Don Sanderson asked: > I also observed that the 5050 does a very poor job of dealing with high > contrast > situations. Is this a characteristic of digital?
Speaking of DSLR's, Canon, Nikon and Pentax are somewhere between slide and negative. For some reason, the Fujifilm S2 Pro (old honeycomb Super CCD) features about 10 stop latitude, better than any film. > In the opinion of those of you using mostly the *ist D now can it keep up > with film > in situations where the subject is as active as an animal, or even worse, a > kid? Speaking of DSLR's, usually yes. I still have to see a digital compact even approaching that. > The 5050 of course is severely handicapped by its limited focal length > range, > it does lovely macro work however. But though the D would allow me to use my > collection of Pentax K lenses (20 or so), can it compete with film in the > frames per second department when required? Almost, not equalling, best film frame rate. The *ist D can match MZ-series SLR's up to 6 frames, then it needs some extra time to recover for another burst. > Sorry for the lengthy post but this is sort of an intro too. > > To extract the two questions: > 1.) Can digital be expected to be ready to shoot when I need it to? Not sure what you need. It is usually ready when I need it. > 2.) Is high contrast lighting a much bigger problem with digital? No, same as slide film. Dario
