Digital SLR - your recommendations

[vandijk]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
I know they are very convenient but are digital cameras better than film cameras?

Hard to say -- in general the image quality of a non-digital camera is better, but I can only see the difference on larger prints. This however depends on the type of digital camera. E.g. most of the lenses on proffesional DSLR can be way more expensive than the bosy itself.

To me the speed to post the images on my website is somewhat important so by going digital it saves me the film development, scanning, dust removing and in general the color corrections. After the last race it took me about 1,5 hours to post 90 images or so.


So to get back to your question, decide what is important to you first and than make a decision. If image quality is very important for you go for analog. It is very smart to rent one for a weekend and just try!

Sander.

[PaulSands]

I actually prefer the images I get from slides but as you say its the convenience of being able to share swiftly and ultimately the lack of processing costs

[kdr]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
I know they are very convenient but are digital cameras better than film cameras?

its horses for courses peter. digital is good for "live" immediate pictures and the quality is getting better with each generation...so eventually one day soon it'll become the norm. but at present i'd imagine if you turned up at an advertising shoot with only digital bodies they'd send you away laughing. most top end magazines still prefer film images also.

i used both at le mans this year and its great to see your images immediately and to send them back...but this is counter weighed by seeing my trannies thru a lupe over a lightbox back at the office.

i prefer looking and editing film...but for keen amateurs i'd say go digital to cut down on all the costs.

[Peter Mallett]

Thanks for the replies. I use two old Canon AE1s when I get behind a lens at a circuit. Still the best all round SLR I've ever used. But I can see the benefits of digital and as has been said, once real quality is improved it'll be the only way to go. Look out Kodak!

[vwpilot]

Better is still being debated. Many magazines have gone almost solely digital. Sports Illustrated comes to mind. Much advertising is also going that way because so much is being shot on digital these days. Even National Geographic has started to embrace digital as they are starting to print digital in their magazine.

In many ways digital is better, some have even tested it and find digital to retain more info than film scans as long as you are staying within reasonable print sizes. Here is an interesting comparison. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml

For me its a no brainer, digital is the way to go. For almost any normal persons use it is just as good as film and with a knowlege of Photoshop stunning enlargements can be made as big and larger than 20x30.

[vandijk]

Originally posted by vwpilot
For me its a no brainer, digital is the way to go. For almost any normal persons use it is just as good as film and with a knowlege of Photoshop stunning enlargements can be made as big and larger than 20x30.

Right! I agree. I have made 10 prints or so on 30x45(cm) of the Le Mans shots taken with my 10D and they are very acceptable. I did not even took them in RAW so I must be able to even improve quality a little bit.

/s.

[vandijk]

BTW, if any one would like to receive a full size image (file not the print..) of the 10D just send me an e-mail and I will send it over (2,2 Mb each).

[Thumper]

Picked up a copy of Amateur Photographer yesterday, and it includes a useful supplement that compares all the leading Digital SLRs.

Having been a Pentax user for the past 25 years I am sorely tempted by their new digital SLR, but the price seems a little high. On the plus side, it would mean I could use all my existing lenses, which range from 28 to 400. Anyone else got views on this one?

[kdr]

Originally posted by vwpilot
In many ways digital is better, some have even tested it and find digital to retain more info than film scans as long as you are staying within reasonable print sizes. Here is an interesting comparison. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml

perhaps the reviewer should have chosen to compare digital to velvia...seeing as how thats its main magazine competition.

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by kdr
perhaps the reviewer should have chosen to compare digital to velvia...seeing as how thats its main magazine competition.

Not all the time, I know a lot of pro photographers that use/used Provia. It is a very good film.

Check out this page. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re6/zoom2.html Look at the details of the four pictures that are in National Geographic. Three are shot on Provia and one on a Nikon D1x digital SLR.

[kdr]

Originally posted by vwpilot
Not all the time, I know a lot of pro photographers that use/used Provia. It is a very good film.

agreed that theres time and place for provia...one of our guys shot the world ice golf challenge in greenland a couple of years ago and he had a nightmare with velvia. i was more just thinking of motorsport photography...i've edited every f1 grand prix since spain 1996 and we've never shot anything other than velvia in all that time. i have no real problem with digital...to me its not as good as film, but 1000 times better than neg!

[RALLYXPICS]

i use a canon eos 1d and a 1ds and print on a3 prints
with the 1ds and i play the pics back on a 42in plasma screan file size 11.4meg

[gi_gav]

Guys, I personally wouldn't even consider a Canon 300d.
I worked for jessops over the summer and was looking at a (discounted!) dig SLR for expanding my motorsport portfolio.

Couldn't get, or afford a 10d so jumped at one of the first 300d's that the company got, but I took it back 2 days later.

For all that the quality is excellent, it felt like using a much cheaper, more basic film SLR (eg. there are no custom settings).

Main thing to consider is the burst rate - 2.5 frames per second, to a maximum of 4 shots. After that, the write time to the Sandisk Ultra CF card was about 4 seconds.

I shot at the Mount Stuart Motorsport Classic for crash.net and got the 300d the next day (sod's law, clearly).
I looked over my shots from the weekend and realised that there were no sequences of more than 4 shots, meaning that the 300d would have coped well enough.

However, this was for shooting individual cars, not a race.

One of the obvious advantages of digital is being able to shoot masses of pics and select the best. Having a burst rate of only 4 shots negates this advantage.

Hence why i wouldn't recommend a 300d for motorsport or action photography. Personally, i'm saving for a 10d...

[vwpilot]

Big thing with the 300d or the digital Rebel as its called in the States, is that it is basically a Rebel camera.

Many pros and serious amateurs are looking at this camera because of the price. However, they have to ask themselves.

