Nikon D2H

[HiredBitSlinger]

Since the subject of the Canon EOS Digital Rebel was raised, I thought I would throw in my $.02.

I have been an amatuer photographer for about 40 years. Started with an Argus C3, Pentax Spotmatic, and Olympus OM-1. When the Olympus died about 5 years ago, I got a Canon EOS A2. Actually more camera than I wanted. Especially the autofocus. With that I shoot a Tamron 28-200 and a Tamron 200-400.
I have been eyeing the Canon D10 (10D?) but thought the money should go to some Canon glass first. Kind of stuck in the middle. Since I am currently between assignments, I just kept reading.

On the way home from Reno, I damaged my 28-200. So now all I can do is shoot the 200-400, which really sucks for indoors. My son was getting married on Nov 8, so it was fix or replace the lens. THEN, I saw then Canon Digital Rebel. Well that was a pretty good reason to get a new body. So long story short, its a pretty goog basic camera. It is not as configurable as my A2. Most of that I don't use. The autofocus and I are still working on it.

I bought the camera on 11/5. On 11/6 the Concord arrived at Boeing Field, where I shot this image.

Bottom line: Its not professional grade, but most of us aren't pros.If you have been shooting an older generation film camera, this thing will do fine. If you shooting one of the pro Canon or Nikon cameras then maybe not.

[HiredBitSlinger]

OK, the image didn't make it. I will try again. If it fails again will somebody email me how to attach images.

danplunk@aol.com

Thanks

[T. Adams]

National Geographic goes digital

Check this article out, it is Nat. Geo, but it is about shooting airplanes.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: National Geographic goes digital

Originally posted by T. Adams
Check this article out, it is Nat. Geo, but it is about shooting airplanes.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6450-6561

Tim, there's no question in my mind (what's left of it ) that digital has matured to the point that major publications are going to use it, for some, exclusively. I spent some time with a shooter for a major publication at Reno, he was carrying at least two (can't remember if he had another in his bag, remember what I said about the mind ) Canon 1Ds bodies.

He told me that his company had spent about 3 million on a huge photo processing department, only to scrap it months later to go totally digital. Apparantly, they felt the quality and money savings, in the long run, were worth making the switch even with just having spent the big$$ on the lab/processing dept.

I'm sure the debate on film versus digital will go on for decades, but... to my eye, digital is clearly superior in many ways. Not the least of which is, grain, or lack thereof.

Processing time, long term cost of film, adding another level of risk in the processing and transport of transparancies, etc, all will have, likely, *all* major pubs going all digital, eventually.

Even the "lowley" original D1 can produce, albeit with much post processing, cover quality images. So what can be done with the current crop of larger MP versions of the body, and what will, surely, come down the road, will make the switch to all digital a "must do" thing for most pro shooters... eventually..

Ahh.. even Neal will *someday* be carrying a DSLR or two around his neck... Lie next to the pod Neal... it will not hurt, you will be one of us...

Wayne

PS: Neal.. something to think about.. your scans, they are, essentially, digital photographs of a transparancy...

[rpzo]

If I might add my 2 bytes on this subject...

In my opinion the debate between film and digital is no different than the one that of CD's vs vinyl, DVD vs VHS, planes vs. trains, automobiles vs. horse & buggy, and just about every other technical advancement that replaces an existing technology. As a technology film has been at a point of maturity for some time. From an economic perspective if you were Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Nikon et al where would you invest your R&D dollars?


I had been leery of digital photography because I felt that the quality was not there for what I could afford. Thanks to the many links that Tim sent me (thanks again Tim!) regarding digital cameras and what others are doing with them I now feel that the technology has matured to the point that the cost is affordable and will only continue to give more bang for the buck. Another convincing argument for me was the quality of the digital pictures that were being posted by Bill and others on this site shooting from the same vantage points that I would have access to. The clarity and sharpness on the long shots were just amazing.

A few years back I had invested a decent sum of cash into a darkroom that I used a lot at first then less and less. It became such a hassle to set up and clean up that I gave up on it. It was much easier to take the slide or negative down to the local lab and let them do it. Now, with a scanner, Photoshop, and an Epson 2200 printer, I have way more capabilities than I could ever expect from that basement darkroom. Plus, I don't have to stumble around in the dark as often. Going completely digital will only simplify my digital darkroom even further.

For the time being I am still using my trusty, 20+ year old OM-1's while I save the pennies for a digital SLR. Sometime between now and the start of the airshow season next spring I will make the leap and be assimilated into the collective.

Just my .02

Rick

[Curt]

There still is some life in film cameras but there is some awsome digitals out there and as time goes on they will do nothing but get better, im still using a 1978 Canon AE-1 and an AT-1 and i love them but im going to have to put them away and get one of the new wavecameras with auto focus cuz i had an eye go south so by by fast foucus, no wi just gota convince the wife that the Kodak 14n would make a perfect xmas present!

[T. Adams]

Kodak???

You have an old Canon so you already know how good they are, so why a Kodak that takes Nikon lenses. Yes both Canon and Nikon systems are good, but I can't see why any sports shooter in their right mind would use Nikon. Canon's IS lenses are a HUGE advantage over Nikon. Nikon for whatever reason has been like a turtle when it comes to releasing VR lenses. Canon has IS in lenses all the way from 28mm to 600mm. There is a definite reason why at every major sporting event you see all those big white lenses.

I'm sure many of you may have seen this ad. This was not a staged photograph to promote Canon. The picture originally ran in Sports Illustrated. Not many black non-Canon lenses in that picture!!

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/magad_june2003.pdf