Digital,film ?

After manymany years of using film cameras I decided to get my feet wet with digital. I have mixed feelings, especially with respect to rail photography. I have used good equipment, currently I use Nikon N 90s and Canon Eos 5 with Nikkor or EF lenses. Both of these cameras are reliable and fast and with the proper ISO give me excellent results. I have been following the digital market for some time and recently purchased an Olympus 3.2 megapixel point and shoot. I performeed some experiments by taking pix at the same time and place and distance with my film cameras and the digital. On 4x6 pictures you cannot tell the difference with the naked eye, however under a 4x loop the film prints are more detailed. I suspect that if I did this with 8x10's the difference would be apparent. What drives me to distraction is the performance of the camera. It takes too long to power up and the lag time has already cost me some good shots of moving equipment. It eats batteries like Godzilla. I understand the commercial applications pf digital. Certainly if you need to send photos quickly digital makes sense but if I want to get a camera the equivalent of my SLR's I have to pay quite a bit. I have looked at the Canon Rebel and Nikon D 70 and D 50 and they are good, though not quite as fast as the Eos 5, but the cost is high and the printing of quality photos on archival paper from digital is not cheap and the battery replacement is constantly annoying. Perhaps in a few years the performance and costs be better. For now I take the digital and film cameras together when I rail fan. If it's a static shot, or moving very slowly I use the digital otherwise the film. Any thoughts out there on your film-digital debate ?

I have a Pentax *istD and simply use rechargeable nimh batteries. Good for well over a hundred shots per charge.

For very large prints (e.g., poster size) film has better resolution. For the vast majority, though, digital is fine, in my view.

Ken; Tell me a bit more about your camera. I once used the Pentax film system and found it pretty good. Does this camera have a lag time ? How does it handle. This handling part is what I find frustrating about digital. I find the viewfinders hard to see through and the screen image is difficult for me to see in the sunlight of a bright day. Thanks

kevikens wrote:...I use Nikon N 90s and Canon Eos 5 with Nikkor or EF lenses... an Olympus 3.2 megapixel point and shoot...

So you're comparing an inexpensive point-and-shoot camera to a pair of expensive, professional-level SLRs? That's hardly a fair comparison! That's like comparing a Hyundai to a Mercedes-Benz and wondering why the Hyundai isn't as fast.

Yes, you are correct. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the N90s, with 50mm 1.4 lens cost me $275 and the Eos 5 with 85 1.8 $225 ( I buy myself used equipment at Photo shows). I had to buy the digital new and that cost me just over $200. For fast moving trains I can use the film cameras but not the digital. To get a digital camera that shoots fast enough I have to spend what is for me big bucks (Ritz wants close to a thousand bucks for the latest Rebel digital). When digital SLR's with the handling speed of my Canon and Nikon come down in price I will buy them. It's just that I think for the money right now my film cameras are a better way to go for railroad photography. If any of you out are using a digital that handles well enough and fast enough for the Northeast Corridor at a reasonable cost please tell me about it and how you fare with it for high speed phtography. Thanks again.

The prices on digital SLRs are slowly but surely coming down. You can snag a used Digital Rebel or D60 for around $550, a used D30 for around $450, a used D100 for around $600, and the brand new D50, which in many ways is better than all of the above, starts at $650.

Granted, these prices are still very high for a lot of people, myself included, but bear in mind that you can easily recoup that extra cost (compared to a comparable film SLR) when you eliminate the cost of film and processing, which continues to climb higher and higher as the price of digital gear continues to decrease. $5 for a roll of film, $5-$10 for processing (or more if you take it to a pro lab)... that can add up quickly if you shoot a lot of film.

Time is money, too. I LOVE film, but scanning it can be time consuming... 5 minutes to scan a single frame, and then time spent in Photoshop adjusting the image so that it looks as good as the original slide... it can take up to 30 minutes per frame. And a decent film scanner will set you back about $1000.

It's much more convenient to get somebody else to do the scanning for you, but you have to choose high quality (at high expense), or low quality at low expense. Wal-Mart will put a few dozen slides onto a CD for about $5, but the quality of the scans is only useful for viewing on the computer or making 4x6" prints. If you want really good quality, you'll have to spend big, big bucks... or do it yourself. Either way, it costs time and/or money.

I think in another year or so, you'll be able to get a decent digital SLR (used) in the price range you're looking for. In the meantime, enjoy film while it lasts. The major film manufacturers aren't going to be putting much more money/effort into R&D for film, and they've already started discontinuing the less popular products. It won't be long before the only film you can get is ISO 400-800 color print film ('cause that's what the average soccer mom buys).

