Montana State University |
Montana State University |
By Carol Flaherty
MSU News Service...
11/24/99 - BOZEMAN – Comparing digital cameras to film cameras seems like comparing a digital watch to one with a sweeping hand.
Digital time is precise, but limited to discrete moments. It is something very different than the sweep of time described by a hand making an orbit of hours, where 7 p.m. still shows at 8, and a glimpse of midnight still is visible when the alarm goes off at dawn.
Discrete digital dots versus the apparent continuous tones of film has been the visible difference between these media in the past.
But even film images are made of separate bits. Their "continuous" tones result from the many tiny dots that our eyes and minds blend into colors and shapes. Even some painters use small dots of color in anticipation of our eyes blending them into images.
For pointillist painters and film and digital camera owners, the number and size of dots is critical to achieving an image. Fewer dots carry less information so are more difficult for us to resolve into recognizable images.
The phenomenal expansion of digital memory stored in "sticks," "flash cards" and "microdrives" finally is giving us enough dots to make images approximate the smoothness of a filmed image. That is especially true if you plan to fit the dots into a moderately sized print, say between 4 and 10 inches wide. Computer screens have poorer resolution than photo paper, so digital cameras also work well when displayed on a computer.
You can get both small snapshots and 11x14-inch prints from today's digital cameras, though if you expect to decorate your walls with images larger than 11x14 inches, I would stick with film. You can scan the slide or print later to get a digital image if you need one.
On the other hand, most of us are interested in snapshots, and there are quite a few digital cameras available for $300 to $400 that will print beautiful 4x6-inch images. At $500, you're about at the cost of a camera that can get you a photo-realistic 8x10 inch print. An 11x14 inch printed photo pushes today's digital technology and often requires a camera costing between $900 and $1500.
I've drooled over digital cameras for five years or so, but you need to understand that I've photographed professionally for (Lord help me!) 27 years. I compare all cameras to my 20-year-old quality 35mm manual camera. After 600,000 images, it still does a good job (if I do). I doubt that I'll ever give up film entirely, but the quality of 1999's digital cameras makes me think even that is possible.
I've waited for good digital cameras to become what I considered affordable, an admittedly subjective concept that for me falls somewhere between truly cheap and at maximum $400. Each of the last three years, when I've thought "maybe now," I've asked myself some questions: Is my computer hard drive large enough to store many years worth of photos? Is a more immediate concern archiving my old photos by investing in a print or slide scanner and saving the results on a CD-Write? Should I stay with film and get photos digitally processed and put on a CD by a local photo shop? If my digital photos survive the next 50 years, how will I organize them so that I can retrieve them? (There are good organization systems with many digital cameras, but each takes some effort. If you have never labeled or put away your prints, your digital photos will be equally difficult to find and identify.) Finally, will changes in technology render archived images inaccessible?
Answering the last question first, as technological changes occur, you can in all likelihood transfer images to new media. I have access to stories I wrote in 1987 that were first saved on 5.25 inch floppies. I transferred them to 3.5 inch disks and now to a CD. But you will need to commit yourself to keeping your images in accessible formats and physical media. Nothing humans make is truly permanent. Color photos are not as permanent as the 1890 black and white picture of my Grandma. But all photos fade, and hot temperatures, air, fluorescent lights and especially sunlight fade them. In dark cool storage, you may have 30 years for a color image, but those that are 30 years old in 1999 won't make it to their 100th birthday in good shape.
If you decide to buy a digital camera, your major considerations in addition to price are:
--the number of "pixels" making up the image and the related topic of whether or not the camera had an optical zoom lens,
--what you store the images on in the camera,
--how to get the image to your computer, television or printer.
There is little reason this year to get fewer digital dots than a "megapixel" (1 million pixels) camera offers, meaning you should aim for at least an advertised resolution of about 1,000 by 1,000 pixels. This easily allows for beautiful 5x7-inch images, and probably 8x10s if you don't crop the image much.
There are a number of cameras offering that resolution. I recently enjoyed using my sister's Olympus 340L, and its street price is about $300. (We added accessories for another $200 and could easily add more. I also would go one up to the Olympus D-400Z to get an optical zoom lens, but more on that later.) We took a photo inside a grain bin, and I took some at the same time with Kodak ASA 200 color film. You can't tell any difference in the original digital and the film-to-digital images I've made to date, but I can tell you that there would be an obviously better image from the film if we made each into a large print.
There is one other thing I wouldn't do without, and that is an optical zoom lens. The first digital cameras and many still today have "digital zoom," but that technology does not give you the resolution of an optical zoom. The degree of zoom probably would depend on cost, but I would get one that at least doubles the size of the image.
Storage technology for digital cameras is an area of red-hot competition. There are high-end microdrives storing as much as 340 megabytes. The two cameras on the market using this are the Canon PowerShot Pro 70 that I saw advertised for $999 and a Panasonic PV-DC2590 that I saw advertised at $620. Others will be available soon. These are not going to be your least expensive option, but they allow between 200 and 2,000 photos to be stored at a time. That could be important on a long trip where you aren't carrying a computer, but may be over-kill for a home photographer who is looking at images and erasing all but the best, which is the single nicest feature of a digital camera in my opinion.
The most popular storage device is called "CompactFlash," which is now evolving into "CompactFlash II," a larger memory bank allowing more storage. Sony has a proprietary medium called a "Memory Stick."
As you can see, there is no way to buy a camera today and have it be compatible with everything. Your task, instead, is to buy something that will work with your technology. That's why you need to check that the way you transfer the images to your computer or TV is compatible with your system. Most stores should guide you through that process. In the past, images were often transferred through an RS232 port. Now there is a transition to "USB" ports. Basically, just make sure your camera cable and computer connect.
Of course, I also suggest you check buyers' guides. Even when the language seems foreign, you pick up information bit by bit. I particularly enjoyed a place on the web called the Imaging Resource at http://www.imaging-resource.com, which provides comments by digital camera users as well as reviews. Another site is called PCPhotoReview at http://www.pcphotoreview.com.
My one gripe about 95 percent of digital cameras is that they have the flash right on the camera, which can give photos a flat look, if you are lucky enough to avoid red-eye. My personal answer to that problem probably will be to turn the flash off whenever I can and shoot natural light. So, to the suggestions above I'd add: make sure you can turn off the flash, a simple option that I hope every digital camera allows.
As with any camera, if the lens gets dirty, your image is degraded. Make sure your camera lens has a convenient cover. A few higher-end cameras allow a filter, which I heartily recommend but may not be financially practical for a family user.
Notice that I never suggested that you ask yourself, "Am I competent enough to work this new gadget?" You are. Photo technology can be used in simple ways or fancy ways, and I'm happy to say that my experiences so far indicate that "simple" digital photos really are simple.
Go to more feature stories arranged by category.
Send questions or comments to Carol Flaherty, MSU Communications Services, Bozeman, MT 59717 or email Flaherty at carolf@montana.edu.
You are the 10488th person to access this page.
