35 Mm Film Cameras Article

Digital imaging has made dazzling leaps in the half-decade since the first cameras appeared, yet even with 3-megapixel sensors attainable, the bottle remains half integral. And anyone who's ever picked up a decent 35-mm camera knows the drinking glass is also half-empty when digital imaging is anxious. In this issue, we review nine of the newest digital cameras, those with 3-megapixel sensors from precept, Casio, Epson, Kodak, Nikon, Olympus, Ricoh, and Toshiba. They cost up to $1,000 (way) and produce dazzling 8-by-10 enlargements and pretty decent 11-by-14s when the camera captures the picture properly. PC Magazine Labs again tested 2-megapixel cameras to see how much, or how little, users must administer up in order to skimp about $200.

Eyes Of the Beholders

Web habitat imaging. Quick turnaround matters most, so digital cameras win out over film, hands down. clearly 3- and perhaps even 2-megapixel images are overkill. You could get by with a 1-megapixel camera if you're satisfied with the perception quality. The trouble is, the current generations of 2- and 3-megapixel cameras are better at color faith, and not that much exertion is going into making better 1-megapixel cameras.

occupation user. For a company newsletter or visuals for an important meeting, you'll want a malodorous-res camera with a 3X hum lens capable of shooting in all light conditions. For such applications, the cameras we reviewed are ideal. On the fresh hand, realty agents, insurance adjusters, and police officers merely need a record of a particular event. Those images don't necessarily need to be saved after the occurrence, and if they're to be uploaded via cellular link smaller sizes may be preferable.

privy user. occasionally called "prosumers," these users are serene with the PC technology that complements digital cameras, particularly for printmaking. They ignite through enough conventional film at $15 a roll (with processing) to see how total cost of partnership tips in favor of digital cameras.

Professionals. Newspaper and journal photographers need ruggedness, zero latency, canny sequence time, motors that expose multiple frames per second, flashes that reach out 50 feet, and ultrawide-angle to ultratelephoto lenses. In the studio, they need perfect color attachment. They're used to paying $1,500 and up for film cameras. When they shop for digital cameras, their market starts at $2,500, and they don't mind the cost because they save so much on film. For them, even the best of the cameras reviewed here are going to fall short of their needs except for so-called grip-and-smirk photos that are the stock-in-trade of small-town newspapers.

What We endow

First, the good message. All nine 3-megapixel cameras we tested took supreme still photos in well-lit, daytime scenes. Even vendors without much of a prestige in the digital-camera field, such as Toshiba, fared well. The better cameras performed nicely in low-mild situations and had more understandable controls. (We again attempted to test the Fuji FinePix 4700 Zoom, but the detachment we received was faulty, and we removed it from the gathering.)

The mass of the cameras we tested looked like traditional 35-mm cameras. The Nikon and Ricoh units were the exceptions, with split viewing and imaging halves. occasionally these alternative designs are better, especially if you want to hurtle at an special perspective. Of these offbeat cameras, the Nikon seemed best image out.

Most of the cameras here (except the Canon and Kodak) take short "movies," but don't toss your camcorder out utterly yet. These cameras produce short bursts, say 20 seconds of 320-by-240 resolution at approximately 15 frames per second.

Controls are nice more logical, although you'll want to lug around the dexterous-implication guide until you're informal with all the buttons and knobs. At the very least, memorize the return-to-factory-defaults key merger in case you accidentally turn on macrofocusing, for citation, and can't figure out how to expunge it.

Highlights, Lowlights

Under ideal conditions, you'll get good to first-rate pictures. We're now seeing printers such as the Epson Stylus Photo 2000P with a claimed image stability of more than 100 years–better than graphic paper. But under less-than-ideal conditions, you have to be lucky, good, or well willing to get great photos. We found that moving subjects or monochromatic scenes took longer for the auto-focus to lock in.

Now that cameras keep surpassed the 2-megapixel mark, lens virtue is extra important for accurately transferring gathered light to a CCD (charge-coupled device). Traditional camera makers (such as formula, Nikon, and Olympus) have always had good optics on their higher-end digital cameras; others are following suit.

If your camera came with alkaline batteries, set them aside and buy rechargeable nickel hydride batteries. They cost about $25 for a four-pack, plus $25 for a charger. There's no excuse for a camera costing $500 or more not to enter with rechargeable batteries. Several cameras use lithium batteries, which are great for longevity, although lithium batteries tend to die with only a few minutes notice. And alkaline batteries are in no way suited to the alpine drain of digital cameras. In a pinch, however, buy costly broad-spirit or high-drain alkaline batteries; these can racket well in digital cameras.

We were moreover uniformly unimpressed by the electronic zoom features on the cameras that had them. As with DV camcorders, the only thing that matters is the optical zoom. A 2X digital fly gets you twice as close, twice as many artifacts, and twice the fuzziness. A massive preference of 3-megapixel cameras is that if the subject is far away, you can enlarge the perception's center and still sustain a approximately sharp picture.

A 3-megapixel CCD typically gives you a 2,048-by-1,536 perception. Some cameras interpolate to a higher analysis with varying degrees of prosperity. Epson's HyPict procedure, for instance, does a credible job interpolating to 2,544-by-1,904.

2 or 3 Megapixels?

Although Olympus anew announced the first 4-megapixel camera, it's not exactly in the price range of most at $2,000 (way) and will produce somewhat large files (1MB for JPEGs and about 12MB for uncompressed TIFFs). The good news is that this camera and the fresh units to emulate will drive down the price of 3-megapixel cameras, much like 3-megapixel cameras did for their 2-megapixel siblings.

As you step back to lower resolutions, you may find that you're not getting year-2000 technology with less resolution but 1998-99 technology in some cases. Steer clear of off-the-market 1-megapixel cameras with internal storage only. Even at $100, they're no bargain and not much more able than the Mattel Barbie digital camera.

Whichever camera you choose, you'll want to buy a bigger recognition agenda. practically all cameras now have USB as well as serial connections, but you'll be happier buying a USB CF ticket reader for about $25 or a USB/CF/SmartMedia/PC Card reader for $50. Get a second set of rechargeable batteries, especially if your camera takes only two double-A batteries. If you do a lot of outdoor shooting, get a sunshade (the shades on these cameras are nonexistent or vestigial). And you may want to upgrade the included software, which is often a lite or older version of the current offering.

We've prone you the user scenarios as well as some buying tips. We've reviewed the hardware and tallied our results, which you're about to perceive. But is film really dead? Not by a long effort. As great as they are, digital cameras still aren't fast enough or cutting enough to handle every shooting contingency that comes along. And for some photographers, that way digital storage still doesn't surpass those seemingly antediluvian film rolls, regardless of their cost or inconvenience.