Thanks, Mec: I've been able to keep the costs of the film and processing down to what I consider a reasonable level. I buy my film as outdated and throw into the freezer. It seems to work fine and I can get film as cheap as 25 cents a roll. I never pay more than 50 cents a roll and have plenty of film at that price at the photo shows and drug store clean outs at the flea markets. I use the photo processing at the Acme supermarkets at $6.99 per roll of 24 so my cost per print is about 34 cents (film and processing together). When I print digital I use the Kodak kiosk, also at Acme and the cost per print is 29 cents. The guy at Ritz tells me these picture have an archival life of only five years, which does not make me happy, but he tells me if I use THEIR Fuiji system it will have a 100 year archival survivability. Don't know about that but as you can see the lower costs of digital are not that much lower than film prints so the investment in digital does not yet make much sense to me as a reduction in costs. I know that someday I won't be able to get film at these prices and the film processing places will either close or raise their prices. I expect that by that time digital cameras will be as capable as the good film SLR's and reproducing digital to prints will also fall in costs, but as you can probably figure out at this point I have a long and comfortable history with film and somewhat reluctant to go to the new technology, but then again it took me ten years to go from manual to auto focus technology. Thanks again for the info on those cameras you mentioned to me. I have been finding it difficult to find cameras like these on the used market at the photo shops I deal with but I keep looking. I don't feel comfortable enough to purchase a digital SLR from the internet. Thanks again.

kevikens wrote:Ken; Tell me a bit more about your camera. I once used the Pentax film system and found it pretty good. Does this camera have a lag time ? How does it handle. This handling part is what I find frustrating about digital. I find the viewfinders hard to see through and the screen image is difficult for me to see in the sunlight of a bright day. Thanks

It functions exactly like my Pentax SLR film cameras. No lag on the shutter release (lag is often the case with a point and shoot). The viewfinder is the same as a 35mm film SLR. There is no option of using the rear screen to take photos, only to review them after it is taken. It is the size, shape and handles exactly like a Pentax 35mm film SLR. Never need a color correcting filter as there are settings to do that. I just use a regular UV filter to protect the three lenses I have. Max shutter speed is 1/4000 which will freeze just about anything. ASA settings go from 200 to 1600.

Jeanne loves to use it, including photos out of the plane. We plan to have a camera port installed in the passenger side window so she doesn't need to shoot thru the acrylic.

kevikens wrote:my cost per print is about 34 cents (film and processing together). .

P.s. for the *istD Pentax, I e-mail the files to Walmart and a 4x6 print is 14 cents, or 19 cents if you want 1-hour instore pickup. I can't tell the difference with a similar sized film print.

kevikens wrote:my cost per print is about 34 cents (film and processing together). .

P.s. for the *istD Pentax, I e-mail the files to Walmart and a 4x6 print is 14 cents, or 19 cents if you want 1-hour instore pickup. I can't tell the difference with a similar sized film print.

There is a very favorable review of the *ist DS on photo.net; the reviewer describes it as today's version of the K1000. That's pretty high praise.

Thanks a lot, guys. I really appreciate the specific responses by people actually using the equipment. As I said I have used the Pentax system and was impressed with their quality and, yes, I have several K 1ooo's and still occasionally pull them out and use them. I always liked their early lenses. Does this digital take auxilliary lense or does it have a zoom ? Will it let me take pictures in quick sequence. I can get 4-5 fps ouy of the Eos 5. What can I expect from the Pentax ? I don't suppose if it does take lenses it uses the K-mount. I was considering the Rebel or Nikon D 70 because I have a lot of Nikkor and Ef lenses but if the Pentax is that good it may be the next logical step for me to take in switching to digital. Are there any negative features I should beware of ? Any reputable on line dealers to order from who are priced reasonably ? Thanks again.

The Pentax *ist D is compatible with the full line of Pentax lenses, even the old ones. That's one of their major selling points actually. Some of the really old ones may require an adaptor, but they'll still work.

This is what the spec sheet says about the lens mount:

PENTAX KAF mount compatible with PENTAX KAF2, KAF and KA mount lenses.
K-mount lenses usable with restrictions
S-mount lenses usable with adapter and restrictions
67/645 lenses usable with adapter and restrictions

In regards to shooting speed:

The *ist D can shoot 2.8 frames per second (up to 6 frames).

The Canon Digital Rebel can shoot 2.5 frames per second (up to 4 frames).

The Canon Digital Rebel XT can shoot 3 frames per second (up to 14 frames).

The Canon EOS 20D can shoot 5 frames per second (up to 23 frames).

The Nikon D50 can shoot 2.5 frames per second (up to 123 frames).

The Nikon D70 and D70S can shoot 3 frames per second (up to 144 frames).

Thanks again, guys. I looked it up on the net and I just might go with the Pentax. I am going to look for a used one first.

Although I readily acknowledge the benefits of digital, I'll stick with my Canon EOS 1 and my Mamiya 645. I'll probably invest in a pro-grade scanner (Epson 54??) and try to get the best of both worlds.