That Sony DSC-F828 looks sweet. For cost it would be my pick (no pun intended). Most of the featured cameras in that link are not digital video cameras. I think, if it is quality you are after, you may have to pay a hefty price.
ZIP
Gary, thanks for the link… I’ll give it a go.
Zip, I’m kinda confused by your digital video remark (I’m not looking for a camcorder)! As for the F828, it’s too pricey for me (would like to stay under $800). Besides, it doesn’t have the flip-out rotating lcd that I want…
Zip, I’m kinda confused by your digital video remark (I’m not looking for a camcorder)! As for the F828, it’s too pricey for me (would like to stay under $800). Besides, it doesn’t have the flip-out rotating lcd that I want…
Oops, sorry ’bout that. Thats what I get for skimming through a topic.
In that case, I would recommend anything Canon. The Powershot Series is what I have been using and the quality is great but our model doesn’t have the flipout LCD. The Powershot is very compact. Dunno if I’d go for the flipout cause it might be something that could break in the event that it is dropped. Our Powershot S20 is a few years old but still does the job well. For $700 or so, you should be able to pick up a sweet camera capable of professional quality. I guess it comes down to the megapixels. The more the better.
Also, if you decide to abandon film, you need to consider how you will be outputting your new photos. Inkjet doesn’t cut it for quality. If you need quality, offset(more expensive) or perhaps laser / thermal (cheaper but may require more color correction) are good options.
ZIP
PS sorry about the confusion
I’m really not abandoning film… just finding an alternative when travelling by air. 🙁
Airport xray problems aside, I now scan my 35mm slides/negs into PS (using a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III), edit them as needed and then print them using a Canon i950 (inkjet) – which btw does a fantastic job.
I’ll probably go with the Canon Powershot G5 (5MP) – which seems to have everything I’m looking for in an affordable digicam.
I just get all the film developed before I go on the plane.
(I really don’t like to carry my 10D and lenses on vacation – that feels too much like work)
Photobug, I know its a little over your $800 budget, however Canon has just released their Eos Rebel digital camera. Fully functional 35mm slr rebel body with the same chip as the 10D. It shoots an 18 meg file and retails for under $1,000 in a kit with a zoom lens included.
Photobug,
My apologies for barging in like this in your thread, but I have a burning question. I also use the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III, but the negative film I always receive has sometines for the eye invisible dust and even sometimes thumbmarks. I have no good way to clean the film before scanning. What would you advise to use to clean the film from dust and thumb marks? This would save me a lot of time in PS correcting the image.
Cheers
PEC (Photo Emulsion Cleaner) and a silk or micofiber cloth.
At 5mg you will get a good quality holiday snap camera. Why not spend the money on ebay and get an old Rolleiflex or something, and do as suggested above, get the film developed before being zapped.
John
Chris/John: Under that scenario, I would have to purchase the film at my destination (usually not in the US) which is much more expensive not to mention the effort in getting it processed. I simply don’t usually have the time for film shopping and waiting for processing.
z070tso: As Chris recommends, I do use PEC & a microfiber cloth as well as an antistatic brush. One thing I’ve noticed is that apart from dust/fingerprint problems, I get much better results scanning slide (positive) film than negative film.
keep in mind that lcd’s go through batteries like I go through steak! Better invest in several sets of NiCads if you’re in love w/that feature. My Olympus lasts about 75-100 shots with minimal use of the lcd, but goes near forever (months…. at least several hundred shots) when using only the viewfinder. I also agree w/zippy2k about it being something to worry about breaking.
Thanks for the input Dave, but Canon’s Lithium Ion rechargeable battery lasts for a few hundred shots with extensive use of the lcd (reportedly); besides which, a spare battery only costs about $15. Looks like I’m thinking up some good reasons to go with a Canon Powershot G5. 😉
Photobug, can I ask what sort of film you are using that’s getting fogged, and what speed that film is? I’ve had film go into the hold on an aircraft (apparently bad practice as the xray machines are even stronger than the ones hand luggage go through) and never had any problems. I also understood that you can still ask for a hand search- at least you can at American airports, according to this site <
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_0085. xml>. Might be worth priting that out and taking it with you when you fly, it has some good advice in it.
