it's digital. an olympus C730.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks. Looking to get an SLR and was wondering whether to stay digital or not.

Unless you are a professional photographer who can achieve photographic effects in the darkroom that aren't available through Photoshop, I wouldn't even consider getting a film camera. I have a Canon PowerShot S45. It's not the fanciest or most expensive digital camera, but it rocks! Team it up with even a basic digital photo editor/archive program like Adobe Album and a good quality monitor, and you will not believe what good pictures you can take. If you want hard copies, you can have an online photo service make good-quality prints. Take the plunge!

I already have a Digital Ixus (v1) which is great for party shots and night out shots, but it only has a 2x zoom which isn't great for sporting events etc. Canon have just released their digital SLR for under AU$2000 here, which is a bit much at the moment, but I was wondering whether I should go film for the SLR shots, or continue along the digital stuff. I think digital is the way to go at this stage.

"Looking to get an SLR and was wondering whether to stay digital or not."

I do wedding photography and freelance as a part time side hobby business. There is no doubt that digital is the way of the future. I suspect in about a year, I'll sell off my 35mm Nikon SLR's and go digital. I'll still keep my medium format cameras for portrait work, but digital will replace 35mm.

Canon EOS 10D. With tons already invested in my Canon system I wanted something that would use all my "L" series lenses. Also, the thng is pretty bombproof, very important to me. I have shot fim since my first photography class in high school, but I only shoot digital now except for occasional glamour stuff, and even with that I still use digital to check my work. Digital is better to travel with too. no worries about gettng your film through the X-ray machines, no more lead bags, no film to carry at all, just a couple media cards. With your Canon EOS 10D and a laptop you have a complete photo processing lab in your day pack that you can carry on the plane. By the time you get back from your trip all your editing and processing are done. Awesome!

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

hi,
i've been getting tons of advice on this forum from you guys and since i'm a rookie can't offer too much in return....so i felt obligated to throw in my $.02 here...i'm a professional photographer in l.a. as well as instructor at art center college of design....
buying a camera is always, "what's gonna take the best pictures?" and "what's the best camera out there?"....well just like tri..it's not the equipment and if it is than you are on the wrong track....buy a camera that you're gonna use...i recommend not buying the expensive camera if you are gonna treat it like some exotic special toy....don't let the camera own you...you own the camera...you want one that you'll take with you everywhere and use and abuse...that's what it is for...not for showing off....

should you go digital or stay analouge...there is no right answer here except as it applies to you...neither the camera nor its technology is gonna help you take great pictures....i'd say here get the one that will encourage you to use it....if digital is more convienent than use digital....if analouge is easier for you than go ahead....don't do what is right for others do what is best for you....

neither digital nor old school create good shots...it's just about what works for what you are trying to say

as far as the quality....just ask yourself what you are gonna do with the images...if you are gonna make small prints and play on the computer....than get the appropriate camera...if you are gonna make 16x20 digital prints than you're gonna wanna to get a different type of camera....

let's just say that i've learned on here that a bike is only as good as its fit....and the same is true with a camera...get what fits YOU not what fits someone else.....and what fits you is what you'll use and enjoy...

what you see in foto is the person who is obsessed with equipment, spends a ton of money and has nothing to say other than look at my camera....on the other hand there is the person who dosen't even know what kind of camera they have but has a lot to say and creates beautiful images....don't get caught up in the equipment get caught up in creating images....

anyway i don't usually go into this but i figure i owe you guys....

good luck....

F.Y.I. News out of Rockford has it that Eastman Kodak will stop production of film processors. News to be taken from this is that in the not to distant future Kodak will be devoting all resources to the digital development program. As an old school guy I am sad to see the domination of film in our industry, but I also had the same feelings when STI first came out.

