Some opinions below: >What about the "older" Digital Science Kodak/Canon cameras built on the >EOS-1N body? Are there advantages or disadvantages versus the D-30? Which >models of the DCS line are "best"?
I think you should forget the older digitals, otherwise you will end up again in digital stone age, faster than you might think... >Should I stick with my original plans of getting another, newer, film >camera? Or should I really be aiming toward the digital camera? I already >own a couple of point and shoot (power zoom, etc) digital cameras but don't >like the fact that the lenses are not interchangeable. How much money do you spend for film per year? I have had the same thoughts for about a year now. I use two EOS-3 bodies (one for ISO100 and another for ISO400 slide film). I could see digital useful in two respects: fast feedback which is especially useful in multiflash photography and cheaper to use in action phgotography where you loose lots of film on bad shots (and you also know when you have got good enough photos and can stop trying). For the first one even Canon G2 would work with its EX-flash compatibility. For "action" photography digital P&S is too slow and in many cases so is D30, too. The D30 replacement (D40 or D60 or whatever) might be better but at the moment the only real candidate would be 1D (or D1?) or similars, thus lots of EEEEE. I shoot around 100 rolls per year (no time for more worth to shoot), so I pay about 750E(uros) for film and frames & boxes each year. Let's say D30 costs about 2500E, which means I can shoot film for almost 3,5 years with the same money. But I would need also at least one microdrive and one additional battery which alone would cost about 750E (film & storage for one year) I believe. I could sell my second EOS-3 (both? no way!) but that would cover just slightly more than the microdrive, grip and battery. So if I bought D30 now I should use it for about 3,5 years to start saving. Would I be happy with D30 (vs EOS-3) during that time? Who knows. AF would drive me grazy I suppose but I would love the instant preview on few occations. But what I mostly shoot can't usually be retried, or at least there are so few opportunities to get good shots that better AF and faster frame rate are more useful than instant preview (which you can't totally trust in judging the sharpness anyway). I believe I would like to upgrade sooner than after 3 years. The D30 replacement might be useful for longer time period though. Digital benefits (imo): - instant feedback - cheaper to use (meaningful if you shoot a lot) - high ISOs give quite nice results in high-end cameras - no need to change film during shooting Digital drawbacks (imo): - cropping factor - slow fps or expensive - bad AF or expensive (let's see the D30 replacement) - battery usage (esp. in cold weather) - need to be somewhat careful with microdrives (FLASH cards expensive) - sometimes need for several microdrives or additional battery dependant storage devices - possibly not so good for long term use below freezing point Conclusion? I'm still waiting and I think I don't loose any money by shooting film. The digital price/quality drops are still significant but I'm sure I will get digital some day. Who knows, maybe it is the D40/60 or then the D3 a bit later. I still wish Canon made digital back for EOS-3/1V... ;-) >Gary Thurlow Vesa _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
