Newbie

Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765
appeals to me. However, after reading and surfin' numerous
publications and web sites, including (but certainly not limited to)
Pop Photo, Consumer Reports, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, I have
come to the following conclusion. This is where I hope you guys can
set me straight.

HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
CAMERAS for the following reasons:

NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100) . Less than
accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?

PERFORMANCE: Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
sure it really isn't). The speed with which photos can be taken with
digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.

RESOLUTION: I understand that one cannot make a direct comparison
between digital and 35mm cameras in terms of resolution. I have read
a source that did just that claiming that 35mm camera's (as a group)
have a 30 MP equivelant. Although the difference between 30 MP and 4,
5, or 8 MP's may not (due to mathematics and technology) literally
translate into 4, 6 or 8 times the resolution, the difference has to
count towards quality in some way.

QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?

I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and hope to
post more once I get off the ground with digital

Born Loser asks:


HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
CAMERAS for the following reasons:

Your basic hypothesis is wrong. SOME digitals do perform as well as comparable
35mm cameras.

NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100)

Depends. Noise levels are not necessarily unacceptable above 100 ISO...my
Pentax has a low ISO equiv. of 200, shoots cleanly at 400, and hasn't been
tried above that. But it's an SLR.

Less than
accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?

No.

Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
sure it really isn't).

Yeah, every non-DSLR I've used seems to have some shutter lag, a lag that
almost seems to depend on camera cost. More expensive cameras have less lag.
EVFs do blank out for a long time--it doesn't just seem long, but, IMHO, after
going back to SLR viewfinders from several EVFs, EVFs in their current state
suck.

The speed with which photos can be taken with
digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.

With non-SLRs, yup.

So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.?

Yeah, you're wrong to believe that. Shoot at 200 and produce acceptable photos.
Shoot at 400 and find most acceptable.

And a lot depends on the non-SLR camera you select. You will be limited in
frames per minute, but you'll also have a long lens and a nearly wide lens and
a lot of good response and photography...check out some real photo sites for
proof.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Born Loser asks:


HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
CAMERAS for the following reasons:

Your basic hypothesis is wrong. SOME digitals do perform as well as comparable
35mm cameras.

NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100)

Depends. Noise levels are not necessarily unacceptable above 100 ISO...my
Pentax has a low ISO equiv. of 200, shoots cleanly at 400, and hasn't been
tried above that. But it's an SLR.

Less than
accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?

No.

Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
sure it really isn't).

Yeah, every non-DSLR I've used seems to have some shutter lag, a lag that
almost seems to depend on camera cost. More expensive cameras have less lag.
EVFs do blank out for a long time--it doesn't just seem long, but, IMHO, after
going back to SLR viewfinders from several EVFs, EVFs in their current state
suck.

The speed with which photos can be taken with
digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.

With non-SLRs, yup.

So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.?

Yeah, you're wrong to believe that. Shoot at 200 and produce acceptable photos.
Shoot at 400 and find most acceptable.

And a lot depends on the non-SLR camera you select. You will be limited in
frames per minute, but you'll also have a long lens and a nearly wide lens and
a lot of good response and photography...check out some real photo sites for
proof.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Born Loser" wrote in message
om...
Hello rec.photo.digital. members.
QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?
The actual photos that I obtain with my Nikon D70 compare quite favorably
with those from my Nikon N90s. There is no difference in speed between the
two cameras. The minimum ISO for the D70 is 200.

As for printing, I seldom make prints smaller than 8x10. If there is a
difference between those made with the D70 and those made with the N90s, I
can't see it.

Perhaps those reviews were discussing the cameras which use the very small
sensors. From what little I have read, those cameras are afflicted with
sensor noise and less than satisfactory optics. I have only used a Nikon
Coopix 800 which is OK for prints about 4x6 or 5x7.
Jim

"Born Loser" wrote in message
om...
Hello rec.photo.digital. members.
QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?
The actual photos that I obtain with my Nikon D70 compare quite favorably
with those from my Nikon N90s. There is no difference in speed between the
two cameras. The minimum ISO for the D70 is 200.

As for printing, I seldom make prints smaller than 8x10. If there is a
difference between those made with the D70 and those made with the N90s, I
can't see it.

Perhaps those reviews were discussing the cameras which use the very small
sensors. From what little I have read, those cameras are afflicted with
sensor noise and less than satisfactory optics. I have only used a Nikon
Coopix 800 which is OK for prints about 4x6 or 5x7.
Jim

"Born Loser" wrote in message
om...
Hello rec.photo.digital. members.
QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?
The actual photos that I obtain with my Nikon D70 compare quite favorably
with those from my Nikon N90s. There is no difference in speed between the
two cameras. The minimum ISO for the D70 is 200.

As for printing, I seldom make prints smaller than 8x10. If there is a
difference between those made with the D70 and those made with the N90s, I
can't see it.

Perhaps those reviews were discussing the cameras which use the very small
sensors. From what little I have read, those cameras are afflicted with
sensor noise and less than satisfactory optics. I have only used a Nikon
Coopix 800 which is OK for prints about 4x6 or 5x7.
Jim

"Born Loser" wrote in message
om...
HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
CAMERAS for the following reasons:

My observations are............

NOISE: Is the same as Film I would say 400ASA Film is quite noisy but only
about the same as my DSLR set to 400ASA - Though if I'm set to 400 ASA it's
either persisting it down or about to start so the pics aren't too great
anyway.

PERFORMANCE: Again, is the same - though I only manage about 3 frames per
second on continuous.

