Digital or SLR?

Lisa Strachan · 03-15-2003, 11:02 PM

I sold my first painting recently, and I promised myself I would buy a digital camera...BUT I have researched for weeks, I like one I can afford, but now concerned I am looking at it the wrong way.

I had a wonderful SLR stolen years ago, loved photography all my life, and missed it immensely (I love the manual challenge).

However, with digital cameras seeming the way to go, I first decided to get one of them, but now it seems that a SLR has more to offer in my price range than a digital. I was going to purchase a mid-range digital, but now I think I can get a great SLR for half the price of a mid-range digital, more options, more accurate manual settings, bigger lenses for zoom, etc. and I could buy a low-range digital for my "instant" situations. (both a SLR and a simple digital for the price of a mid-range digital).

What do you think about this? I can't afford a SLR digital, but I want a really good camera capable of taking impressive reference photo's, but I also would love a digital for taking immediate pictures without processing a film etc.. I am feeling confused about what I should do, and need advice.

Michele Rushworth · 03-16-2003, 02:16 AM

You might need one of each. (I know you don't want to hear that.)

I love my digital camera (a Minolta with 3.4 megapixels) for shooting portrait reference photos. It gives me sufficient detail and tonal range to easily paint from and -- this is the most important factor for me -- I can tell right away if I have the reference shots I need or not. I don't have to wait for film to be processed to find that I need to schedule a reshoot with the client.

However, I would like to get a good film-based SLR to take better photos of my paintings. To get the kind of resolution I need to get really sharp 8 x 10 prints for my portfolio I'd need a much higher megapixel digital camera ($$$) or shoot on film with a good lens.

Mike McCarty · 03-16-2003, 09:58 AM

Generally speaking, we are in a technological overlap. That period of time, which your research has revealed, when there are good reasons to hang on to film and good reasons to jump to digital. At least we have arrived at the point where it is merely a matter of money and not technical capability, this is a good thing. This means that we are nearing the end of the overlap.

Personally, I have decided that the digital I buy will be at least a 5-6 mega pixel SLR. However the price I am willing to pay is probably 18-24 months out.

It can be very aggravating dealing with film but I never really thought about it until I understood the benefits of digital. So, what I did was take that little gaget they used in the movie "Men in Black" (now available at Radio Shack, don't go less than 5-6 mega pixels) and wiped my memory clean of all digital references with an 18 month recall option.

Michael Georges · 03-16-2003, 10:44 AM

Michele:

I use my 3.34MP digital for shooting paintings all the time and have no problems getting 8x10 or larger that are wonderful.

I am wondering if you have the ability on your camera to shoot a TIF file rather than a JPG. When you shoot your paintings, this can make all the difference in the world as to crispness as TIF is uncompressed and JPGs are always compressed some (even when they are at 100%). That JPG compression causes very minute blurring.

I shoot my pics of my paintings with my camera set on TIF. They come out of the camera at 2048x1536 pixels which is 21x28 inches. I typically pull them into Photoshop and change the DPI to 300, size them down to what I need for my portfolio and print them on good quality photo paper.

Check your camera and see if you can shoot a TIF.

Michele Rushworth · 03-16-2003, 11:27 AM

When I first got the camera I tested TIF vs JPEG quality by photographing real objects. There wasn't any appreciable difference. They all looked quite crisp.

The fuzziness only shows up when I shoot my paintings. I will try photographing them in TIF and see how it looks. Thanks for the suggestion!

Lisa Strachan · 03-16-2003, 06:41 PM

Thanks for they comments, I really appreciate it. I am still unsure what to do, but I feel I am getting closer to a decision. Mike, you are so correct with the overlap theory...and sadly a 5-6 mg digital is out of bounds financially for me until a later date.

The 4 MG digital I was about to purchase I feared that perhaps I would be semi-pleased with it's preformance, and I want to be fully pleased. I am concerned about the shutter-lag, not so much for my art needs, but for capturing moments when they happen.

