[tcb] Re: OT - Digital camera question
- From: julie.hey.ho.lets.go@xxxxxxxxx
- To: tcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:42:11 -0600
Here's my 2 cents on digital cameras. I have fun with mine, they are
magical in the way that you can experiment so easily and throw stuff away so
quickly without spending a penny. But there is magic in pictures taken with
old school film cameras.
On whatever digital camera you buy do your research about the battery life.
Nothing is more frustrating than lugging around a camera that is useless
because the batteries are drained. And find out how much the batteries and
memory cards cost for the particular camera you are interested in. I find
that Costco has good prices on memory cards.
I have a Canon Rebel XTI with an expensive Tamron lens. I enjoy it, but I
can't say I love it, maybe the problem is me and not the camera. I wasn't
happy with the flash so I also sunk a chunk of change into buying an
additional flash.
You didn't ask about point-and-shoots but I'll give my opinion anyway.
Awhile back I did a bunch of research about p&s cameras. The one I bought
for my son is a Casio Exilim. 8MP. Amazing battery life! Super zoom!
Video! It fits in your pocket! And near impossible to take a bad photo.
I'd swear you can take a picture while bouncing on a pogo stick of flaming
trapeze artists in full swing and it would come out perfectly clear. Of
course they don't make that exact model anymore. They are now "new and
improved" which is a total load of bullshit! More mega pixels yes, but more
mega pixels in a crap photo still means it is a crap photo. My daughter
didn't want a Casio because she wanted some of the funky bells and whistles
that a Canon Powershot offers. Again more mega pixels and more fancy
features but the pictures don't compare.
I'm no expert but I believe that more mega pixels doesn't necessarily equal
better photos. And if you find out that this such-and-such model is the
best ever but it is no longer being made because it has been "improved", be
skeptical. And since they are such an investment, see if you can borrow the
exact camera and lens you are interested in from the store and give it a try
in real life situations. Sometimes a camera can do something you want but
it takes a bunch of steps and a different camera might require fewer steps
and be a better fit for you. You won't know this until you give it a good
try.
I usually carry both my SLR and my p&s with me. Depending on the situation,
I choose accordingly.
Hey camera buffs check this out! I think it's super cool and I'm very
tempted: www.lifepixel.com
(And yes I know that you can get filters that you can attach to your lens to
achieve this but this is way cooler because you won't need to use tripods
and long exposure times. It would be like taking a normal photo but not.)
I hope this helps.
Julie
On Jan 25, 2008 5:39 PM, sammie smith <bugcollections@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Whew: When you find the answer; let me know. Have thought of the same
> thing. Have a fairly nice Nikon and a very old Pentax Spotmatic. People
> laugh at me for still shooting film. BUT; my response is that it would cost
> $2,000-$3,000 for a camera and lens to get the same quality of photos with a
> digital that I get now. But a fairly decent slr digital would be nice.
>
> And I sure get tired of people running up to me and trying to show me
> their photos on a cell phone.
>
> *Dan <ThatVWGuy@xxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> I really love photography but it is an expensive hobby. For a film camera
> it is like 40 cents +/- every time you click the shutter not counting the
> cost of the camera or having enlargements made. I have been thinking about
> stepping up to a nice Digital SLR camera but they are a little pricey. Does
> anyone have one they? If so can you share your cost benefit analysis?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
Other related posts:
