Newbie Question...?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really
isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react
that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a
while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great.
I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better
a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras
faster? Better in some other way? Closer to film cameras in
reaction time or image quality? Much cheaper for a camera of
comparable quality?

Thanks for any comments!

Mark
4 answers Last reply
More about newbie question
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Dylan answered well, but I'll just back him up.....

    Yes, they're getting better - but no, they're not yet like film
    cameras.

    Shutter/AF lag is getting a lot better, but it's still present. My ca.
    2003 C-5060 has about 1 second AF/lag time and 1.5s to store the image
    (SHQ jpg; about 3MB) ; my old ca. 1999 HP had 3 seconds AF/Lag, plus 5
    seconds to store a 700KB image. Compare to my manual Nikon film SLR -
    push button -> image stored, no lag.

    Light sensitivity is not improving. You need a larger sensor to collect
    more light; the sensor size is not changing.

    Megapixels mean almost nothing; they're only useful if you do a lot of
    cropping or huge enlargements. For 4X6", 5X7" and even 8X10" at 4 feet
    viewing distance, a *good* 3 Mpixel camera works fine. As with all
    electronic devices, there's a lot of not-so-good cameras out there;
    with poor optics, poor sensors, and poor JPEG compression engines. As
    the megapixels increase, image noise increases; it's basic physics;
    cameras these days compensate by processing the image more in the
    camera. Image quality rivals regular (not medium format, of course)
    film cameras in every way now; the images are easier to fix if they're
    not right, too.

    Are digicams cheaper? Yes, definitely; without any doubt. You pay up
    front, though. For example: my Nikon FG-20 manual film SLR. Used for
    $125; it came with a nice Nikkor 28-85mm lens and a Sigma (I know, I
    know) 70-200 zoom. Accessories about $100 (cheap used flash, tripod,
    bag, etc.) So, total cost of used SLR - $225. Cost of good film - $3-4
    per 24 exp. (ie. Velvia, Portra); developing & printing (at Walmart -
    not recommended) $5/roll (at a good shop - recommended) $7/roll. So, I
    was paying about $10/24 exposures. At best, $7/24 at walmart using
    cheapo film. I was developing about 1 roll biweekly - total of about
    $250-300/year. I got about 1 pic in 10 which was a keeper; the rest
    were ok but were usually put in a box for "storage".

    Now, my Olympus C-5060 cost $550 new, plus about $150 for the extras
    (memory, mostly) - total of $700. Doesn't sound promising, does it? I
    print about 1 in 20 images; at $0.19/print. I've taken ~2000 images
    this year; I've printed ~100 - for a cost of ~$15.00 (a few
    enlargements, too). So the difference in price between my USED SLR and
    my NEW digicam was wiped out in 1-1/2 years. Now, every pic I take for
    the next ~4 years is pretty much free of developing costs..... And,
    quite frankly, the image quality is much better than that old SLR and
    that cr@ppy Sigma lens....

    The environmental impact of printing those unwanted film prints
    shouldn't be underestimated, either - I'm saving ~500 4X6 prints per
    year using digital; that's a lot of chemicals and paper......

    ECM
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <gmark@svs.com> wrote in message
    news:1103792978.942405.167100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really
    > isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react
    > that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a
    > while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great.
    > I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better
    > a megapixel rating. So what's improved?

    Are the newer cameras faster? yes

    Better in some other way? yes

    Closer to film cameras in reaction time or image quality? yes

    Much cheaper for a camera of comparable quality? yes

    >
    > Thanks for any comments!
    >
    > Mark

    Like most things it depends a lot on what you pay. You don't say what you
    are comparing the 'new' cameras to, 5MB, 6MB, 8MB etc are much better rated
    than early digital cameras of <1MB,2MB, etc etc, but also remember the pixel
    count isn't everything also consider sensitivity and noise, the latest DSLRs
    will compete with 35mm SLRs and film, try a film camera at 1600 or 3200 ISO
    !.

    Your camera suffers from shutter lag, as do many others but things are
    getting better.

    In my view Kodak certainly aren't the best and used to suffer from over
    compression.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Hi Mark,

    You have a great camera in the DC4800. It has many nice features itself.

    But, as it is with all things, technology and time moves on. Of course so
    does marketing and features etc. The newer cameras are a little larger in
    size but a 3.1 megapixel camera is excellent and will do a great job for
    you. To learn more about the cameras that took the place of the DC4800,
    visit the following URLs. As you will see the DX6490 and the newer DX7590
    are the DC4800's of today. A review of the information sites will reveal
    the changes and improvements.

    Personally, I have used the DC4800 as it allows for some twain type
    interactions that the newer cameras to not have.

    Talk to you soon,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    <gmark@svs.com> wrote in message
    news:1103792978.942405.167100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > I've got a Kodak CD4800, which is a very nice camera, but really
    > isn't competitive with a film camera in that it just doesn't react
    > that fast. That is, if I push the shutter button, it often takes a
    > while to take the picture. And light sensitivity isn't all that great.
    > I've noticed that new cameras don't really have all that much better
    > a megapixel rating. So what's improved? Are the newer cameras
    > faster? Better in some other way? Closer to film cameras in
    > reaction time or image quality? Much cheaper for a camera of
    > comparable quality?
    >
    > Thanks for any comments!
    >
    > Mark
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Thanks, Ron, all! Really appreciated!

    The major thing I can't see in the specs is that "lag" time thing. Is
    there
    some standard term for it? The time it takes the camera after a shot to
    be able to take the next one? Processing lag? Or how many shots it can
    shoot in rapid succession and how fast (which, I think, should give
    some
    sort of an indication of the time before the second shot). My wife's
    Digital
    Rebel seems awfully, awfully fast. Does it have anything to do with the
    lighting
    conditions? Like more processing to "normalize" a darker image in a
    digital
    camera?

    TIA!

    Mark
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras