Laptops

I want a digital SLR. I know I have champagne taste and beer money, but it does make a huge difference when doing anything that isn't for the web. If I try to use the images for church, for example, the images will be blown up to 20' wide. A high res image is a must. I also have several lenses for 35mm that I would love to be able to use (one is a 200mm zoom).

I will probably end up settling for something cheaper, but I will eventually own a nice one. A photographer friend of mine (and I mean a real pro), just bought a Nikon D70. Now I'm not going that high, but I want something good.
 
I agree with you, but remember that having a digital SLR isn't a guarantee of image quality. You could buy a 6MP point-n-shoot and it may give better results than a bottom-line SLR... and it may even give better results than an 8MP SLR. There are tons of variables.

But yeah, i want a digital SLR too, for many reasons but similarly because I have a telephoto lens (I think mine is someting like 55-200mm) and some wider format lenses that I'd love to be able to use for digital photography. You can get a digital SLR body for about $900 last time I checked, and prices may have even come down. But there are tons of digital cameras that have nearly all of the features of an SLR with excellent image quality that will cost much less. And with a tripod (I just got one at Big Lots for $10, so happy!) and photo editing, you don't need to take one picture to make a good image for enlarging.
 
as much as I would love one of the $1000-range models, I'll probably save up and get one of the $500 ones. The part I don't like about the super-small cameras is the lens. That's my biggest hangup. Knowing traditional photography, I know that a better lense enables a better image (although you are right about it not being a guarantee). The tiny 1/2" plastic window that many of them offer as a lense just doesn't get it for me. I also know that some, but not all, have software built in that averages the areas around pixels to flesh out an image (I know it's called something else, but that's the best I know how to describe it). I've recently been able to use some high-quality images for some photo editing and the difference is incredible. I photoshopped in a lesser quality pic and the difference was blaringly obvious. I had to work some magic to get it to look right.

Good job on the tripod. I should probably look into that. Mine is an old busted-up one that I inherited when someone got a nicer one.
 
SLR=Single Lens Reflex. It basically means that when you look through the viewfinder, a system of mirrors is letting you look through the actual camera lens at exactly what will be placed on film.

The tripod I picked up is fairly cheap and basic, but it's better than what I had (nothing). Now I can finally get my old 35mm out and take some time-lapse pictures and stuff. And yeha, it's hard to tell exactly what you're getting with a digital camera until you relaly use it for a while; two 3MP cameras could have entirely different CCD technology and take entirely differnet photos of the same image. If you wan an SLR though, go for it. I really think digital cameras are at the point where you should either buy something relatively cheap or something extremely expensive. Either you're using the camera casually and can work with a sub-3MP model that's inexpensive, or you relaly need quality and might as well spend $800+.
 
I love time-lapse and other creative techniques. I used to play around with the camera and in the dark room just trying to find unique ways to mess with images. And you're right, most people do not need a digital SLR. Not when all they're going to do is take pictures of Jr.'s birthday party or cheap shots of their grand canyon trip. Several of the people I work with just spent a couple of hundred dollars on high-end cheap cameras. They have menues and settings that they'll never understand. Only one of them knows what messing with the aperture, shutter speed, or iso means, or the difference between optical and digital zoom. They wasted their money in getting the extra bells and whistles.
 
Yeha I took a photography class and loved it. I have one awesome image where I took a picture of my girlfriend wearing this velvet skirt and then solarized it in the darkroom... the combination of the "texture" of the velvet and the solarization technique was awesome. I wish I could mess around with that stuff some more but it does get expensive, even just for materials.
 
BCampbell said:
You could buy a 6MP point-n-shoot and it may give better results than a bottom-line SLR... and it may even give better results than an 8MP SLR.

This is EXTREMELY unlikely... The digital sensor in a digital SLR is physically larger than that found in almost all compact cameras, irrespective of the final "megapixel" resolution of the saved picture file. What this translates to is increased sharpness and reduced artifacting (noise) in the final image, because bottom line, the larger the size of the sensor, the more light is gathered and the better the final result. You'll really see the largest jumps when you shoot in low light- digital SLRs, even when shooting at a high ISO rating (say, 1600) have a lot less "grain" than the same speed of push-developed film would show .

