P3D Re: Film vs Digital

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Sage <rsage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>The problems I see with consumer priced digital cameras is that they
are
>not designed for photographers. Try to find one which accepts standard
>filters or has a cable release socket. Are there any which take a
decent
>time exposure? The owners manual to my $600 Sony gives no exposure
>specifications other than to say "auto exposure". Of course Sony is an
>electronics company and not a camera company. I'm sure they want you to
>manipulate any poor quality pictures with your photo retouching
programs
>in your computer. My Mavica appeared to have a threaded filter adapter
>but I later learned it only accepted a special wide-angle lens, and to
>put filters on, you must glue on a Cokin 52mm adapter and attach
filters
>onto that backwards. It's difficult to put a lens shade on backwards.


I agree with Rod's observations.  Digital cameras seem, for the most
part, to be designed more like camcorders than like traditional still
cameras.  But I think that's because the general public has mostly been
buying point-n-shoots these days, and the digital folks don't want to
scare anyone away and reduce their potential market, by including too
many controls.

My Toshiba digital camera allows exposure compensation in .3 EV steps,
but has only two apertures (f3.2 and f8) and no way to select them.
Strangely, the flash power is adjustable independently of exposure, also
in .3EV steps.  But like Rod says, there is no provision for remote
release, and although it has a tripod socket, will not make a
multi-second exposure in low-light conditions without flash.

Perhaps we'll see "real camera" features creep down into the
consumer-priced models as the electronics get less expensive.  The other
alternative, I suppose, is to find a "digital back" for one's existing
35mm camera body.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



------------------------------