Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Some consumer P&S digital cameras focus slowly still, I'm sure, but >> the serious ones are exactly as responsive as the film bodies -- > > David > > I'm too bone idle to google :o) > > Are they as responsive as my EOS 1n RS in Real Time mode? Dunno, never owned Canon equipment. Probably not; you really need the separate phase-based autofocus sensors to get fast focusing, and that eliminates all the P&S models. And the mirror moving out of the way takes time, which gives the 1n RS an advantage over any body they've made a digital from that I can remember. > That little mother has almost no delay - apart from the link between > my eye-brain and finger :o) On the other hand, I haven't found the objectively higher delay in an SLR to give me worse results than I got with a Leica M3. >> However, for macro work, you'll find they get noticeably more depth >> of field (for the 1.5x crop-factor family), and you'll find you can >> run ISO 400 with better results than ISO 400 film produces, so you >> can use a smaller aperture or higher shutter speed than with film. > The "greater depth of field" thing is true - but worthy of a whole > thread on its own. Depth of field does improve with reducing focal > length - but so does the reduction of scale of the things in the > background. Since it's the big bugaboo of macro work, I thought it was worth mentioning. > It confuses me how digital processing has managed to do away with the > diffraction problems associated with small apertures / high > magnifications on film. I can't work out the physics myself. It doesn't, of course. >> And, because the shots cost nothing, and because you >> can check in the field exactly what you got, you can also get >> difficult shots that require "luck" *and know you got them*. > We're into the fixed and variable costing stuff. > > True: apart from battery power and the aggro of carrying enough > power around with you there's almost "no cost per shot" beyond the > hardware/software upgrade costs. That's a good thing! At the end > of the year though, for most of us if you divide the numbers of > keepers by the cost (bearing in mind film users have to learn to > take less shots) ratio is - possibly - quite different. Spray and pray isn't a sensible photographic approach, I think you and I at least agree. However, carefully constructing a situation where you have a one in 7 chance of getting an otherwise-impossible photo to work, and then repeating the scenario until you get it, seems to me entirely sensible. Knowing for sure when you *have* gotten it makes the process much more secure. Pretty much all the great photojournalists brought back LOTS more film than was eventually published (with a considerable ratio between them, too; some shot a lot more than others). I think every single one of them would have said they'd return less-good pictures on the average if you rationed them to half their usual amount of film. The ability to shoot *lots*, and the ability to see what you have accomplished in the field, are valuable to good photographers. If you want to argue that they can *also* lead less-good photographers down the garden path, essentially into spray-and-pray, I won't argue against it. That exact argument was made against 35mm photographers by press-camera photographers, some years back. But today, I don't think anybody would claim that press-camera photographers turned out generally better shots than 35mm photographers did. > I guess there is no-one forcing you to upgrade every 18 months > (Canon's current release cycle) - but until the day we get a stable > technology (just after hell freezes over) new will always be better. Since 1969, when I bought my first SLR, I've *never* had the best camera made. I'm managing to crawl along just fine with a digital that isn't the best one currently made. (No, I don't think it's always obvious what the "best" camera made has been; but the ones I've had have clearly never been it. An M3 arguably *was* the best camera made when new -- but I owned mine starting in 1973). -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