RESOLUTION: - Just look at the prints - I doubt if you can spot the
difference between film and digi - and if you did you'd probably prefer the
digis.

On 16 Aug 2004 08:02:59 -0700,
(Born Loser) wrote:

QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?


You seem to be comparing the current crop of point 'n shoot cameras
with the best 35mm cameras available. You shuldn't do that.
Instead, you should be comparing the current cameras with what you
want.
What is, exactly, 35mm quality? Is it what someone with $15,000
dollars of equipment gets, or what the neighbor with a 25 year old SLR
gets?
What do you want to do with the pics you take? Email them to your
friends/relatives? 7 - 8 MP is serious overkill.
Make oversized prints to hang in a gallery? You're wasting your time
looking at the current crop of point 'n shoots altogether.
There are few current digitals with a 3 second shot-to-shot time; it's
usually in the fraction of a second range, until the buffer is full.
You'll take that long to recompose the shot.

What I'm trying to say is that the only comparison that counts is the
one that compares the camera in question to your needs/wants.

Is digital ready for prime time? Obviously. Does it equal 35mm?
Which 35mm? Yours? Mine? His? 8x10? 4x6? The real answer is: does it
meet your needs/wants.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 16 Aug 2004 08:02:59 -0700,
(Born Loser) wrote:

QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?


You seem to be comparing the current crop of point 'n shoot cameras
with the best 35mm cameras available. You shuldn't do that.
Instead, you should be comparing the current cameras with what you
want.
What is, exactly, 35mm quality? Is it what someone with $15,000
dollars of equipment gets, or what the neighbor with a 25 year old SLR
gets?
What do you want to do with the pics you take? Email them to your
friends/relatives? 7 - 8 MP is serious overkill.
Make oversized prints to hang in a gallery? You're wasting your time
looking at the current crop of point 'n shoots altogether.
There are few current digitals with a 3 second shot-to-shot time; it's
usually in the fraction of a second range, until the buffer is full.
You'll take that long to recompose the shot.

What I'm trying to say is that the only comparison that counts is the
one that compares the camera in question to your needs/wants.

Is digital ready for prime time? Obviously. Does it equal 35mm?
Which 35mm? Yours? Mine? His? 8x10? 4x6? The real answer is: does it
meet your needs/wants.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Hi Born Loser

I can't be assed reading all this stuff and the other posts

If you prefer 35mm or medium format = hey fine with me dewd, live it up

FWIW I find I have to replace my socks far too frequently these days.

They were first blasted off when me an me m8s went mountain hinking

The one with a didgicam had results burned to CD and displayed on widescreen
TV using a DVD burner once we got back to base camp 1

I had my rolls of 35mm tucked up safely away somewhere

Blew socks off

I then bought my own compact digicam = Blew socks off

I then took up a 30-day free trial of Adobe Photoshop CS = Blew socks off

If any1 discovers some socks innocently blowing in the wind.

Please post a notice here - they may be mine :-)

But it is a big worls and conversion I seek not - if you luv it dewd, do it
and be good at it

have phun

Arty

"Born Loser" wrote in message
om...
Hello rec.photo.digital. members. I am a newbie and hope you can
help me. After many years of 35mm SLR experience as a hobbyist, I am
about to buy my first digital camera. Although I haven't ruled out one
of the current 8 MP models, at this time I have my eyes on the Olympus
765. Quite frankly, I am tired of lugging around five pounds of SLR,
lens, and flash around my neck. That's why a camera like the 765
appeals to me. However, after reading and surfin' numerous
publications and web sites, including (but certainly not limited to)
Pop Photo, Consumer Reports, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, I have
come to the following conclusion. This is where I hope you guys can
set me straight.

HYPOTHESIS: DIGITAL CAMERA'S DO NOT PERFORM AS WELL AS COMPRABLE 35mm
CAMERAS for the following reasons:

NOISE: Almost every camera review I've read discussed chromatic
abberations/purple fringing (especially in the current crop of 8
MP's), moire distortions (especially in DSLR's) and unacceptable noise
levels at ISO's above 100 in all but the most expensive DSLR's (you
need an awful lot of light to shoot below ISO 100) . Less than
accurate color reproduction creeps in every so often as well. Are
these distortions as serious and common in every shot as they sound?

PERFORMANCE: Again, almost every camera review I've read and all the
camera's I've checked-out at the local stores seem to have a
performance lag in terms of shutter speed, readiness for the next shot
and the screen/EVF blanking out for what seems like a long time (I'm
sure it really isn't). The speed with which photos can be taken with
digital seems considerably slower than 35mm.

RESOLUTION: I understand that one cannot make a direct comparison
between digital and 35mm cameras in terms of resolution. I have read
a source that did just that claiming that 35mm camera's (as a group)
have a 30 MP equivelant. Although the difference between 30 MP and 4,
5, or 8 MP's may not (due to mathematics and technology) literally
translate into 4, 6 or 8 times the resolution, the difference has to
count towards quality in some way.

QUESTION: So here is my question. How accurate are the above
observations? The reviews I've read often rate the camera highly but
the above problems always seem to creep into the review. This suggests
that the current crop of digitals are continously getting better, but
in some respects, are still not completely there. If I buy a digital
camera (other other than a DSLR) how are my pictures going to stand-up
to 35mm? Am I wrong to believe that I will be limited to ISO's of 100
or below, one frame every three or five seconds, observable
distortions even in 4x6 and 8x10 prints, etc.? What's the inside
scoop concerning the upcoming 7 MP cameras and, I assume, revised and
updated 8 MP's?

I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter and hope to
post more once I get off the ground with digital