What digicams that would silence film SLR guys?

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one to get. Any suggestion?

Setheus,

You have an interesting approach to photography. Is that really what you think photography is about? What it should be about?

Read through this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Ydk Yes, it's long, but you will see a discussion among people who have a good sense of how photography should be approached.

If you disagree with that, perhaps there are better ways for you to be spending your time than with photography.

Regards,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

I partially understand where you're coming from since it IS a bit annoying to constantly have film fans disregarding your digital cameras as "toys" all the time. I don't think that's a good reason to buy a specific camera, though, since high-end digital SLRs cost a fortune.

Anyway, I don't think any digital SLR will silence film guys. For one thing, no digital SLR (at least any consumer digital SLR) has a full-sized CCD sensor. That means you have to apply a focal length multiplier of 1.3X, 1.5X or greater to a lens you attach to the camera. A 26mm wide-angle focal length now becomes 39mm, etc. Second, while 5-6 megapixels IS high resolution, I don't think many will take digital SLRs seriously until they have full-sized 16 megapixel sensors and are available at the cost of current SLR bodies like the D60. Another thing to keep in mind is there are still things you can do with film cameras that you can't do with digital.. you can choose different films with standard SLRs. You can use old style B&W Kodak Tri-X 400 or smooth, vivid Fuji Velvia 50 or a lower contrast portrait-type film like Fuji NPS 160, etc. Can't do that or anything like it with a digital. In place of film, you have a fixed CCD in a digital SLR. Sure, you can use Photoshop but we all know it's two different worlds and people who are hooked on film will be quick to bring up those types of points.

If you want to silence film guys, get a decent digital camera like a Sony F707, Nikon 5700, Olympus E20, etc, and get an 8x10" print made of one of your most impressive photos. When some SLR user makes fun of you for using a digital, pull out the print and tell him you can still get great pictures like this so that's enough for you. If they can't recognize a good photo when they see it and still think poorly of digitals, then that's their own problem, not yours.

I hope you find the camera you're looking for!

Setheus said:

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I
want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing
my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one
to get. Any suggestion?

Click to expand...

Wow Nathan. Very informative. Thanks a lot!

Nathan Dandar said:

Anyway, I don't think any digital SLR will silence film guys. For
one thing, no digital SLR (at least any consumer digital SLR) has a
full-sized CCD sensor. That means you have to apply a focal length
multiplier of 1.3X, 1.5X or greater to a lens you attach to the
camera. A 26mm wide-angle focal length now becomes 39mm, etc.
Second, while 5-6 megapixels IS high resolution, I don't think many
will take digital SLRs seriously until they have full-sized 16
megapixel sensors and are available at the cost of current SLR
bodies like the D60. Another thing to keep in mind is there are
still things you can do with film cameras that you can't do with
digital.. you can choose different films with standard SLRs. You
can use old style B&W Kodak Tri-X 400 or smooth, vivid Fuji Velvia
50 or a lower contrast portrait-type film like Fuji NPS 160, etc.
Can't do that or anything like it with a digital. In place of
film, you have a fixed CCD in a digital SLR. Sure, you can use
Photoshop but we all know it's two different worlds and people who
are hooked on film will be quick to bring up those types of points.

If you want to silence film guys, get a decent digital camera like
a Sony F707, Nikon 5700, Olympus E20, etc, and get an 8x10" print
made of one of your most impressive photos. When some SLR user
makes fun of you for using a digital, pull out the print and tell
him you can still get great pictures like this so that's enough for
you. If they can't recognize a good photo when they see it and
still think poorly of digitals, then that's their own problem, not
yours.

I hope you find the camera you're looking for!

Setheus said:

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I
want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing
my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one
to get. Any suggestion?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nathan Dandar said:

Anyway, I don't think any digital SLR will silence film guys. For
one thing, no digital SLR (at least any consumer digital SLR) has a
full-sized CCD sensor. That means you have to apply a focal length
multiplier of 1.3X, 1.5X or greater to a lens you attach to the
camera.

Click to expand...

A minus to some, a plus to others. Think smaller, less expensive tele....

Nathan Dandar said:

Second, while 5-6 megapixels IS high resolution, I don't think many
will take digital SLRs seriously until they have full-sized 16
megapixel sensors

Click to expand...

35mm slide film seems to hold a slight overall advantage advantage in terms of possible print size. Take a look at this article....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/dq

Nathan Dandar said:

and are available at the cost of current SLR
bodies like the D60.

Click to expand...

Film cameras are cheaper 'up front' (maybe not so much so if you include the cost of a good scanner). Digital cameras are cheaper 'down the road' if you shoot much.

