Digital Camera

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by russotto

And note that _film_ varies a lot. 35MM Kodak "MAX" film with (according to one photographer) "grain the size of beachballs" is going to give a much lower resolution print than Fuji NPC160, for instance.

Digital won't ever be indistinguishable from film; if nothing else, the artifacts (such as grain) are different.

True, but the silver-halide grains in film are of varying sizes and shapes, and are randomly distributed. This makes "low-res" film more forgiving than low-res digital.

In digital images, the pixels are all arranged in a grid, which makes it quite easy for the eye to distinguish a "grain" when enlarged, whereas the random, varied grains in film work like camoflauge to a degree. Of course this characteristic is lost when the image is digitally scanned, since the randomness is then organized into tidy little rows and columns.

So until the resolution in digital cameras is so high as to make the concept of "grain" moot, digital and film cameras will just be two different worlds, with differing strengths and weaknesses.

[richlevy]

Heres the comparison . I have the two superzoom 5.0 megapixels against a 3x zoom 7.1 megapixel.

Do I spend a $100 more for the Z5 and get a very good SLR-like 5 MP or spend less and get a decent 7.1 MP Nikon?

[Undertoad]

I would get the coolpix 8700 for $481. That way I'd get the great Nikon optics an a serious zoom. Sure it's last year's model, but that's how you get the price.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Another advantage of last years model is people have used it and searching a couple of photography forums should turn up any glaring problems quickly.

[richlevy]

Not really an option. Considering the extra $50 for a 512MB card, I really can't afford much beyond $350 for the camera. It's 5 MP + zoom or 7.1 MP compact.

[jaguar]

depends partly what to do with it and your level of photography. If you're going to want to be able to do proper manual work and the like the the 5MP one is probably the better bet. If you just want to point at stuff and click the button then the 7.1 is probably a better bet. Z5 having a max ISO is 320 is a bit wierd though. I do have a soft spot for nikon digitals below pro-level (owned 2 before I switched to Canon SLR gear) , they're nice cameras, if you can wait a little/stretch, do, it's worth it.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I do have a soft spot for nikon digitals below pro-level (owned 2 before I switched to Canon SLR gear) , they're nice cameras, if you can wait a little/stretch, do, it's worth it.

Over a year ago my mum bought a Nikon Coolpix 5700 on my recommendation, and it's been a great camera for her. She does some wedding photography and such, and it's always produced nice results. The swivel on the LCD gives it some intersting flexibility for over-the-head and from-the-hip shots, too.

At the time I recommended it to her, I didn't have money for a new digitial camera, but I was tempted by that one.

[richlevy]

Well I'm still looking at the Z5. One downside to the Nikon besides the need for special batteries is that it only takes a maximum of 35 second movie clips regardless of the storage. On the plus side they are 640 x 480 clips.

I used my 3.2 MP camera at my sisters wedding and got 1 and 2 minute videos. Why did they build a more expensive camera years later that was more limited?

I'm still interested in the 8700, but it's a more limited 8MP than the Z5 is a 5MP. I guess the big question is how 8MP will make my life better than 5MP?