Considering buying a digital camera

Tito Champena · 09-10-2002, 09:24 PM

I owe a good optical camera that takes excellent pictures; however film gets frequently damaged by the stronger intensity of X-ray machines used these days at airports. This inconvenience is making me think about purchasing a digital camera. Could somebody be kind enough to tell me what features are more important to look for, in a digital camera used by a painter?

Thank you in advance.

Steven Sweeney · 09-10-2002, 10:04 PM

Tito,

Have a look at Mr. Whitaker's post, http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1128, in which he cites a "Best Digital Camera Information Site." Browse as well through the many other postings in this Digital Cameras area. You'll likely find many of your questions already answered there.

Tito Champena · 09-11-2002, 08:24 PM

Thank you, Steven.

I will follow your advice. However, I have another question: do digital cameras have the same problem as optical ones, for recording intermediate values?

Steven Sweeney · 09-11-2002, 09:38 PM

Not putting you off, but I don't have the expertise to answer your question, Tito, other than to say that I get fantastic images with my Sony Cybershot (bit of a dinosaur now, though with a Carl Zeiss lens), with a full range of values, and without either omission or clustering of intermediate values. There are so many variables that remain, even in these point-and-shoot times, that I doubt anyone would say across the board that digital trumps SLR for capturing intermediate values. Perhaps Bill Whitaker or Tim Tyler (or other digital camera wizards) will have some more insight into this.

Chris Saper · 09-11-2002, 10:07 PM

My larger concern in my photos is the compression of the extreme values, the darks more so than the lights. Any insights here?

Tito Champena · 09-12-2002, 07:41 PM

Thank you, Steven, for trying to help. I think that there is no "perfect" camera. After all, photos are used for reference only. I believe that film cameras have better definition but having to travel with them and with film is a real problem nowadays. I saw advertised in a magazine the latest NIKON digital Model D-1 with 6.1 Pixels (WOW!).

Steven Sweeney · 09-12-2002, 07:54 PM

There's some discussion of features on that Nikon D100 here. Pricey, though, at $2000 base.

(Incidentally, there's some discussion in the Forum on the site Bill Whitaker cited, and it seems that there are some serious concerns about the quality of the D1's images at certain settings.)

My shorthand reference earlier to digital vs. SLR was incorrect - cameras like this Nikon are "digital SLR" cameras, as is my Sony. I should have said "nondigital' or film camera, I guess.

Morgan Weistling · 03-16-2003, 12:15 AM

I own the D100 and would highly recommend it to anyone serious about gettting the best reference they can for painting. I used to use the 990 Coolpix and was quite happy with it except for one large problem that I learned to tolerate, the lag time from the time you hit the shutter button to the actual time it took the shot. And that means you also are not going to get any continuious shots of say, for example, of a model walking.

I shoot in the studio and in the field and I found I was missing shots that normally would have been captured with my film cameras with motor drives and all. I really missed that. Now, I have everything I use to have with my Nikon F100 and more. I read somewhere on the this forum that film cameras have more definition. That's not true anymore. Also, the color is far superior to any film I have ever taken.

$2000 may sound like a lot of money for a camera but it will save you more money than you can ever imagine. It's worth taking out a loan for one. I use to spend around $8000 a year on film and processing alone. Now I shoot to my heart's content and download my cards and that's it. I get 100 sheets of Epson photo paper for $20 at Costco. That's quite a deal.

Last week I had a older couple in the studio dancing the waltz for a painting I am going to do. With my D100 I could take consecutive shots as fast I could push the shutter button and in 3 hours shoot 2600 high resolution shots. From those I was able to sort thru them and find the "magic shot". I could have never done that with the 990.

Being able to have the best lenses on my digital camera is also a plus that is not realized until you experience it too. All in all, take my word for it, there is not one negative I can complain about with this camera.

And, no, I don't own stock in Nikon.

Morgan

Chris Saper · 03-16-2003, 11:44 PM

Morgan,

Have you found, (or to what extent) that you can photograph your finished paintings with the D-100 so that the the print quality is acceptable to you?

And at what point (enlargement size/resolution, etc.) do you feel that you need to go back to more traditional methods, i.e. 4 x 5" transparencies, or the like?

Timothy C. Tyler · 03-17-2003, 12:37 AM

Kodak and Sony have other large (full sixed) ones out for under $2,000. should you already have lens etc.