Nathan Dandar said:

Another thing to keep in mind is there are
still things you can do with film cameras that you can't do with
digital.. you can choose different films with standard SLRs.

Click to expand...

This one cuts both ways. Film is probably better for long nighttime exposures, for underwater work.... Print film has more dynamic range than digital. Digital gives you quick processing/checking your product....

Nathan Dandar said:

You
can use old style B&W Kodak Tri-X 400 or smooth, vivid Fuji Velvia
50 or a lower contrast portrait-type film like Fuji NPS 160, etc.
Can't do that or anything like it with a digital.

Click to expand...

Oops.... You can create these effects with digital. Maybe not quite yet the full effect of some esoteric films.... Just waiting for the 'plug-ins'.

Nathan Dandar said:

In place of
film, you have a fixed CCD in a digital SLR. Sure, you can use
Photoshop but we all know it's two different worlds and people who
are hooked on film will be quick to bring up those types of points.

Click to expand...

The film guys are moving to digital editing/printing in droves.

Nathan Dandar said:

If you want to silence film guys, get a decent digital camera like
a Sony F707, Nikon 5700, Olympus E20, etc, and get an 8x10" print
made of one of your most impressive photos.

Click to expand...

Agree here. Let your work speak for itself. Don't worry about making converts. Some folks won't switch, even if they have to quit shooting because they can't buy film anymore ;o)

--
bob
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
pictures from Thailand, Myanmar(Burma), and Nepal

Ed Leys said:

Setheus,

You have an interesting approach to photography. Is that really
what you think photography is about? What it should be about?

Read through this thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Ydk Yes,
it's long, but you will see a discussion among people who have a
good sense of how photography should be approached.

If you disagree with that, perhaps there are better ways for you to
be spending your time than with photography.

Click to expand...

Ed, I think that we have a little troll in our midst.

She/he goes by the name of "Julia" and has been asking all sorts of silly questions in some of our forums.

If it is not her/him, then all I can do, is to concur with your response.

--
batty.

Hi batty

No, he's a genuine new guy to photography who isn't getting very good reults and doesn't understand why. I sent him a load of stuff explaining aperture, ISO, shutter speed etc.

Setheus, you'd do well to read this, and batty I think you'll enjoy it. I know I did.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3151363
best wishes
Ian

batty said:

Ed Leys said:

Setheus,

You have an interesting approach to photography. Is that really
what you think photography is about? What it should be about?

Read through this thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Ydk Yes,
it's long, but you will see a discussion among people who have a
good sense of how photography should be approached.

If you disagree with that, perhaps there are better ways for you to
be spending your time than with photography.

Click to expand...

Ed, I think that we have a little troll in our midst.

She/he goes by the name of "Julia" and has been asking all sorts of
silly questions in some of our forums.

If it is not her/him, then all I can do, is to concur with your
response.

--
batty.

Click to expand...

Julia is my sister she owns 6900. I am Seth who owns 602.

batty said:

Ed Leys said:

Setheus,

You have an interesting approach to photography. Is that really
what you think photography is about? What it should be about?

Read through this thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Ydk Yes,
it's long, but you will see a discussion among people who have a
good sense of how photography should be approached.

If you disagree with that, perhaps there are better ways for you to
be spending your time than with photography.

Click to expand...

Ed, I think that we have a little troll in our midst.

She/he goes by the name of "Julia" and has been asking all sorts of
silly questions in some of our forums.

If it is not her/him, then all I can do, is to concur with your
response.

--
batty.

Click to expand...

Ed,

Thanks for the link. You are right I'm no photographer. I am a student web developer. I do update all computer hardwares and softwares every 6-12 months. It is with the same habit that makes me want to upgrade digicams and video cams frequently although not really necessary.

That might come to you as silly, crazy and stupid and I sincerely apologize. I promise that it is not my desire to waste your time. I admit that I am not photographer and probably won't even be as half good as most of you. I do however admire a lot of people here (IanR, John, Phil, Dirk, Stuart, Jay, the Fuji guys) and think photography is great. I like it but it doesn't like me. lol

I honestly say though that the question I ask (no matter how stupid it may sound to you) means so much to me. And the reply that I get I read frequently. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it.

Setheus

Ed Leys said:

Setheus,

You have an interesting approach to photography. Is that really
what you think photography is about? What it should be about?

Read through this thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Ydk Yes,
it's long, but you will see a discussion among people who have a
good sense of how photography should be approached.

If you disagree with that, perhaps there are better ways for you to
be spending your time than with photography.

Regards,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Click to expand...

