• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Digital Camera's Suck!

FWIW, when I bought our most recent camera, I made sure it used AA's.
Reasons?? One, we had a bunch from our old Olympus, and
Two, you can always get a fresh set at almost any store around.
Try that with your Sony/Casio/Nikon/Fuji whatever proprietary cell.
They may be bulkier, but they always work.
Besdies, I'm no Ansel Adams anyway:lmao:
 
Morden2004 said:
Awesome shot! Tripod? Just a super exposure as well.

I have been working my way through my new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT and I have to say it is dead easy to use and understand for an old film guy like me. I love it.

Paul
Click to expand...
Yes, a StarD tripod that I bought in a now-defunct store back in 1978. Thanks for the nice comment! I'm an old film and old camera guy as well. I went down there with the digital, a Hanimex Praktica Nova IB, a Vivitar 220/SL and a Nikon FG that I had just bought and found out it has a sticky mirror. The film shots came out pretty much the same as the digital, but the one from the Hanimex was so nice and so clear that I'm having a 20 X 24 Ilfochrome Classic (Cibachrome) print made from it. Being a picture framer, I know enough never to touch one of those with my bare hands. The emulsion on those prints is so delicate that even a momentary touch with a fingertip will make a mark that will never come out, but the color saturation and clarity is well worth the delicacy!
 
Bogframe said:
Yes, a StarD tripod that I bought in a now-defunct store back in 1978. Thanks for the nice comment! I'm an old film and old camera guy as well. I went down there with the digital, a Hanimex Praktica Nova IB, a Vivitar 220/SL and a Nikon FG that I had just bought and found out it has a sticky mirror. The film shots came out pretty much the same as the digital, but the one from the Hanimex was so nice and so clear that I'm having a 20 X 24 Ilfochrome Classic (Cibachrome) print made from it. Being a picture framer, I know enough never to touch one of those with my bare hands. The emulsion on those prints is so delicate that even a momentary touch with a fingertip will make a mark that will never come out, but the color saturation and clarity is well worth the delicacy!
Click to expand...

Definitely a shot to cherish! :yes:

I absolutely love it. And, mounted and framed as a 20x24 it will make you smile everytime you view it! Very nice work. Makes me want to jump on a plane and spend some time in my favoutite city anywhere: the Big Apple!

Paul
 
Digital camera really sucks :yuck: Evem my ol' "Zorki" 4 takes better pictures than those junks!
The consumer knows always to pick up the worst products (see VHS vs. Betamax, VHS vs DVD-DVD=:yuck: )
 
Last edited:
I think you doth protest too much. Sorry but in todays world 99% of photogs are better off with digital than with film. The D-SLR has broken the $1,000 price barrier and are now selling like hotcakes. If you really like to take pics why would you fork over $5/roll for film, process 36 images to get 2 or 3 keepers, be stuck with whatever ISO the film is, have no option for black and white ( unless of course you buy B&W film), or any other creative mode available with digital. Sony even now has a full size sensor in their new R1 fixed lens camera so even low light is not an issue.

Now I agree a medium format Hasselblad will take sharper photos than any digital camera but that's for that 1 percentile I mentioned earlier. Even Leica and Hasselbald make digital gear now so it's time to get your head out of the sand and accept the fact that the war is over and digital has won.

Mike
 
Yes, yes they do :D I have a 1984 Pentax ME Super which I happen to love. I've also got the SMC-M 50mm and SMC-M 80-200 f4.5 fixed ap lens. Love them both, though the 50 is banged up.
 
I hate to break it to you fella's but OLD doesn't always equal BETTER. The light meters found in today's modern camera's are light years ahead ( pun intended) of what could be found 20 years ago. Getting proper exposures meant carrying a portable light meter and knowing how to use it. Now with the evaluative spot meters, center weighted meters, and spot meters built into the better digital cameras getting the proper exposure is almost guaranteed. Trust me, I've seen enough of the old family slide shows taken with those K-1000's or ME Supers to know exposure was a hit and miss affair. Also modern light meters allow you to shoot after the sun goes down which can't be said for those older SLR's.

Mike
 
To the first guy's post. Well, yeah, that's weird with the batteries. Something seems wrong. What camera is that out of curiosity. I love the batteries for my d70. They last a long time. With a full battery i can take around 300 i bet. I can have the camera sitting for a couple weeks or month and can still shoot i bet a 100 pictures with it. I also know that the tiff setting and if you have electric zoom instead of manual; both suck up a bunch of battery life.
 