If they were shooting film, would they actually buy a Rebel, or something better? If the answer is no, then why would you buy a rebel in the digital realm?

[Crash Test]

It's not quite an SLR, but for what it is, and for how much it costs, I've just picked up a Fujifilm S5000, and it's a gun piece of gear. It's got all manner of little nicities, including a heap of different focus modes, bracketing, colour modes, white balances, metering modes, and some nice shooting modes like next five and previous five (takes the 5 pics, 0.2 apart before you release the shutter). 10x optical is nice, 3.something megapixels which can be bumped up in raw mode. Only real bummers about it is a high longest shutter speed, and a reasonably ****ty flash. Very nice piece of kit, just don't tell your editor what you took the pics with, they probably won't be able to tell anyways

[djb]

some things to mention,

it is like discussing what b+w film and developer to use. Different films and different developers have a certain look, but a big part of it came from your experience in the darkroom (and of course, your lenses, lighting etc etc). I find that with digital bodies now, a D10 or D100 can in many ways rival the equivalent body that costs twice as much-in certain areas and with certain limitations thrown in. I'm not personally familiar with Canon stuff, but have extensive experience with the D1X and D100. The X has a faster processor, better large jpeg processing, a higher flash sync and is by far a tougher body for day in day out schlepping around and the knocks that come with that. The 100 however can rival it with its RAW shots, is a hell of a lot lighter-a real factor when doing a few hour shoot let alone all day, especially with a flash and heavy lens on it, the battery technology is very much a generation ahead of the X's, same with the LCD screen and numerous bread and butter button operations, especially being able to zoom in and move around a shot to check critical focus. And the on camera flash performance on the 100 is a good deal more cosistant than the X.

What I'm saying is that yes, if you are a working pro, a top camera will stand up to abuse, and probably have more fine tuning options (ex, the D1x has 3 saveable preset WB, the D100 only 1) and the extra money spent will be worth it and should be paid back with work. However,the (now) middle price DSLR's are pretty good tools, throw in good post production techniques (Photoshop experience and tricks) AND very importantly, the best glass, and you can compare these bodies to the FE's or FE2's or F100's that were and are good working bodies that competed very well with F3's, F4's and F5's, especially if you aren't working in a war zone.

To counter my last statement, yes I know that DSLR's evolve fairly quickly -ex: the D100 is better than the X for noise at higher ASA's and long exposuress. So making a decision really requires one to read up on various bodies from numerous sources before making a decision. This even applies to CF cards, their speeds are constantly increasing, just as card readers etc etc etc, it never ends

[rdjones]

Originally posted by Crash Test
It's not quite an SLR, but for what it is, and for how much it costs, I've just picked up a Fujifilm S5000, and it's a gun piece of gear. It's got all manner of little nicities, including a heap of different focus modes, bracketing, colour modes, white balances, metering modes, and some nice shooting modes like next five and previous five (takes the 5 pics, 0.2 apart before you release the shutter). 10x optical is nice, 3.something megapixels which can be bumped up in raw mode. Only real bummers about it is a high longest shutter speed, and a reasonably ****ty flash. Very nice piece of kit, just don't tell your editor what you took the pics with, they probably won't be able to tell anyways

Are yes the S5000 - the new version of my S602, which also a very nice peace of kit......

[Crash Test]

Took it out for a run yesterday, and I'm wrapped! I went a bit silly, and took about 600 pics for the day without really trying. As far as moving things go, there was a freestyle motorcross/BMX/mini bikes, and although they were a bit hard to predict as far as where they were going, there were some pretty good results. Shutter lag wasn't too much of a drama, there are a few ways of overcoming it. Battery life wise, I was very happy. Not entirely sure how many pics, probably 400+ farting about to a set. Flash wise, I love some of the settings, things like the slow sync flash were very nice indeed.

[djb]

good shot! hope he didn't get going too fast as it looks like his hood is going to go!

[Crash Test]

Nah, in the burnout comps down on the coast, they pop the hoods so that the fire fighters can get easy access when things get a touch too hot..

Here's another one, this one of someone with a suicide issue

[redshoes]

Originally posted by Crash Test
I went a bit silly, and took about 600 pics for the day without really trying.

Typical first day with a digital then Now work out what that would have cost you in film and processing.

[Crash Test]

I know, in the past when Id borrow a digital, the best effort would be about 600 for 3 days at the track. I'm going to get me another memory card before Surfers next weekend

I worked out how much I spent in a year on film and processing in a year, and it works out cheaper to get the digital, because the more pics you take, the more you can sell etc...

[djb]

as for the suicide biker, I saw some guys in a show doing the same thing this summer, just boggles the noggin how they do it--very impressive, but in a way that made my palms sweat watching it and hoping my son and I weren't going to witness anything rather ugly if his timing or balance was a bit off.

and back to the subject, yup, the CD, DVD and associated burner hardware industry is sure to be kept healthy as one shoots, shoots and shoots-even if you are a ruthless editor.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by gi_gav


One of the obvious advantages of digital is being able to shoot masses of pics and select the best. Having a burst rate of only 4 shots negates this advantage.

Hence why i wouldn't recommend a 300d for motorsport or action photography. Personally, i'm saving for a 10d...

Hmmm. Interesting. I've been thinking quite seriously about a 300D and, frankly, burst rates don't figure too highly on my agenda. I've been taking motorsport photos for about 20 years and have rarely used "burst" mode. I want a Canon as I have my wonderful trusty EOS100 and it'll save me the vast expense of changing all my lenses, but I really can't afford the expense of the better Canon digital bodies.

Was the "burst" rate the only reason you took it back?

[rdjones]

I saw a chap with one at Brands yesterday and I saw someone with on the Trackrod Rally the other week, so people are using them, just not sure what results they are getting.