Setheus,

I agree with Ed Leys, but I think I understand what you are trying to do. Unfortunately, you will never be able to silence the "film guys" as you call them. They have some valid points about the shortcomings of digital. It is too bad the the majority of them are either too close-minded or afraid of new technology to really learn about the real advantages digital has over film based cameras.

My best advice to you would be to buy a camera you like, since the digitals that you most likely will be able to afford are $2,500 once you fit them out with a lens and flash. This is a very minimal kit too.

If you want to spend this amount of money, I would say go for it. Even if you are only buying what you would consider a "toy" Just don't expect buying a good camera to buy you good pictures and you will not be disappointed.

My best advice is to not worry about what someone else will say, and be happy with what you have. Even if that means buying a new camera, but buy it for yourself, not to satisfy someone else.

Setheus said:

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I
want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing
my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one
to get. Any suggestion?

Click to expand...

--
Valliesto

I agree on that completely Valliesto. Film users at the University I go to are stuck with their 36 shots and a scanner. They can't seem to afford a digicam so they bash someone who they think would make their effort a joke. I'm not biased. I would get a film cam sure no problem. But I'm not photographer and digital to me is different. Since 2 years ago I've been upgrading digicams. I look at them, use them and consider them part of my computer equipments. I dont need much power on a laptop but I do have the most expensive one by Presario in 2000 that envied my professor so bad he calls me stupid for buying such expensive item that I don't really need. Sure I don't need a laptop nor an expensive digicam. But I want it. What these people don't understand is that it is only stupid to buy expensive gadgets if you don't have a lot of money.

The only digicam (from Phil's list) that I can't afford right now is D1X. Atleast for now because I'm currently I'm stuck with G2, Pro90 IS, 602 and my sister's 6900 (she upgraded to Nikon 5700) After contemplating between D60, D100 and S2 Pro, I've made up my mind on what camera to "play" with for the next 6 months. The FinePix S2 Pro.

Valliesto Bailey said:

I agree with Ed Leys, but I think I understand what you are trying
to do. Unfortunately, you will never be able to silence the "film
guys" as you call them. They have some valid points about the
shortcomings of digital. It is too bad the the majority of them are
either too close-minded or afraid of new technology to really learn
about the real advantages digital has over film based cameras.

My best advice to you would be to buy a camera you like, since the
digitals that you most likely will be able to afford are $2,500
once you fit them out with a lens and flash. This is a very minimal
kit too.

If you want to spend this amount of money, I would say go for it.
Even if you are only buying what you would consider a "toy" Just
don't expect buying a good camera to buy you good pictures and you
will not be disappointed.

My best advice is to not worry about what someone else will say,
and be happy with what you have. Even if that means buying a new
camera, but buy it for yourself, not to satisfy someone else.

Setheus said:

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I
want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing
my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one
to get. Any suggestion?

Click to expand...

--
Valliesto

Click to expand...

Setheus said:

Except Nikon D1X.

I need to get something this month to upgrade from Fuji 6900. I
want a digicam that would make film SLR think twice before bashing
my cam (if not eat their hearts out). I've been thinking which one
to get. Any suggestion?

Click to expand...

I appreciate your sentiment but I think you should turn your question around 180 degrees. What are you going to do to upgrade your SKILLS to equal the capabilities of the (excellent) CAMERA you already have?

Who looks dumbest, the guy with the big cam and the bad picture or the guy with the little cam and the great picture?

At the end of the day a good photographer with a disposable will take better photos than a bad photographer with a Contax. If you can't get good shots on a 6900, then you will get the same or worse ones with an S2 pro because it requires more skill to use effectively.

If you want to make them eat their words, spend the money at nightschool (take Julie along), learn basic technique and share ideas with other people. You'll soon get into it and realise that its MOSTLY down to how you look at a scene, handle light, and what makes a good shot. The technical part is pretty easy to learn, the artistic part is partly talent but inspiration and sharing ideas helps a whole lot. The camera is the last factor to worry about.

And if you are so worried about what other people say about the size of your toys, you should forget photography and buy a Corvette
--
Steve

*isteve said:

At the end of the day a good photographer with a disposable will
take better photos than a bad photographer with a Contax. If you
can't get good shots on a 6900, then you will get the same or worse
ones with an S2 pro because it requires more skill to use
effectively.

Click to expand...

This is what I love hearing. For some reason I'm fell in love with 6900. Bought it lenses and adapters all that. After fireworks shots that I made few days ago (Thanks to Ian's help) I realized that S2 Pro or D60 would be nice to have until the next big ones come. Just too bad these good digicams fall into a wrong hand. If I'm photographer I could have made a review. he he I think S2 Pro is able to attached to some interesting macro lenses. I like that...