Agreed audioguy. I use 2 Li-Ion's batteries in the vertical battery grip with my Oly C-8080 and I can easily fill a 2 Gig CF card and still have plenty of battery life left. Rechargeable Ni-Mh have never worked nearly as well in my experience.

Mike
 
Telecolor 3007 said:
Digital camera really sucks :yuck: Evem my ol' "Zorki" 4 takes better pictures than those junks!
The consumer knows always to pick up the worst products (see VHS vs. Betamax, VHS vs DVD-DVD=:yuck: )
Click to expand...


Yeah, my Zorki "C" is clearly superior to my 20d. Except apart from the fact that:

1. Theres no light meter, let alone 3 mode spot/evaluative/centerweighted option
2. I still have to wind it for each frame and
3. I can't set the shutter speed until i've wound it to the next frame, without risking ruining the shutter mechanism.
4. The thing takes film with old style "Leica" type film leaders, meaning I have to custom cut the leader on each roll of film (imagine if you had to custom cut your CF card to get it to fit?)
5. The rangefinder mechanism only provides accurate focusing on lenses up to 135mm
6. Screwmount lenses require care when being attached so that the rangefinder foot accurately lines up to provide focusing.
7. No autofocus.

Despite all the obvious advantages the zorki has over the 20d, I still feel compelled to keep my 20d, with the thought in mind that if cameras keep getting worse I'm gonna want to hold on to it in case 10 yrs down the line my zorki fails and I might be forced to buy an even NEWER and more technologically inferior digital camera.
 
Get a smart charger for your NiMH batteries. WORTH EVERY PENNY. Charges the batts independently, you get to pick charge rate, and it does not OVERcharge batteries, = longer battery life. And you only charge them as much as they need, so they tend to charge more quickly for a given current.
 
I see the digital vs. analog debate rages on here too. I always like to tell people that both are interesting, because they both have a different feel and depending on your mood, one is often more intriguing than the other.

However, in a pro world, the high end digital stuff has far outsurpassed film in every way. Less noise/grain, more accurate color and a much wider tonal scale by a long shot. And you get the picture right away.

As for storage, there are CD's that will last 300 years now, and I can't imagine anyone (myself included) that is creating images so profound that they need to last longer than that.

It's sad to see fim go, because I grew up with it and using film required a certain mastery, but digital is really the same way. To get the most out of it, you really need to master the medium. I'll also miss the darkroom.
 
Buying DSLR, probably Nikon D80 or D200

I'm tired of mediocre results, which are not a DIGITAL problem, but a CHEAP digital problem. I'm buying a DSLR, probably a Nikon D80 with Nikon 18-200mm VR lens. The D200 looks SWEET, but I don't think I can justify the extra $, not to mention the extra WEIGHT. I want availability of quality lenses!!!

Opinions?
 
I bought my wife one of the Pentax IST* series (can't remember which specific model, I'll check when I get home if you are interested) she is pretty serious about her photography, (She has been into it for 30 years and we are setting up her B&W enlarger now) She is completly satisfied with it and has been using it extensivly, including in her Digital Photog college class, for nearly a year.

I picked it over a Nikon (Xmas Present, I agonized over the choice) as the build quality seemed better in my hands. The Nikon felt like a plastic toy in the shop.
 
My question is, in post #1, how did you post such a huge picture on AK? I thought that there were limitations to something closer to 640 x 480 or something like that.
 
outlawmws said:
I bought my wife one of the Pentax IST* series [snip]
I picked it over a Nikon (Xmas Present, I agonized over the choice) as the build quality seemed better in my hands. The Nikon felt like a plastic toy in the shop.
Click to expand...

The Canon Rebel XTI is too small for my hand, and feels cheap compared to the Nikon D80. The D80 feels great in my hand, and solid, but the D200 is so sturdy (metal body, enviro-sealed) that it makes the D80 feel like a fancy toy. But if you put a big lens on the D80 and compare it to the D200, the weight difference is not so noticeable. Both the D80 and D200 are really fast, from startup to picture, from button to shutter, from shutter to card-write.

I think the ergonomics and lens choices, plus the pro features in the D80 (many shared with the D200) are keeping Nikon on the top of my list. Some claim that you pay extra for the Nikon name, but the D80 looks like a terrific value for money to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom