quality, but their sadly lacking with using 'electronic viewfinders' and having a lag between pressing the shutter release and taking the shot. This annoys me alot, but i have got used to it, sorta.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
Well, as far as i'm concerned the LCD is alot better, so i just use that. Although most of the time i just guess where i am pointing it, boy does it get annoying! I have uploaded some which are in the que (damn not HQ! ), which EGBB says will get accepted although i am not holding my breath
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
I bet I could take a 30 year $200 old Nikon body(in good mechanical shape), put the same lens on it that Ckw had on the 1V and produce identical results with Provia 100F. Note I said "regular" SLR not something top of the line with a totaly unecassary 1/8000 shutter speed and other useless features. It dosn't matter what camera body you have but what lens is attached to it. So compared to a regular camera body the D30 is still several times more expensive.
Besides, the closest any digital user is gonna get to actualy handling some of his work is by printing the digital shots with a printer. Prints are bound to be lost or destroyed and data earased leaving the once gloating D30 user with magled and faded prints too look at in his old age.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
YKA - firstly I don't have a 1V, nor did I personally claim digital was better than film, or for that matter say anything about the validity of comparing the two - I simply found an interetsing review and thought it might give some food for thought.
Having said that, did you read the review? Because the essence of it was to compare like with like in so far as was possible and compare the results. The review is interesting in that it puts up a a cogent arguement against the widely held view (myself included) that film is inherently better than digital.
No. not everyone wants to spend the bucks necessary to make what to many is a very small improvement in quality. But it is apparently possible that by going the high end digital route I can produce a better end product. I would be "insane" to dismiss this out of hand - whether or not I'm insane if I buy one is between me and my bank manager!
There are many other issues to take into account as well which may or may not be relevant on an individual basis, but here we're talking about the actual quality possible from film and digital.
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Obviously the side by side pics clearly label the D30 as a hands down winner, there isin't really any need to read the entire article or debate whether or not the D30 is better for digital picture files.
However, my point is that comparing the D30 to 35mm SLR which has all the features needed for avaiation photography(where all SLR's under $300 will have them) is like comparing a $1500 lens against a $350 one. Comparing the 1V against the D30 was a clever move to put two roughly equaly priced cameras to the test and make the test appear fair but in reality, dare I say it again, a $200 body fitted with the same lens would have produced same results as the 1V on the subjects pictured yeilding the the price of the 1V irrelavent.
Therefore your entire effort which went into creating that webpage which in itself is very nice and conducting the tests(I appreciate the effort) yielded results which should be dismissed as invalid.
A more accurate test would involve testing a $300 digital camera against a film SLR body(however much it might be) with a comprable lens on the same subjects.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
FYI Colin did not compile the test..
I think, that if you really want to compare a $300 SLR with a $300 Digital camera, go ahead, i really do not see much point. In this case i think you should compare a $300 digital camera with a $300 point & shoot camera, because they are essentially the same. Both have lenses built in, both are mostly automatic (no choice over shutter speed, aperture, exposure etc) and both are aimed at the same market.
This test is alot more realistic than your proposed one, which is almost biased so there is no possible way in which the digital can win.
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1957 times:
Going back to EGGD's last post...
That is why it is impossible to fairly compare a 35mm SLR against a Digital one because for this type of work the digital camera will anhailate the 35mm SLR everytime. This is what my problem is with the entire debate over which one is better when everyone already knows the Digital SLR is.
It's like you suggested, comparing a $300 digital point and shoot against an entry level SLR body with a good lens(es).
The D30 offers results that film simply cannot rival in the digital format. For hardcopy, perhaps film still takes the crown, but for internet use there is no question.
25 Ckw: YKA - that's exactly why you have to READ the article, while the screen demo is self evident, the article goes on to discuss how the D30 compares in t
26 Da fwog: If you want to compare digital with conventional and argue about prices, I suggest you put the D30 up against something like the EOS 300, which has si
27 Ckw: You got it right there Chris - one D30, with a much lower spec as a camera, costs more than both my EOS 3s put together! This is the only factor holdi
28 KingWide: I used the instead of a longer lens argument. Simple choice, 500 F4 @ £6000 or D30 and the 300 F4 I already have and £4000 to spend on sweets.... J
29 Staffan: If you go with the 'sweets' option, don't forget to brush your teeth!
30 Andyhunt: Chris, I gritted my teeth and winced at the same time when I signed the credit card slip! Andrew
31 Da fwog: I was most disappointed when I met Kingwide today and he didn't have pockets bulging with sweets!
32 EGGD: Was he on your stamping ground or were you on his?