Another benefit of a SLR (single-lens reflex camera, for those asking- think a "tradional camera with interchangable lenses) is the LENSES- if you have existing lenses for, say, Nikon, then those lenses will work with your digital body (with some exceptions). Usually, the quality of the glass in even an entry-level SLR lens is far superior to the comparitively teensy lenses in compact cameras. There are some exceptions to this rule (the Zeiss lenses in a Leica spring immediately to mind... but those cameras go for several THOUSAND dollars), but in general you'll do better with an SLR. Just remember that unless you get a $3000 body, almost all digital SLRs do NOT shoot a full-frame 35mm image- they effectively "crop" about 30% of the edges of an image, which will mean that your spiffy 25mm ultra-wide-angle landscape lens is really a 38mm not-so-wide angle portrait lens when mounted on a digital SLR body. The good news is that your 200mm will function like a 300mm ultra-zoom, however. ANd hey, no film to worry about and you can preview your shots to make sure you got what you wanted (didigal SLRa almost always even allow you to view an image's histogram even)... That alone is worth a HUGE ammount of lens headaches IMHO.

Of course, cameras are just tools... Real photographers have a variety of cameras, both SLR and compact, and use whatever will ge tthe job done. I've often heard it said that "the best camera for the job is the one you have in your hand when the perfect moment arrives", so don't get too bent out of shape about HAVING to have a SLR. While I love mine, I've taken images with my 6megapixel Olymous compact camera that made stunning 11x14s, after a bit of digital clean up and enhancement in Paint Shop Pro... SLRs are great but they're expensive and massive.... compacts are, well, COMPACT and are easy to tote around all day, but most are limited in what they can do with white balance changes and are limited to their zoom range. It's all a trade-off...
 
I guess it really comes down to the application. I may want mine for some specific things like pre-arranged photo-shoots with models, or locational shoots. Almost all of my stuff happens because I want it to or know about it ahead of time. Even sports photographers have prep work to do before aiming and snapping.

Having a handy little compact would really come in handy when I'm out and about and an idea strikes me. You're right, Imago, it makes it easier for the impromptu shot and it really does depend on what you want it for. Just like any tool.

Oh, and your observations about the size of the light sensor is dead on. Even intraditional photography, a 70mm negative gives you much better quality than a 35mm.
 
What I was getting at is that you can't just look at the numbers to tell you what is "better". As you say Matt, your 6MP Olympus shoots excellent photos, and it works for you regardless of what the specs say. It's not all about the numbers, but as you said about the application and what each user needs.

And yeah, those little 1 and 2MP cameras that fit in your pocket are awesome for capturing little vignette, opportunity shots, especially if you're just using it for screen-work only (i.e., putting them on the web). While I have printed out some 4x6"s with my 2.1MP, but it's not ideal -- in particular deep oranges and reds show artifacts. There have been a lot of advances in CCD technology in the last few years though, so even a new 2MP camera will take better images than one a few years old, like mine.

If you already have a 35mm SLR and want a digital camera for other purposes, you might want to just get a fairly inexpensive one that will let you do a few tricks and invest in a decent scanner. A good camera with good lenses can still take pictures that will rival expensive digitals if you have a quality scanner and some patience. It would sure be a heck of a lot cheaper.
 
the good news is that 18mp cameras are in development for wide distribution. Now only my descendants will eventually be able to get one generations from now, but that means that when they keep coming out with better stuff, the "top of the line" stuff comes down to my price level.
 
GhostToast said:
get a decent 35 milimeter camera and a 100 dollar scanner and you're gonna have potentially better images anyway. =P

Actually, I researched that, and I'm not sure that's true...

