rredman 0 #1 March 13, 2003 I am considering replacing my really old 35mm camera and want to make sure that if sometime in the future I want to use it for skydiving that it will be suitable. Does anyone have any opinions on durability in 35mm or quality/price of a good digital. My concern with digital is how fast it will take each frame? and how good the quality is compared to 35mm. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. I am shooting skydiving video now, and probably won't consider stills for another year or so, but I will be looking for a still camera this summer. thanks,Ross Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #2 March 13, 2003 See this recent thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=398408#398408 ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rredman 0 #3 March 13, 2003 Thanks... that thread is really good for info on the digital.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #4 March 14, 2003 That thread is a good start with all sorts of good info. Something to add though... When it comes to quality. I've found my 3.34 mp Nikon 995 does well for producing full frame 8x10 prints, but not to much larger then that. (it would be way to slow for fast action though... my two cents) but as a reference point, as i've heard from a number of sources, approx. 11 megapixels seems to be the quality a typcial 35mm negative would equal out to for a digital camera. I can't wait until there is a digi Nikon SLR with that kind of resolution to complement my 35mm SLR. The bummer is though that Cannon has the lead for skydiving purposes b/c it's D60 has an electronic shutter release built in. Versus the Nikon D100 that you need to buy a grip to get the release and that adds too much wieght and size to make it practical.hope my $.02 helps a bit. matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #5 March 14, 2003 Quote Something to add though... When it comes to quality. I've found my 3.34 mp Nikon 995 does well for producing full frame 8x10 prints, but not to much larger then that. (it would be way to slow for fast action though... my two cents) For a fast (cheaper) digi cam, I used the minolta S404. I think the F100 is the newer version of that one. Plenty fast (0.8 frames/sec, continuous focussing), really good for point&shoot pics on the ground. That´s a 4 megapixel camera, good for pretty good 20x30 cm prints, I even printed an A3 poster from it ones, came out pretty decent. Traded that one in tho, for my Canon D30 (3 megapixel). Guess what, these 3 mp are way better than my old 4 mp. The number definitely doesn´t say everything, I think you´d be better off with a more expensive (better) lower mp cam than with a cheap version of a more mp cam. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #6 March 14, 2003 Quote i've heard from a number of sources, approx. 11 megapixels seems to be the quality a typcial 35mm negative would equal out to for a digital camera. True, but I´ve seen approx 70 cm x 45 cm prints (ie large poster size) from the CREW record, from the Canon D60 and the Nikon D100. Both were really good. I made a poster myself, for a sponsor. A compilation of mostly D30 pics with a background also shot with the D30. Printed it at 70 cm x 45 cm. Came out great I really don´t think you need 11 mp. Unless you want to print anything larger than said 70x45 cm prints, which are very very large indeed. I´d get a 6 mp cam if I´d buy a new cam now, but I´m really happy with my 3 mp cam. the one thing I´m not really happy about is the conversion factor that most digi cams have. Ie you need to multiply the lens by about 1,5 for the D30, 1,6 for the D100 (I think) to get the equivalent 35 mm lens. So for instance, to jump a 28 mm lens equivalent, you´d need a 19mm lens. Those lenses are more expensive and bigger, so not really ideal. But doable. On the plus side, you get a bonus when shooting on the ground. I use a 35mm - 105mm zoom, which translates into about a 50mm-160mm lens. Cool for shots of jumpers coming in to land. Not so cool if they try for a close-up, that won´t work with 50 mm, but most land a bit further from me anyway and don´t try to hit me ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #7 March 15, 2003 Yep.. you're right about nice prints coming out of lower res cameras, but my reference to "11 megapixels" was to show the where the technology stands comparitively if all other things were equal. The general manager where i work turns out some really nice large pictures from 2-3 megapixel cameras he has with a program called Digital Ice. You'd be hard pressed to know that they were digital prints v. film processed in traditional ways. Both the D60 and the D100 are about the same resolution (around 6 Mp, i think), plus as you said there is a lot to the cameras besides the resolution. Good glass (ie... lenses) being one of the most important in my experience. From what i've read and i think i've seen quade say on here. The conversion has to do with the size of the CCD and its placement inside the camera. Once the X3 chips and other larger such sensors become more come common in production cameras that factor will hopefully disappear or at least shrink..matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
