Digital cameras - advice needed

There is an incredibly strong case for choosing digital over film for the inexperienced photographer – being able to review the resulting image instantly at the point of shooting is revolutionary. I frequently take and reject many, many shots on the G2 to get the one I want, just a small change in position, exposure or framing makes the difference between a mundane and acceptable result.

Owning a digicam for a couple of years has totally revolutionised the way I approach photography, I have definitely learnt more about composition in this period than in the previous 20 years using a 35mm SLR. Were I a first time camera buyer there is no way I'd even consider film.

Tony.

 

Absolutely. Digital is liberating photography, as video has liberated cinematography.
Film is <gulp>subjectively</gulp> beautiful, but digital puts control/power into the hands of the artist.

 

Absolutely agree. I now have the ability to immediately see that, yet again, I have failed to take an interesting picture, instead of having to pay Boots and wait a day for the privilege of confirming that I am a piss-poor photographer.

I ought to get a better digital camera - mine's a sub-£100 job, and quite poor. What sort of price are the cameras that are recommended here?

-- Ian

 

Hi Ian,
The cameras recommended to Tones (the non SLR ones) are around the £300 mark. The SLR are start at around £800.
I will probably have my Pantax S4 digicam (around £300 now) with me at the Heathrow show if you want to have a look at it.

Andrew

 

Probably a stupid idea

Chaps

Are the lens of say a 35mm EOS interchangeable with a digital SLR.

That would be useful.

Regards

Mick

 

Yes same lens mount but the focal length differs because the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. I think the most expensive Canon digital SLR has a full frame sized sensor though.

 

Cheers Andrew, £300 doesn't sound unreasonable. Then I just need to develop some visual sense...

-- Ian

 

The point I was trying to make is that if digital photography becomes the only source of photography and you take into account the sophistication of photo-editing software and the rate at which it is advancing - there will be no longer be such a thing as photographic evidence for example - in other words a digitized picture will perhaps not be legally considered as representing the truth. (A doctored piece of slide film is very easy under scrutiny to detect compared to say a digi photograph) Hell, I envisage a day when defence lawyers for criminals caught on digital CCTV will argue in the courts that the images can not be used as evidence as their remains a possibility that they could have been doctored etc.... what will happen next? - war reporting video media doctored for political gain?? I know this sounds paranoid and I am exaggerating slightly (I hope) and I do not mean to bleat on but I simply say that we all need to be aware of the potential for abuse/manipulation of digitized media. YES - digi cameras cannot be beaten for their instant feedback to the user and learning enthusiast - and I agree that they have inspired many people who have never used a camera before to actually take up the hobby and start taking a damn good look at the world. I myself WILL buy one for these reasons (my main camera will remain a 35mm SLR) - but we simply must not lose sight of the analogue world we were born into - we are analogue beings after all and our quality of life WILL degrade if we carry on with our obsession to digitize all aspects of our lives.
Just think of our future ancestors - IF all our thinking and creativity (our HISTORY!) were stored in a media that required electricity in order to see it - then we would be at risk of disappearing without trace - (no books - just ebooks, no photo negatives/slides - just image files etc etc) - there is after all a possibility that electricity may run out once we have devoured all our fossil fuels.

 

For the photographic evidence thing all that's necessary is for the camera to be fitted with an authentication key system which can digitally sign the image immediately after capture from the sensor. That way, it would be easy to tell if the image had ever been edited in any way post downloading from the camera. In fact, I believe that at least on D-SLR already has a feature something like this - I may be wrong about that but I remember reading something about it.

In any case, many (most?) pro snappers who use film will print in digital, ie, they will scan their negs and then use PhotoShop and digital printing just like the digital boys so their film pics are just as easy to manipulate.

Michael.

 

I'm also about to buy a digicam.

At the mo I think I'm gong to go for the Canon A-80. It was either that or the Coolpix 4300. I quite fancied the extra features on the Canon dont know if there's really much between them but thought the g/f would go for the more svelte lines of the Nikon but she preferred the Canon.

 

MIck in all seriousness you should seriously consider a digital camera.

My step dad was so impressed with the E10 that he got me to get him on on ebay, £350 which is fantastic value for an SLR Digital Camera, and I don't believe for one minute you would be dissapointed, the feature set is very impressive.

 

Gary

I am in America / Mexico in June. I may well buy one out there....weak dollar and all that.

Regards

Mick

 

Excellent idea Mick, we are out there in May and have a shopping list of things we don't really need!

Really though look at the better end of the spectrum, E10, E20 and similar offers from cannon etc, these products are a pleasure to use and you will quickly become accustomed to taking a shot and seeing it that evening on your computer, its the future and all that.

You are a man of the world you know commerce and business, digital photography is now, film photography will become insular and 'vinyl'

Hop on.