THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM


Moderators: Pete E, Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Going Digital
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
I recently lost my old 35mm Olympus XA2 compact that I used for photo trophies etc for 20years.

The below photo was taken with high speed film (800asa fuji)no flash and transposed onto CD.

File size is 136kb
Picture size 597x400

How many pixels am I going to need to replicate this

[url= http://"http://www.hunt101.com/?p=49605&c=500&z=1"]  - [/url]

This camera is going to live in my hunting rucksac, get knocked, sat on, used in freezing weather, be left in the boot of a car in high summer etc etc. Should I just stick to film?

[ 09-10-2003, 17:29: Message edited by: 1894 ]
 
Posts: 2258 | Location: Bristol, England | Registered: 24 April 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Film is really obsolete. My professional photo friend can match any film with his digital now. If you like olympus - I keep hearing more good comments from owners of the C 5050 very versatile, it will keep you busy just learning all it can do. 3 or better 4 mpixels is all you need then pick a lens .
 
Posts: 7636 | Registered: 10 October 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I just bought the Olympus C5050Z and so far am pleased. I haven't really put it to the test yet as far as bangs, etc., but it looks pretty sturdy to me.
 
Posts: 659 | Location: Texas | Registered: 28 June 2003Reply With Quote
Moderator
posted Hide Post
1894,

I am curious about this too as I have been considering getting a digital for similar reasons to yourself.

Having looked at the results from a friends 3M pixel camera ( I can't remember the brand) I think I would be happy with comparable results as far as viewing them on a PC or emailing them ect goes. However I suspect the real limitations come if you try to print them out say A4 size or larger; then you need a decent printer too I would imagine...

The other thing is the cost...to get the equivilent spec to a fairly ordinary 35mm-70mm zoom compact in 35mm costing say �70, I am guessing you will need to spend in excess of �250 for a decent digital. Question is, do you want to subject a �250 plus camera to all the things you mention above? And most of the digital cameras I have seen at that price range are not exactly robust either...

While you are thinking about a replacement , one feature I think would be a boon for those DIY trophy pics is a camera with a key fob style "remote" like you have for your car alarm. Its got to beat trying to push the button and get back in frame in under 10 seconds when using the usual self timer found on most cameras!

Regards,

Pete
 
Posts: 5684 | Location: North Wales UK | Registered: 22 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Pete,

I'm just going to check the results from a disposable first.

Disposable (�5.99)
Poly bag (free)
36 photos plus CD (�12)

36photos lasts me 6 months!
 
Posts: 2258 | Location: Bristol, England | Registered: 24 April 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Esldude
posted Hide Post
Well to answer one of your questions, your picture is 597x400 pixels. 1.3 megapixel images are 1024x768. There is more to images than simple resolution. But any of the better 2 or 3 megapixel cameras will match this and then some. Newer ones will shoot into low light without a flash better than earlier digicams. Most recent 3.3 megapixel cameras will at least shoot equivalent to ISO 400. Most will do 800, but the images are a bit noisy this way. And good 3.3 megapixel cameras can have the image printed out at 8 inch by 10 inch side while still looking quite good. At 4x6 size and smaller they can be printed out with image quality fully equaling most consumer 35mm film prints. 3.3 megapixel cameras do images at 2048x1536 pixel sizes.
 
Posts: 852 | Location: USA | Registered: 01 September 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
To give you a little perspective on digital options. Here are a couple photos taken with mine. I got tired of less than good quality digital pictures and bit the bullet for a good one. It is a Nikon D100, with everything, lenses, memory card etc. roughly $2500 usd. The way I look at it, I would like these to be quality when my grandkids etc look at them 20 to 30 years or even longer from now. The camera will also hold roughly 400 pictures before I have to download them to my laptop. I really take a lot of pictures so it was really worth it to me. I took the following photo on a recent trip I made to Alaska on a fishing trip.

Thumbnail image

Full size

The camera is a full 6.1 million megapixels and the full size photo is 3008 x 2000 so with a slow connection it might take a minute to fully open. There are a lot of great cameras for a lot less out there right now and they are getting better all the time. You will probably find mine for under a thousand before to long!

Doug

[ 10-09-2003, 15:35: Message edited by: dwhunter ]
 
Posts: 696 | Location: Texas, Wash, DC | Registered: 24 April 2003Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
1894,

I would recommend nothing less than 3 MB. Cameras from Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Nikon are all great. The only differences between them are personal preferences.

Here a few links you might wish to have a look at.

DC Resources

DP Review

Steve's digicams

All of the above sites have reviews of many cameras.

For small cameras, my personal favorites are the Canon Ixus 400 - a fantastic 4MP very small camera.

Canon S50 - a 5MP bigger brother to the Ixus 400

Nikon Coolpix 5700 - if you wish to have a 7x zoom.

You will find that you take a lot more photos with a digital camera than you would have with a film camera.
 
Posts: 69287 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia