Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
Dylan answered well, but I'll just back him up.....
Yes, they're getting better - but no, they're not yet like film
cameras.
Shutter/AF lag is getting a lot better, but it's still present. My ca.
2003 C-5060 has about 1 second AF/lag time and 1.5s to store the image
(SHQ jpg; about 3MB) ; my old ca. 1999 HP had 3 seconds AF/Lag, plus 5
seconds to store a 700KB image. Compare to my manual Nikon film SLR -
push button -> image stored, no lag.
Light sensitivity is not improving. You need a larger sensor to collect
more light; the sensor size is not changing.
Megapixels mean almost nothing; they're only useful if you do a lot of
cropping or huge enlargements. For 4X6", 5X7" and even 8X10" at 4 feet
viewing distance, a *good* 3 Mpixel camera works fine. As with all
electronic devices, there's a lot of not-so-good cameras out there;
with poor optics, poor sensors, and poor JPEG compression engines. As
the megapixels increase, image noise increases; it's basic physics;
cameras these days compensate by processing the image more in the
camera. Image quality rivals regular (not medium format, of course)
film cameras in every way now; the images are easier to fix if they're
not right, too.
Are digicams cheaper? Yes, definitely; without any doubt. You pay up
front, though. For example: my Nikon FG-20 manual film SLR. Used for
$125; it came with a nice Nikkor 28-85mm lens and a Sigma (I know, I
know) 70-200 zoom. Accessories about $100 (cheap used flash, tripod,
bag, etc.) So, total cost of used SLR - $225. Cost of good film - $3-4
per 24 exp. (ie. Velvia, Portra); developing & printing (at Walmart -
not recommended) $5/roll (at a good shop - recommended) $7/roll. So, I
was paying about $10/24 exposures. At best, $7/24 at walmart using
cheapo film. I was developing about 1 roll biweekly - total of about
$250-300/year. I got about 1 pic in 10 which was a keeper; the rest
were ok but were usually put in a box for "storage".
Now, my Olympus C-5060 cost $550 new, plus about $150 for the extras
(memory, mostly) - total of $700. Doesn't sound promising, does it? I
print about 1 in 20 images; at $0.19/print. I've taken ~2000 images
this year; I've printed ~100 - for a cost of ~$15.00 (a few
enlargements, too). So the difference in price between my USED SLR and
my NEW digicam was wiped out in 1-1/2 years. Now, every pic I take for
the next ~4 years is pretty much free of developing costs..... And,
quite frankly, the image quality is much better than that old SLR and
that cr@ppy Sigma lens....
The environmental impact of printing those unwanted film prints
shouldn't be underestimated, either - I'm saving ~500 4X6 prints per
year using digital; that's a lot of chemicals and paper......
ECM
Facebook
Twitter