Foe one thing, scanning negatives or slides really requires you use a special software application to eliminate dust specs (specks so small the eye can't even see them will show up as white or black dots on even freshly developed scans), and besides there's really no such thing as a good transparency scanner for $100- a unit that's going to do a good job costs about as much as a entry level digital SLR.

Also, the digital SLR is more efficient and economic in the long run because you'll never have to:

* Buy Film
* Process Film
* Store negatives or slides appropriately (buying sleeves, binders and archival pages)
* Print an entire roll of film to just get 2-3 good images
* Reload the camera after 24 or 36 frames

And, best of all, since a digital will white balance, you never have to worry about shooting in mixed or changing lighting. Daylight film, for example, exposes incandescent light as very orange and floursecent as very green, which you would have had to correct with filters with a film camera.
 
your arguments are commendable, Imago, but I'm with Ghost. I taught photography, and I also have a degree in Illustration where I almost always bring images into the digital realm to finish them. If you know what you're doing, a 35mm will serve you much better. As for eliminating dust specks, photoshop. I will enjoy getting a digital, but I know that any image taken with it will have to be touched up digitally to match the quality I get when I break out the film. That's why they are continually coming out with better and better digital cameras: they can't match the old stuff (which is weird if you know what goes into film). A high-res film and standard lense will take you far. I'm just too lazy to develop the prints.
 
Matt has great points, but I think the idea for nonprofessional users is that a serviceable scanner costs a lot less than a digital SLR (especially if you don't want to get the $900 bottom-end models), and lets you work digitally with your 35mm shots. Sure it will be more expensive in the (very) long run, but what you're doing is trying to figure out how digital end-processing affects your photos. After a period of experimentation and learning, that's when you decide if you want to pony up for a dSLR.

Look at it this way; if you spend $100-$200 on a scanner and accesories and decide you don't need the dSLR, you've saved yourself several hundred bucks. if you spend $100-$200 on a scanner and accessories and then decide to get a dSLR, you're only adding that $100-$200 to a $1000+ investment, which is comparatively not a huge deal.
 
Darth_Jonas said:
I will enjoy getting a digital, but I know that any image taken with it will have to be touched up digitally to match the quality I get when I break out the film. That's why they are continually coming out with better and better digital cameras: they can't match the old stuff (which is weird if you know what goes into film). A high-res film and standard lense will take you far. I'm just too lazy to develop the prints.

Acxtually, I felt the same way you do for quite a while- there's just a "feel" to film that seemed better. Then I ran across a site written by a 35-year veteran landscape photpgrapher who compared very low-grain, 100 ISO 35mm film with a 3 MP digital camera's images (that was top of the line a few years back when it was written, and that was only a crop-framed digital SLR, not the full-frame ones that are avaialble now) and the difference in grain when enlarged 2000%-3000% was startling- digital was SMOOTHER!

Granted, if you shoot medium format or larger, the extra info recorded on those negatives will surpass anything available in digital, but how many people routinely use a Hassi with Zeiss lenses for their usual shooting, outside of wedding photogs and pretty rarified landscape artists?

And I hate manual retouching negs and slides. I have a box of 25 years worth that i'm still waiting to scan- I've bopught and returned three scanners so far as they're just not quite there yet in the <$300 price range to give me the speed, quality and auto retouch features I need for such a large scanning project- when you're talking tens of thousands of images, having to spend 30-60 minutes per image scanning them, level balancing and removing dust (even if you only do a fraction of your total scans) then that's still way too much. :cookiemon
 
Back on LAPTOPS though, you might be interested to know thatr I just penned an agreement with Alienware to review their Area 51 M5700 gakming laptop (specs: http://www.alienware.com/product_de...ubCode=SKU-DEFAULT&from=Gamespot:Area51_m5700 )

Keep an eye out for a review, hopefully in early March. If it goes well, I hope to review the monster M770 next- they were actually willing to send that model out, but I thought the price tag (well over $2 grand) was somewhat out of the proce range for our usual readership. If people disagree, however, please let me know. :cookiemon