Photography question……

Quality is the main concern and my scanner has the ability to scan transparencies so that will save on print costs.

Regards, Dazza.

One major downside to slide film is the cost. Not only will a single roll of the stuff set you back by about £10 (dependant upon the brand), but it is expensive to get prints from.

I took my slides to UK “High Street” Photography Shops and enquired about getting prints of 5 slides at 8″ by 12″ each. Snappy Snaps quoted me a rather hefty £8.99 EACH and Jessops asked for just £2.99 each. I think that if you are to be a frequent user of slide film, a film scanner with slide-scanning capabilities is a must.

But it all depends upon what you are more concerned about – the cost or the quality?

Thanks for the info, my first planned use of slide film will be at the Waddington airshow, if they turn out alright I’ll post some of the results.

Regards, Dazza.

“P” will do fine in 99% of the cases. Slide is only more unforgiving under special light conditions. EG like when an aircraft is half in the shadow, half in full sunshine , or when you are shooting with the sun in front instead of behind you. In this situations, negative film will give you not a good photograph either, but on “paper” it looks slighter “better” than on the “screen”. BW Roger

Another thing I’ve wondered about is can my camera simply be left in program mode (full auto) and achieve decent pictures if I use slide film or will I have to fiddle about with it manually to get the best results, bearing in mind the vast majority of my photos are of static aircraft, excuse my ignorance on the subject but even my prehistoric old Pentax ME had auto shutter speed!

Regards, Dazza.

Slide is “positive” film whereas standard film is “negative”. I find a better variation of colour in slide film, but have not had the chance to use it a lot. I still have a roll of Sensia (FUJI) in the cupboard which I’m saving for a very special occasion!

Why start with a DSLR? I mean, sure they are the best money can buy, but you do need a lot of money to buy it. Especially if you do not already have lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.

You could start with a cheaper digital compact with a sizeable optical (!!! NOT DIGITAL !!!) zoom. The Sony F707/717 series are really good and easily available and rather cheap(ish) on the internet.

Today I finally picked up my F717 from someone who sold me his camera over the internet. I immediately tried it out at Schiphol (DUH) and the results are excellent!

According to the Pentax press release I checked on DPreview the Pentax dslr is to be launched in the last week of August. It has 6.1 effective megapixels (can get you A3 size posters, with interpolation even much bigger))and can be fitted with the current available Pentax lenses. End of August there is a very big photo expo in Berlin. Guess it will be launched there. To be commercial atractive, its p[rice must be lower than the Nikon D100 or Canon D10, so that sounds like good news to you. BW Roger

PS I never answered the original question. At first I used Kodachrome slides, then for 10 years Fuji (untill they launnched Sensia) and since then Kodak Elitechrome and Elitechrome HC . With good weather, they are all great. However in bad weather, the Elitechrome holds perfect, while the Fuji Sensia must be exposed as 100 iso or even 64 iso (at least on my camera).

All good points gentlemen, the more I look into it the more sense it makes to go digital. I’ve always been a Pentax man myself and if they ever get round to launching their new D-SLR I’ll have a serious look at it assuming it will take existing Pentax FA lenses, anyway thanks for all your input.

Regards, Dazza.

I agree that digital dslr’s are more expensive now but, a camera like the Eos-10D is already droping fast in price. In Euro’s, I had to pay 2295 in April, now I can get one for 1750 already, a drop of over over 300 Pounds in just two months time, there is something more “heavier” (in pixels) expected in early September, and for sure the 10D will be offered for even less. It is worth the waiting if you aren’t in a hurry. However, if you get yourself a dslr, a whole new “photoworld” comes towards you. Photography in musea, with their terrible mix of Tungsten light is becoming “peanuts”, you can shoot what you want at airshows, trow the bad ones away at home, and you end up with a bunch of only perfect pics. In my slide days I was happy to get 5 good ones out of a roll of 36. For me the biggest advantage, although most “normal” dslr users hate this, is the 1.66 enlarging factor the dslr (still) offers. My 300 mm becomes a 500 mm, and my 100-400 becomes an almost 170-700 mm. I can get shots now that never were possible. With a D10, and its 6+ megapixels are more than enough for most, you can photograph for years, which in the end makes it a cheap camera. It is only that a dslr is expensive the moment you buy it, after that, you hardly have to pay for your shots, while an analog is cheaper, but you must buy films for it as long as you use it, and must trow away the “not so good slides or photo’s”. If you shoot digital, and only print the realy good ones (and don’t do this on your home printer as this is terrible expensive) at a photolab, you get cheap, high quality prints. Untill january 1 was a very big “digital scepptic” and I invested last year in both an Eos-3 and Eos -1V , then I bought an outdated (in the digital world) second hand digital KDC-520 (digi Eos-1N) , and I haven’t touched my 3 and 1v anymore ( my Eos 3 and motordrive is now for sale) . Digital is so muchmore joy to work with. Only thing I hate is dust on the sensor, as I have a spot on it I can’t remove. BW Roger

See it from another point. Taking myself, I shot around 200 slide films a year, since I went digital in Januari, I have shot 12 rolls. Digital camera’s, at least the dslr’s are more expensive, but you get rid of the film costs, so today, given a camera life of some years, they are cheaper, and they give you much more control over the image than an analog camera. I wouldn’t invest in an analog camera anymore. Bw Roger

Thanks for the info mate, I have been looking at upgrading to Digi-SLR but every time I look at the price tags I get an enormous pain in the wallet!, maybe in a couple of years when the prices (hopefully) come down a bit I’ll take the plunge.

Regards, Dazza.:)

Advantages:

Only goes through one stage – the slides are the film. Prints are made from negatives, and is where the whole thing often falls down. Colours are brighter, crisper. I use Velvia, but its slow – too slow really for aviation – ut there are many good ones out there. I reccomend Fuji (Provia F especially as an all-rounder). Easier storage, projection is cool.

Disadvantages. No latitude. Under and overexposure = Bin. Quick processing turnaround is only available in big towns.

Plenty of advantages and disadvantages. Mix both instead of being one or the other.

Or if you have the cash, get a Canon EOS 10D (he says, waving red rags)