Film is NOT dead.

http://www.kodak.com/.../pr20030925-01.shtml

First of all this press release is pretty old, and second, its a classic case of broken telephone. Kodak is simply stating that their emphasis will be on digital rather than film for the consumer market which makes absolute sense. When was the last time any of you picked up a roll of iso 100 film? So most likely no new consumer grade films which is fine by me since I'm not even a big Kodak guy; I much prefer Fuji NPH. And regardless, Kodak's selection of film is pretty huge even after dropping some of it better films (rip royal gold 100) If 35mm film really dies I think its time for me to pick up a medium format anyway... (I doubt the cost of 1:1 CCDs will ever be low enough to make medium format "affordable".)

oh and regarding film processors - uh, well, I'm assuming you mean them big develop. machines - they've been digital for a while now. I know for fact that the current Fuji Frontiers use digital scanning and printing for enlargements. Makes sense to me; instead of expensive enlargers, baths etc. And as far as I can tell they look just as good.

On a side note - "what kind of camera". Film/Digital that's completely up to you. But let me make a point - post-processing (development) is just as important as taking the picture. I've seen a number of people spend 1000$+ on a camera, and go to wal-mart for their prints. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten some nice prints there too BUT the fact is you can get MUCH nicer stuff from a well trained lab. (Or even more control doing it youself - but we're all busy triathletes here). I think this is one reason I'm a little apprehensive on the Digital approach; I like my lab - they do great results - on the other hand my photoshop skills are minimal at best. I'll stick with film for now. Besides, I like the qualities and choices I have in different films, and of course the vast array of choices I have of used lenses. (www.keh.com) Other problems with me and digi: 1.6x factor and the colors - I really want that Foveon X3 technology available in all cameras...

Besides, I'd rather spend 2000$ on film + new lenses than on one single body and a mediocre lens.

deechee

I was at Kona last month and was very disappointed with the photos that were taken with my Fujifilm 2800. My specific gripe is the time delay between pressing the button and capturing the image. I was lucky enough to be on Alii drive for the first 10 men and women, unfortunately despite panning I was unable to capture the majority of the runners! When you press the button the view in the 'finder/lcd screen disappears and you are panning on faith.

I know this is a problem that all digital cameras have below SLR level but does anyone have a recommendation that combines a good focal length (x6 minimum), compact enough to hold one handed and put in a fanny pack that will solve this problem? Or even a way to get around this? I don't mind asking since we have our own profesional photographers and lecturers on line ;-)



Julian in England

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

Thanks for all the advice guys. Based on what I'll use it for, I think I'll stay digital. Since most people here are gear freaks, I might as well say that I'm going to get the new Canon 300D.

Now all I have to do is start saving... ;-)

Cervelo Guy,



EBAY that 35 mm and medium format, before it is to late to get real coin for it. Save the 35mm lenses and grab yourself the Nikon D100. I shoot commercially and see no need for a medium format for film portraits. I shoot all my editorial work and portraits on my D100. We hava a D1X and the D100 is comparable in quality to the X. Unless you are going to get a digital back( we have two phase one backs) for the medium format, you will shoot less and less with it as you become satisfied with the digital quality.

I shoot a limited number of weddings each year and capture the event fully on the D100 currently. The results are incredible. Yes, I might say better than film. All the proofs are custom now rather than machine prints. I have two 20 by 24's hanging on my office wall from my D100 and they are far superior to any film images that I have at that size. Real data baby, not film grain.



Good Luck

Stoots



www.twildstudio.com

"EBAY that 35 mm and medium format, before it is to late to get real coin for it."

I'm actually thinking along those lines even now. I've just got to take a night course and become a bit more competent with Photoshop and then that's what I'll be doing.

Just a general comment - digital has made leaps and bounds over the past few years and to anyone without a camera, I'd say go digital rather than film. The choice will be SLR or compact - the thing with the compacts being that you loose a lot of artistic creativity by default as they go for the bundled simple approach to taking photos. Still - I used to have a Leica Digilux, then a Fuji 4600 and they both performed admirably when trying to do that something extra - but just try some out.

