--- Dave Buyens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex, > You of course have to do what is right for you. Only you can make > the > decision when to jump to digital. Having gone digital for two years > now > (sold my last film camera six months ago), I can say: > 1. My photography has improved since making the change. I almost > hate to > look at the old photos. Some of the improvement is two more years of > shooting and some is the technology. > 2. The 1Ds does just fine with 15-minute exposures--with no > reciprocity (its > been long enough ago that I considered it that I probably don't have > it > spelled correctly. > 3. When I leave a job I have a good idea of what I have. It's still > difficult to check focus and such precisely on the 2-inch LCD screen, > but at > least I know I didn't blow the exposure. I once shot a whole chamber > of > commerce opening with no film in my EOS 3 (pretty stupid, I know, but > we all > do such things). > 4. EOS flash has never been as good as Nikon. Canon's 550EX is a > challenge. > At least with digital, I can usually bump the flash compensation up > and > reshoot on the spot. Where that is not possible, I shoot raw to give > myself > the maximum latitude to compensate later. > 5. White balance is much easier with digital. Good color management > is not. > 6. For color photography, digital beats film at high ISOs. I believe > B&W > still beats digital in that regard, though I never used B&W film. > > Until you decide to change, savor the heartbeat at the processor! I > too, > though, feel the same thing. It's just that I feel it on the field > sideline > when I know if I captured the pass play or whatever. > > Sure, digital bodies cost more. I just think of it as if I bought > all the > film I'll ever need right with the camera. Don't let me give the > impression > that digital is less expensive, though. Further, some folks have had > a > harder time charging as much for digital. The misconception is that > because > the exposure doesn't cost anything, that the product should cost > less. > Actually, the opposite is true. > Dave
Thanks Dave a lot for the observation. I wonder how my main topic reverted to something other - I originally was talking about 70-200L as oppopsite to the same with IS for specific kind of work, digital came into as a side notes but eventually became a main topic discussed here. :-) Well, never mind. I'm glad to hear lond-time exposure problems used to be inherent into digital are apparently evaporating into the past once dealing with newer, though most high-end bodies. As about the falsh performance, I know, many digital users still suffer, but from my own experience with film - I rate the ETTL performance of my EOS-3 coupled to 550EX very high. I suspect most of the lameting on it goes from lack of understanding how EOS flash technology works (and this si teh major point - each system takes differenmt approach implementing flash metering and one MUST learn the aprticular system approach prior to hoping to adquate results). I came to Canon from a long experience of Minolta system, and immediately (well, after some hit and miss and a short learning curve on ETTL) felt huge improvement in flash metering. I never got such beautiful fill-flash ever, I have no doubts it can match Nikon's famous 3D in this respect at least. Of course, digital introduced certain obvious differences that may interfare with regular flash metering, however, sice I'm still in film "territory" I'm not affected, neither I think Canon will leave it this way - they obviously bring an improvement. Of course, eventually I'll have tos witch over to digital, however do not feel it's going to happen in a foreseen future. Regards, Alex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
