Re: Digital Cameras

[markabREMOVEME@sympatico.ca (Mark Ab)]

>For example, suppose you are track side waiting for that steam powered
>excursion  train to appear.  With a 35 mm SLR, you simply compose your
>shot beforehand, get the focus all set up, and wait.  A digital camera
>really isn't that great for trying to photograph stuff that is in motion,
>because it does autofocus just befoe the photo is taken.  Sitting and
>waiting for the train to come, the camera will more than likely slip into
>a "sleep mode", or some other state during which the previously focused
>shot is lost.

                      Although the approach is somewhat different in
taking this kind of photo with a digital camera I don't see why a
digital camera could not perform as well.With this type of photo you
would not use the auto focus option but rather go into manual focus
and preset your focus distance.Fortunatly due to the size of todays
CCD's a much greater DOF is evident giving you greater odds of having
the train in crisp focus compared to a 35mm camera.With my (and I
suspect many other) digital camera all of my settings are retained in
sleep mode and a simple tap of the shutter brings it quickly back to
life.

> In fact, if the battery goes dead in one of these 100%
>mechanical cameras, you can usually continue to photograph and simply
>guess about the shutter speed and aperature setting (though you depend
>more on luck than anything if you aren't really that good ;) ). 

                        Many of todays 35mm cameras require battery
power even to trip the shutter. Even my 15 year old Minolta MX-700
will not trip the shutter without a good battery.

> If you
>leave a digital camera turned on for hours you have a hunk of plastic.

                        Most of todays digital cameras draw a small
fraction of the power they normally use when in sleep mode, allowing
them  to stay on for hours at a time without draining the batteries. 

>There are some neat photographs you will miss completely with a digital
>camera.  For example, suppose you wanted to take a night shot?  Good luck
>doing that with a digital camera.  With a 35 mm SLR camera, you simply set
>the shutter speed on "bulb" and hold the shutter open for 15, 20, 30
>minutes, maybe even several hours depending on what you want to do.

                       That's an awful long exposure! Many of today's
digital cameras will handle exposure times in the neighbourhood of 8
seconds which is sufficent for most night scenes.With long time
exposures on 35mm film colour shifting becomes much more of an issue.

>  You
>can't adjust the "shutter speed" on a digital camera because there isn't a
>shutter to adjust the speed of. 

                       Many of todays better digital cameras have
selectable shutter speeds up to and exceeding 1/2000 of a second.

> Sure, the digital cameras come with a
>flash - but the range of a flash is very limited, and is therefore pretty
>much useless for most anything that a railroad photographer would want to
>use it for.

                       Agreed, but many of todays digital cameras have
the ability to accept an external flash. I've never been impressed
with most of the built in flashes on 35mm cameras either.   

>Suppose you had a shot that turned out extremely well, and you wanted to
>blow it up?  Again, this is something that is not great with a digital
>camera.  The resolution is acceptable for maybe 8"x10" photographs, but
>even then only just barely.  Don't expect to be able to blow up digital
>camera shots to 16"x20" poster size and still have something you would
>want to hang on your wall.

                      I would agree that this applies to todays
digital cameras. But with higher resolution cameras just months away
this will change.   

> don't expect to be able to play around with 1/1000th of a second
>sutter speeds with a digital camera. 

                    Not true. See my post above.    

> It can take 3-5 seconds for a digital camera to
>focus and expose.  By then you would be looking at the trains rear marker
>lights. 

                   By presetting your focus distance and exposure
(which you would want to do in advance with a fast moving object).
My camera (as well as many others) can take a photo in .2 seconds.
More than fast enough to grab the front of the train.

> It will be years before
>decent photographs of moving objects like that will be possible with
>digital cameras.  Branchlines with trains moving at 30 mph?  No problem,
>but nothing high speed.  Not yet anyway.

                     Again I beg to differ, see above.

>It depends on how you use your camera.  If you are just taking snap shots,
>then a digital camera is probably OK, but expect to pay $300 for a camera
>that is basicaly the equivalent of a fully automatic 35 mm snap shot
>camera that you could probably buy in a department store for $50. 

                    Agreed. Digital photography is not cheap (yet!)
    
>However, I doubt very much that someone seriously interested in railroad
>photography will be wanting to replace their 35 mm camera with digital
>anytime soon.  They simply are not flexible enough in terms of lens types,
>shutter exposure time, and various other settings that can be done.  Don't
>get me wrong - I've used digital cameras and they are great for some
>things, but when I go out on a trip to photograph trains, I take my 38
>year old 35mm SLR camera instead.

                       To each their oun.  Even a year or two ago I
would have agreed with most of your points but given the leaps digital
photograpy has made in just the last year in my opinion I don't think
many of your points apply when speaking about the latest crop of
digital cameras. Perhaps I'm just stubburn but I can't bring myself to
going back to my dusty MX-700 35mm camera (may she rest in peace).
 I'm having too much fun with my digital   :)


                                        Mark Ab