I've since moved into digital SLR and gone from a (canon) D30, to D60, to 10D and now also have a 1D. My shots are online at www.digitaltriathlon.com and you may spot the difference between the cameras, but the main difference is in the hit rate of how many shots are in focus - when Peter Reid's running toward you the cameras can really struggle to lock the focus! Still - some of the best shots I got at Kona this year were on a D30 and whilst the camera helps, it's setting up the shot that makes it the better shot (and I'm the first to admit I've a way to go!). So here's the main reason why I like digital - I make mistakes, lots of them, and I try lots of things because the mistakes are free. That's how I learn, so go out and just take pics...and learn from the results.

tim

---

Tim
blue seventy / nuun / digitaltriathlon.com

Go digital? Oh yes, since I do some managing of web sites, I "need" some of my pictures immediately. Sell my fully manual Nikon FM2 and my 85 mm 1.4? Never. But if I buy a new digital SLR Nikon, can I use that 85 mm on it (it not a autofocus lens)?

Do you usually have your cameras with you while biking and running? How do you carry them?

---

Bent Olav Olsen, recreational triathlete?

"Do you usually have your cameras with you while biking and running? How do you carry them?"

Can carry a little Olympic Stylus Epic with me. Nice small point and shoot that takes nice photos. Wouldn't attempt to carry an SLR.

[quote]I know this is a problem that all digital cameras have below SLR level but does anyone have a recommendation that combines a good focal length (x6 minimum), compact enough to hold one handed and put in a fanny pack that will solve this problem? Or even a way to get around this? I don't mind asking since we have our own profesional photographers and lecturers on line ;-) [/quote]

I'd also be interested in knowing of a digital camera in the under $400 range that would take good action shots. I like taking pictures at cyclocross races and what not and a third of my pictures end up being of half of the riders. Shutter speed I think would be my number 1 criteria.

Matt

My claim to internet fame:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/cross/?id=2002/nov02/saturn02

Don't take this wrong way, but maybe some of you don't understand some of the basics of photography: the limits of hand-holding vs. shutter speed. The jist of it is that for every picture you take with a x mm lens, you should be using at least 1/x shutter speed. ie. For a 50mm lens, at least 1/50th, for a 300mm, at least 1/300 (so 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000 etc.) When you take a picture hand-held with 10x optical zoom on your digicam, you have to increase the film ISO so that you can use at least a 1/1000 shutter speed. OR, get a tripod or monopod. Your hands aren't very sturdy; when your picture is magnified 10x, that shake becomes 10x magnified. (remember this is for 35mm film, so for them digital 17-46mm or whatever, convert it first)

So my suggestion, although its (200$ overbudget) for any of you voyeurs would be this dude:

http://www.dpreview.com/...panasonicdmcfz10.asp

Which has the equivalent of a 35-420mm. The beauty of this guy compared to other cams with big zooms is that it has "image stabilization". (Canon is the most experienced in this field.) It allows you to take a picture with a SLOWER shutter speed (say you're at 420mm, you should use at least 1/500 BUT you'll be able to manage a 1/250 or even 1/125) by dampening the vibrations of your hand. Obviously its not going to work if you're waving your arms wildly cheering someone on, but with your concentration it will help you get a great pics without having to worry too much about shutter speeds.

(To briefly explain about Canon. Canon doesn't own the patent on IS (Image Stabilization) but they've got a HUUUGE array of lenses that support it. I've seen pics hanheld at 1sec that look pretty darn good; it works well. As well, Canon's AF (autofocus) is lightspeed quick. So if you're ready to invest, get that Canon 300D (digital rebel SLR) and get yourself some fast IS glass. This doesn't mean everyone is asleep. Nikon has their own version, VR (Vibration Reduction) and Minolta recently released some new toys (whose name eludes me))

One last note: Don't think that you NEED IS, heck, I've gotten loads of beautiful pics with my 300mm. Learn some photo basics, or get yourself a monopod and you'll be amazed at how much your pictures improve. Remember, IS wasn't around 15 years ago, yet there were plenty of cool pics - its all about the person behind the camera ; just like biking - it's not the bike, its the engine behind it.