As Michele mentioned...I am considering buying a SLR plus a simple digital ( not to break the bank...) to assist me in my needs, that way I get the best of both worlds. In a few years, then I might be able to purchase a 5 - 6 MG digital that will produce impressive results. And who knows what they will come up with in a few more years in relation to quality of the product.

I noticed great quality SLR cameras at really resonable prices when I was looking at digitals, which means for my money I will get a great camera, just have to stick with the traditional ways with film for awhile. And when I think about it, film has been there for us for years, so it isn't all bad. And with a low-range ( $$) digital, I can have the advantage of instant results etc. when I need them. Michael's comments of TIF files, and 3 plus MG to be taken into consideration. I really do think I can get both these for the same price one 4mg digital was going to cost me. I just have to wear the cost of film developing etc. for the SLR.

Mari DeRuntz · 03-17-2003, 01:46 AM

Lisa,

Check out Morgan Weistling's post. The gap is closing in price and quality between digital and SLR. If I were you, I'd sit tight until the cameras described by Weistling come into your price point. The way technology goes, that's not too far in the future. Just look at the price-drop over the past two years for CD burners, DVD players, other basic digital cameras.

Leslie Ficcaglia · 03-17-2003, 12:19 PM

Lisa, I got a Canon G2 digital camera (4 megapixels) in October and still haven't really gotten past the automatic setting stage because I haven't used it much.

My workhorse optical system is Nikon. I have a 5005 and an N60 body with several different lenses, but I keep my 70-210mm lens on almost all the time and it's my lens of choice for portrait photography because you can maintain more of a distance from the subject and it's easier to get natural-looking expressions that way.

Digital cameras still have a shutter-lag problem, in that there's more time that elapses between pressing the shutter and actually taking the photo than there is in an SLR. Since expressions are important to me that's a major drawback. But I know lots of people who love their digitals and use them constantly. If you're not accustomed to an SLR it would probably be easier for you to make that adjustment.

Not that this gives you any assistance in making a decision, but at least it's something more to think about.

Holly Snyder · 03-17-2003, 01:10 PM

Lisa,

I am also in the debating stages of purchasing a digital camera. This may be a little off topic, but something to consider when paying the large difference say between a 3 Mpixel or a 5 Mpixel camera is the following. The following calculations below assume a 16" x 12" image in Photoshop.

A 3.15 Mpixel camera, producing a max. resolution of 2048 x 1536, will yield a 128 dpi image.

A 3.87 Mpixel camera, producing a max. resolution of 2272 x 1704, will yield a 142 dpi image.

A 4.92 Mpixel camera, producing a max. resolution of 2560 x 1920, will yield a 160 dpi image.

Looking at the dpi, there's not a huge difference in resolution between say a 4 Mpixel camera and a 5 Mpixel camera. You can do the calculations for any size image you're used to working with, but the increase in dpi is misleadingly small compared to the increase in price as you increase the Mpixels.

Holly

Lisa Strachan · 03-17-2003, 06:49 PM

Thanks Mari I did check out the attached post you mentioned, helpful, and also made my decision more "confusing". There are so many things to consider.

Leslie, thanks for your info, it does help in my decision, all the info and advice I can get right now is helping.

The shutterlag is a concern to me for the exact reasons you mentioned, missing that special moment. I have to purchase within a budget, and that is a really big part of my decision (as much as I would love to go wild) A G2 here is out of my budget, not by much but it is. Holly that's interesting about the dpi results...and I am realizing that I could get a 3MG digital plus a new SLR with 28-90 & 100-300 lens for the cost of one 4MG digital camera. I am not frightened of the traditional optical methods, and am swaying on the fact that having both kinds gives me more options. That doesn't mean that I am not looking forward to oneday investing in a very nice digital that could do all of the above, I think that day is a few years away though.

I have been wishing for a digital for a long time, and am nervous that I make the right decision. I am suprised that I am leaning towards the way I am, but I guess that is why I have researched and asked advice, so I don't finish up being disappointed. I really apreciate everyones comments, especially from the ART side of this debate. Thanks everyone.