Thoughts On Cameras?

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.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
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.

If you're looking for image quality as opposed to neat gizmos, then you should stick to good ol' analog.

Yes, I'm serious.

Here's a nice article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Read the whole damn thing.

If you decide on digital, let me know, and I'll give you some recomendations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're looking for image quality as opposed to neat gizmos, then you should stick to good ol' analog.

Yes, I'm serious.

Here's a nice article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Read the whole damn thing.

If you decide on digital, let me know, and I'll give you some recomendations.

Originally posted by chomperx9
digital is better so you dont have to pay to develop the film and digital will get you more pixels as well

False on both accounts.

There's no mon like dadudemon. Never contradict me when I make such assertive statements. It results in fail.

I'd prefer to stick with digital. Mainly for the sake of simplicity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
False on both accounts.

There's no mon like dadudemon. Never contradict me when I make such assertive statements. It results in fail.

😆

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

Originally posted by dadudemon
False on both accounts.

There's no mon like dadudemon. Never contradict me when I make such assertive statements. It results in fail.

How is he wrong on the first? Or are you playing semantics?

Originally posted by chomperx9
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 ?

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.

Originally posted by chomperx9
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

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How is he wrong on the first? Or are you playing semantics?

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.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.)

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

They like......take pics and stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon

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.)

Not what he was talking about though.

Originally posted by chomperx9
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

There is not debate.

Simplicity and ease: digital.

Everything else: Analog.

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.

Oh...and for the record...I use a Canon EOS450D

fuk digital cameras

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

Oh...and for the record...I use a Canon EOS450D

This post is full of intelligence. 👆

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
fuk digital cameras

😆

You know what's sad? I use digital cameras like they're going out of style. 😐 It's like a pharmacists becoming addicted to drugs...

Originally posted by dadudemon
This post is full of intelligence. 👆

😆

You know what's sad? I use digital cameras like they're going out of style. 😐 It's like a pharmacists becoming addicted to drugs...

You are selling digital cameras?

Yes, Robtard comes through again with the most helpful and to the topic post. No need to thank him, it's what he's here for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are selling digital cameras?

Do all pharamcists sell pharmaceuticals?

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 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon

😆

You know what's sad? I use digital cameras like they're going out of style. 😐 It's like a pharmacists becoming addicted to drugs...

😆 😂

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.