I'm looking to upgrade to a Digital SLR-type camera for my trip to Monterey in August. Looking to spend less than $1,000. Any thoughts on good models? I was thinking the Canon Digital Rebel XSi. Anyone have any other recommendations? Should I look at any Nikon or Olympus models as alternatives? I'm more concerned about image quality as opposed to neat gizmos.
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
oh wow im scared. everyone back off from master dadudemon or he will own you cause dadudemon knows best never question him or quote him cause hes above you right ?
and try explaining why they are false ?
digital supports a higher resolution which adds to more pixels
and digital cameras save there data in memory which can always be transfered to your computer so dont have to pay a dime at the pharmacy unlike analog recording and pictures you have to
__________________
Last edited by chomperx9 on Jul 20th, 2009 at 05:29 AM
I was....joking, bro. Surely you didn't think I was that arrogant or even serious?
But, yes, you're incorrect on both accounts.
And I don't have to explain why they are false on both accounts because you can just read what I posted. It lists the positves and negatives (no pun intended) including costs, simplicity, etc.
Not even close.
I have no idea where you got that from. But it is absurdly false.
You claim convenience, but that is in the eye of the beholder.
The 35mm film from a cheap ass disposable camera costs way less than a digital camera. On top of that, it will provide better resolution than almost any digital camera (until you get into the surveying digital cameras.)
so people who keep on buying film over and over for their analog cameras costs them less than a one time payment for a memory card for those with a digital camera ?
and again a digital signal transfers the data and can receive the data faster at a higher bit rate.
for example component video only gets you 1080p/24p max on any tv. you got a 60hz tv or above you would need a digital connection to go above 24 frames. HDMI supports up to 1080p/120p
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Amateurs will get better results with digital especially if you decide to go get prints done. Most photo processing labs are manned by complete idiots who no longer know how to develop film to a high standard. That's why the film camera experts who get great shots which tend to be far superior to what a digital camera would produce actually do the development themselves because they know what they're doing.
One of the big problems with digital is its tendancy to overload the white highlights of photos. When developing film the process is gradual and can be stopped at the right moment if you know what you're doing to get great results. Digital tends to go straight to 255 white.
Dadudemon is also correct about film having better resolution than digital but it only really becomes an issue one you're ordering very large prints.
Another thought is that if you're shit with a camera but good with picture altering programmes in order to manipulate contrasts and white balances after the picture is taken then go for digital.
For me, I'm still learning so I go with digital. As much as I would like to experiment with high quality film cameras and develop them myself, I just don't have time or money to set it up. Hopefully one day though.
Well I got to test out a friend's Canon Rebel XSi (450d) with a base kit lens. I was very impressed, so I'll probably get that, but with the body only (the kit lens is pretty cheap-ass), and then buy a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 separately. Total comes out to $866.00. Goodbye money
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
That's great. It's cool. Some digital Cameras take incredible pictures,without the requirement of a photo editing program. I used to shit on film until i actually learned how to develop pictures now i only use digital cameras when i don't feel like carrying around my lenses. If you've ever taken a photography class or spoken to someone who has you will have heard that it's not the camera but rather the person behind the camera. That's definitely true, so to each their own. The digital realm is just to expensive for me anymore. It seems like i was buying a new camera every six months. Now i just focus on lenses.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
KMC Community Forums
Jul 20th, 2009 03:15 AM
It's like a pharmacists becoming addicted to drugs...
