Re: Digital Camera

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Shad Henderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <sundog-at-timeship-dot-net>

Hi All!

 Hmm...my posts to the TCML keep bouncing back (says tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
unknown) or dissapearing, let's hope this one goes thru!


I do have a nice 35mm pentax that I've been using for my photos.  The light
meter is broke, and everything else is fully-manual, but most of my pics
still turn out great.  I've been wingin' the exposures and whatnot.
  I'm not lookin' to replace my 35mm, because it does the best long-exposure
shots, but I do want the digital so I can take the 300 pics of building
everything and have a lot easier time putting it on the web.

 See, I've messed with graphics and animation for years now, and I just
can't see paying for a photo-CD when I have a scanner already.  but I really
hate burning up a lot of film on pics that I may not need/want/like, then
pay developing and buy more film.  Plus for me it's easier to drop in a
blank 64meg smartmedia card than carrying the multiple rolls of film.
Changing film in a dusty-sandy-dirty location makes me cringe, 'specially if
there's wind.
  The 35mm rules supreme for double-exposures and long exposures, especially
with 200spd or 400spd film.  A CCD just can't catch all the action like
400spd can (the corona glow, etc).
  I'm not getting a cheap camera either.  The Olympus C-3000 so far has all
the features I want, and it's pretty reasonably priced.  I'll go down today
or tomorrow to spend an hour messing with the thing at a computer store or
office depot.  It's a suppliment to my 35mm, and it'll be the
"cheap-per-picture" grunt camera.  For the "Ooooh *WOW!*" shots, I'll bring
out the 35mm and have at it :)

 So in the next few days, we'll see what I can turn up!


Shad


----- Original Message -----
From: Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: Digital Camera


> Original poster: "Ted Rosenberg by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Ted.Rosenberg-at-radioshack-dot-com>
>
> OK...I'm on a learning curve <look humble>.
> Ross raises some good points (another post) and so does Matt (below).
>
> In all honesty, while I see great potential in some of the new, upper
class
> digital cameras, I can't see spending so much on hardware and memory cards
> and...when for a few dollars extra at the time of processing, my local
> dealer will make a Kodak CD which has the images at about 1200 x 900. So,
I
> have my cake and eat it too? And with CD-R software, I can dupe it for a
> friend.
>
> And of course there are the dozens of lens and accessories for the Minolta
> (or Nikon, or Canon) photo systems. OK...so I am biased. Pre-apologies.
>
> No matter what, getting good photos of our coils is primary no matter how
> you do it.
> Hmmm...pin hole cameras from Oatmeal containers might be the way....nah...
>
> Safety First
>
> Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:58 PM
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Digital Camera
>
>
> Original poster: "Matthew Smith by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <matt-at-kbc-dot-net.au>
>
> Hi All
>
> Although I have to agree with Ted to a degree, I feel that I should play
> devil's advocate on the cause of digital cameras.  I have used 35mm for
> 95% of my photographing life and have only just made the hop to digital;
> my wife (who is a photoprocessor) is still very much in the emulsion
> camp so I shall try to be unbiased...
>
> To address Ted's points:
> 1) No - however superimposition of two (tripod!) shots during "post
> production" is simple with the right software.
> 2) Probably on expensive cameras - the Fuji that I used to have could be
> persuaded to stay open for about a second; many digitals can take a
> "burst" of shots (my Olympus C-960 does about nine in a second) which
> could be superimposed or whatever.
> 3) My Olympus with a meagre 1.3 Megapixels can produce excellent quality
> prints up to A4, using a decent inkjet printer and photo-quality paper;
> most cameras have way over that resolution now, so if you can find
> someone with one of those nice A3 (sorry for metric paper sizes!)
> printers, yes, you can get a decent print.
>
> However, and this is a big however, to get everything out of a digital
> that you can get out of a half-decent 35mm camera, you may end up
> forking out a *lot* of cash for the hardware.
>
> Summary:  both systems have their merits and downfalls; I would suggest
> doing what I do - get a digital but keep the 35mm too!
>
> Cheers
>
> Matthew Smith
>
> Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: "Ted Rosenberg by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Ted.Rosenberg-at-radioshack-dot-com>
> >
> > Shad:
> > I don't mean to rain on your parade. But, I ask the following questions
> > 1. can the digital do double exposures?
> > 2. can the digital do time exposures to catch multiple arcs?
> > 3. and if the digital gets a truly GREAT photo and you want to frame it
> and
> > hang it on the wall, can you get a decent 11x14 or 16x20 and will it be
> > sharp?
> >
> > 35mm FILM cameras can answer YES to all of the above. Sorry about the
PIA.
> I
> > do understand.
> >
> > Safety First
> > Ted, The Photographer since a long time ago.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:33 PM
> > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Digital Camera
> >
> > Original poster: "Shad Henderson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> > <sundog-at-timeship-dot-net>
> >
> >     Hi All!
> >
> >   Yup, I'm gonna break down and buy a digital camera at Marc M.'s
urging.
> > Plus it's 'spensive to buy and get film developed (and a PIA.)   ALso, I
> > hate to waste exposures on pictures that I'm not sure didn't come out
> right,
> > and waiting a day to get them back.
> >
> >    Input from the others on the List using digital cameras would be
> > appreciated, though I'd appreciate if you'd send the name, model, specs,
> and
> > a snap or two of different lighting conditions, etc to
sundog-at-timeship-dot-net
> > It's a hassle, I know, but I want to get a camera that takes all-around
> > great pictures, and that's something you can't really tell in the store
> > while playing with them.  manufacturer ad whatnot mean less to me than
the
> > quality and versatility of the camera.  A link to a site having pics
from
> > the camera will also work.
> >
> >                                     Thanks to those that take time out
to
> > help me decide!
> >
> > Shad
>
> --
> Matthew Smith
> KBC, PO Box 150, Kadina, 5554, S. Australia
> Ph: (08) 88 212 395  Fx: (08) 82 190 157
> http://kbc-dot-net.au
>
>
>
>
>