*isteve said:

If you want to make them eat their words, spend the money at
nightschool (take Julie along), learn basic technique and share
ideas with other people. You'll soon get into it and realise that
its MOSTLY down to how you look at a scene, handle light, and what
makes a good shot. The technical part is pretty easy to learn, the
artistic part is partly talent but inspiration and sharing ideas
helps a whole lot. The camera is the last factor to worry about.

Click to expand...

Agree! But like I said in my previous post buying it is not primarily for photography reason but to satisfy the desire to own a gadget, some website photo and once in a while posters. But mainly to get something new always.

*isteve said:

And if you are so worried about what other people say about the
size of your toys, you should forget photography and buy a
Corvette
--
Steve

Click to expand...

I got one. (dad's) My goal is 1956 Jaguar Roadster. When it comes to cars I like the old ones.

Setheus said:

The only digicam (from Phil's list) that I can't afford right now
is D1X.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I drool when I see the photos coming from the D1x. Maybe that is because pro photographers use them.

If you have enough money to be throwing around at expensive cars, new cameras and fast computers every six months you certainly have enough to buy a D1x.

That is what I would do if I could justify it.

Cheers,
Mark

Geez I wish. Problem is my dad. He pays for the car, computer, school. I asked for a D1x and he wouldn't let me atleast not now. $9,000 (canadian) for a camera. I think even if my dad would give me that much money I wouldn't buy D1X. I do stupid things but I'm not that crazy. Very dumb in photography but not yet insane.

kessler said:

kessler said:

The only digicam (from Phil's list) that I can't afford right now
is D1X.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I drool when I see the photos coming from the D1x.
Maybe that is because pro photographers use them.

If you have enough money to be throwing around at expensive cars,
new cameras and fast computers every six months you certainly have
enough to buy a D1x.

That is what I would do if I could justify it.

Cheers,
Mark

Click to expand...

Woah... hold on Setheus

Yes it's a great camera but you'll probably take worse pictures with it than you're getting at the moment. Why? Because you've got to master photographic technique first.

A great camera is going to let the photographer make the decisions, the point and shoot is the one that does everything for you. If you buy a camera like that you'll have so many things to decide the chances are you'll never get anything at all. It'll be a complet mes and you'll hate it.
It's like learning to drive in an F1 racing car without anyone helping you.

You've got to go through the ropes, get some practice, experiment, read, take some lessons even, and then buy the best camera your wallet will allow. You've already got a really good camera as it is which will take great pictures.

The philosophy of film is different. I don't care about convincing . It's tribalism. You can't, not with a camera.

But if they see a great shot, then they begin to wonder. That's the point, do photography for yourself because it pleases you and the rest will follow.
Good luck
Ian

Setheus said:

kessler said:

Setheus said:

The only digicam (from Phil's list) that I can't afford right now
is D1X.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I drool when I see the photos coming from the D1x.
Maybe that is because pro photographers use them.

If you have enough money to be throwing around at expensive cars,
new cameras and fast computers every six months you certainly have
enough to buy a D1x.

That is what I would do if I could justify it.

Cheers,
Mark

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'd like a Jaguar E type and a Fuji S2 pro

Steve

Hey Steve, you've got good taste!!
Ian

Steve Jacob said:

I'd like a Jaguar E type and a Fuji S2 pro

Steve

Click to expand...

I'd been very impressed with the results I'd seen coming out of the new crop of 6 MP dSLRs. Then I visited a museum on vacation in Banff in which a local photographer using a 4x5 view camera had some of his 11x14 and 16x20 enlargements displayed. I could have cried. Every fiber of every leaf on every tree in perfect gorgeous detail. We have a little ways to go yet.

And yes I know I picked about the most unfair comparison imaginable, and I can't imagine tramping miles along the trail with 20 lbs. of camera. But almost nothing I've seen from the digital world would impress someone looking at the detail possible with a large format film camera.

Fred Vachss

Nathan Dandar said:

If you want to silence film guys, get a decent digital camera like
a Sony F707, Nikon 5700, Olympus E20, etc, and get an 8x10" print
made of one of your most impressive photos. When some SLR user
makes fun of you for using a digital, pull out the print and tell
him you can still get great pictures like this so that's enough for you.

Click to expand...

Nathan Dandar said:

I am a bit alarmed that to make the point you reckon you need a 5 MP camera for an 8" x 10" print. Would a good 4 MP not do? I am planning to buy one soon ( Minolta F100???) to photograph my paintings, but if the difference in quality is noitceable at that size I might have to think again.

Click to expand...

What do you and other people think?

--
Rosie