[at-l] Cameras (Kinda Long)

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 12:55 PM 8/26/2003 -0400, Bob C. wrote:
> >"... Cheap digital cameras will give you the 'disposable image' look, but a
> >decent one will give you very respectable images and prints."
>
>True, but technically digital remains inferior to film. One of the major
>photography magazines reported this summer that it had finally tested a 
>digital
>that produced quality equal in quality to that achieveable with ASA 400 slide
>film. The digital camera that won the distinction sells for $9,000. Note the
>comparison is to 400 film. Fast films are universally known to produce
>significantly less quality than 100 or slower film.

The comparison was to ISO 100 film, not 400 as Weary states. ASA by the 
way, is an defunct system. He has the *list* price of the camera correct 
although one can be had at a 'street' price of about $7800.

>However, all photography is a compromise. The best quality (for 
>landscapes, but
>not action) is achieved with a 4X5 or larger view camera, using slow film, and
>stabilized with an extra heavy tripod. The combination, with lenses and
>accessories, probably totals 15-20 pounds -- or about the same as an 
>ultralight
>thru hiker's pack.

As it happens I own a 4X5 and occasionally hike with it. The weight Weary 
lists is accurate only if you include all my other hiking gear (extra 
clothing, food, water and emergency gear).


>There is no one "best" hiking camera. But all the evidence I can find is 
>that a
>simple point and shoot film camera delivers better quality than a simple point
>and shoot digital camera.

That depends on the camera and one thing that most digital users don't 
realize is that almost all digital images require some 'processing' in 
Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro or similar softwareto be at their best. I won't 
get into a long explanation of the reason this is necessary but you have to 
treat your original digital files as you would a negative. They need 
adjustment in the printing process. If you just make straight prints you 
are very apt to be disappointed.

>Only you can decide whether digital results are good enough or "stunning"
>enough. But the evidence is overwhelming that film still produces the best
>technical quality.
>
>My choice continues to be film. But my wife's digital Kodak certainly takes
>perfectly okay snapshots.

Ah, Kodak! The measure of photographic excellence. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).

Saunterer