Helen, up until (and shortly after) the 9/11 tragedy, I sometimes used a variety of films in the ISO 200 – 400 range. Since then, experiencing very stringent airport inspections, I only use ISO 100 film (Fuji Velvia is my favorite, but I’ve also used various Kodak and Agfa film) believing that slower films are less likely to be fogged by xrays. While I have found ISO 100 film less susceptible to xray damage, they too show fogging effects from cumulative radiation.
Btw, I always ask for hand inspections in US airports, but to no avail. And I have shown that TSA article to the inspectors – who tell me that it was probably released prior to 9/11 and is contrary to their explicit instructions!
Chris,
(I really don’t like to carry my 10D and lenses on vacation – that feels too much like work)
Vacation? you’ve not a chance before Xmas – now get back to work! 😉
Btw, I always ask for hand inspections in US airports, but to no avail. And I have shown that TSA article to the inspectors – who tell me that it was probably released prior to 9/11 and is contrary to their explicit instructions!
It was worth a try! 🙁 What a shame. Seems like film really isn’t working for you. I hope you have great fun with your new digital camera though!
Thanks Helen – as previously indicated, film is and will remain my preference when not travelling by air (no way in the world will any digicam match the image-quality I get from 35mm Velvia 100F). However, a new digicam will certainly preclude my xray concerns when travelling by air! 🙂
"no way in the world will any digicam match the image-quality I get from 35mm Velvia 100F"
I know it’s in a different price category, but the 1Ds already exceeds the resolution of any 35mm color transparency film (and neg for that matter) as compared to scans on the best drum scanners available.Haven’t compared it to T-Max 100 yet for B&W, but for color, it’s there.
I know it’s in a different price category, but the 1Ds already exceeds the resolution of any 35mm color transparency film (and neg for that matter) as compared to scans on the best drum scanners available.Haven’t compared it to T-Max 100 yet for B&W, but for color, it’s there.
Peter, from what I’ve seen, even with the best digicams out there (the 1D included), you still have to contend with noise and chromatic aberration (especially when shooting ‘wide-open’).
But as far as I’m concerned it’s an academic issue, as there is no way I can afford a Canon 1D (on the other hand, maybe a Rebel 300d). 😉
"Peter, from what I’ve seen, even with the best digicams out there (the 1D included), you still have to contend with noise and chromatic aberration (especially when shooting ‘wide-open’). "
As far as noise, it’s a non issue in the 1Ds. The amount of noise is far less than the grain in the finest grained films – Provia, E100G, Astia, etc. in normal exposure shutter speed ranges. It can be an issue when shooting at E.I. 400 and above, but faster film is grainier too.
The only time I’ve seen chromatic abberation is with the 24 T/S when it’s fully tilted. This happens with virtually every wide angle lens I’ve ever used tilted or swung, from Super Angulons, to Fuji 680 lenses to the Canon Tilt/Shift 24mm 3.5.It certainly isn’t limited to digital capture.
Peter, you obviously have more experience than me with expensive digital (and film) gear. But I’m budgetarily constrained to digicams that sell for under $1000 (and that’s including zoom-lens)!
I have clearly stated that it is not my intent to replace my Canon 10s (film) SLR and gear, but to augment it with a decent digicam that I can use when travelling by air. So rather then debate issues which are academic (at best) to me at this time, I would like to appeal to you and other ‘digicamers’ by repeating my initial request for feedback…
….I’m now considering a digicam (mainly to use when travelling by air). I really like the idea of a flip-out tilting/rotating LCD viewer and the only digicams that I’ve found with these are the Canon G-series and the Nikon Coolpix 5000-series. Any feedback/recommendations would be most appreciated.
The chromatic abberation is NOT a function of the digital sensor. It’s a function of the lens. You just see it more on the digital cameras because there is no grain to content with. (it’s there in film, it’s just hard to see among all the grain)
PhotoBug – then check out the Canon Digital Rebel (aka 300D) SLR.
The chromatic abberation is NOT a function of the digital sensor. It’s a function of the lens. You just see it more on the digital cameras because there is no grain to content with. (it’s there in film, it’s just hard to see among all the grain)
Chris, while I have gained the utmost respect for your technical knowledge of PS, I couldn’t disagree more with the above statement. I am of the conviction that chromatic aberration (CA) is definitely a function of the digital sensor, and perhaps its size-ratio relationship with the lens’ focal-length.
In over 30 years of 35mm film photography, I have hardly ever experienced any purple fringing (CA) in pictures, even when using my widest lenses (currently a Canon EF 21mm). And as I use nothing but virtually grainless color films, ranging from Kodachrome to Fuji Velvia, there is no way that the film’s grain is ‘hiding’ the CA!
PhotoBug – then check out the Canon Digital Rebel (aka 300D) SLR.
I certainly plan to do that… 🙂
PhotoBug – nope, sorry. Several people have already done the experiments to prove that it’s 100% caused by the lens. (especially wide angle lenses)
Now, there are interpolation artifacts due to the Bayer color filter pattern – but those don’t even look the same as chromatic abberation.
Other than that, I don’t know what you’re seeing.
And Kodachrome and Velvia still have a lot of grain – especially when compared to images from a Canon 1Ds.
Photobug,
I concur with Chris on this one. Even with the super fine grained films, you see chromatic abberation in lenses that have it, but you have to scan it on the best scanners. Some scanners, and certainly enlarging lenses will introduce their own artifacts into the mix. It wasn’t until I was scanning on a really high end drum scanner on which the optical path had been custom aligned that I really noticed the difference.Nikons and Imacons are not enough. Looking at film through normal loupes isn’t either. You have to have something that truly resolves at the grain level, and then you will be surprised at how much you see. Of course, the level of magnification will magnifiy the optical defects, and I’m used to making huge scans which really do show the deficiencies.
In every single one of the websites that mention the chromatic abberation problem in digital capture that I have read, not one of them actually tested the same lens with film scanned on the level of scanner I have referred to. Instead they make some weak argument that because the average Joe doesn’t use a good drum (and there are bad ones too) that neither should they.
As Chris said, Velvia is far from grainless. In fact it is grainier than Provia, Astia and E100G, although it is still sharper. That’s Velvia 50. The 100 is finer grained than the 50, but still not as sharp.
I’m not suggesting that anyone give up their film cameras. They still have their place, especially for very long exposures, for black and white, when you need fast motor drive action, if you have moiré situations, or when you need the largest print size possible.
Ok guys, I concede the point to you (even though my observations contradict your statements).
Now getting back to the crux of my thread, let me pose a specific question for you digicam experts. I’ve narrowed my digicam search down to 2 very different cameras…
the Canon Powershot G5 (5MP)
<
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/g5/>
and the new Canon Rebel (6.3MP)
<
http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/>
The former appeals to me over the Rebel because of its flip-out tilting/rotating LCD. This would facilitate low-level shots as well as over the crowd shots, both of which I often practice. On the other hand while the Rebel has a fixed LCD, it has a larger sensor and of coarse the benefits that only an SLR can provide.
All other things being equal, how much of an difference (image-quality) would I likely see between the 2 digicams in prints up to (but never exceeding) A3 size???
I’m pretty sure you’re going to see a higher quality image from the Rebel, which has the same chip and processing as the more expensive 10D. That, in conjunction with the interchangeable lenses, make it a very attractive product, but if the moveable LCD is important to you, you have to decide if the G5 has the image quality that you require.
About the X-ray problem:
Isn’t it possible to snail mail the film stock to the location into which you’re traveling "poste restante"? You can then pick it up at the local post office or so..
Or is that X-rayed aswell?
In that case I stand corrected.
Rob
I have a Nikon Coolpix 5700. Good images, 8X optical zoom. Not a bad price. I carry 2 spare lithium ion batteries in the camera case and a charger in my luggage.
My friend has a Canon G3 (not sure how different that is to the new G5). It’s a great camera- the little screen is really clear and it’s easy to use. My friend has had some good results from it.
