Are DIGITAL Cameras Overhyped? A POSITIVE solution from Olympus
Written: Feb 28 '01 (Updated Feb 28 '01)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
 |
|
| Battery Life: |
|
|
| Photo Quality: |
|
|
|
Pros: Tough, capable performer from a long family line of excellent cameras.
Cons: Image quality not quite as museum-quality-good as the more expensive units.
The Bottom Line: A camera to live with until the REAL digital revolution arrives sometime around 2006 or more.
|
|
|
| Ed.Williamson's Full Review: Olympus Stylus Epic 115 QD 35mm Film Camera |
Ok, here I go again, swimming against the tide of computer-world wisdom and lore and expertise and history. Call me an iconoclast...or worse. Yes, I am definitely going against the grain of something. Maybe just the tide of marketing. Or should I say the tide of hype. Or should say the tide of b...well, let's not go there.
Whatever it is, I still think an intelligent choice for a person who wants photo images today (Spring, 2001) is to stick a good 35mm print camera instead of going to a digital camera. The Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 QD camera is a pretty good reason why.
Oh, I have a digital camera. A Mavica. It's kinda fun. Nothing against SONY (great products), but its images are kinda like that of a standard Polaroid, which is to say, ok for certain applications, like getting a record of your property for insurance purposes. And I have friends that have digital cameras. But, all things considered, I still think a print film camera is a better way to go at this time and age if you want medium-to-excellent shots of your famiuly, friends, scenery, and things like that you treasure. Call me a conservative old dinosaur if you wish, but here is why I think this.
A. Camera vs. camera, the up-front money is just too high for the digital. This other kind of camera, the Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 QD, costs around $200.00. The Olympus DIGITAL cameras that will do comparable work cost about FIVE TIMES that much, or up around $1,000.00, for a 3.3 megapixel unit which some people would still say does not produce an image as good as that of a 35mm film camera.
B. Camera vs. camera, the maintenance vulnerability factor (Betcha they don't talk much about that in the digital camera ads, do they?) on the digital camera has got to be higher and the costs for maintenence on the digital unit are probably going to to be higher, too.
How do I know this astounding fact? Just an experienced guess based on a lot of years of observation of both film cameras and computers. A digital camera is a miniature computer. We all know how vulnerable even the best computers can be and how much it costs to get a computer fixed. Now think about that compared to a film camera and its potential for getting itself into trouble.
A film camera like the Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 QD can take a lot of bang-it-around punishment, but because there are far fewer parts, not to mention few if any hyper-delicate computer-type parts in it, it stands to reason that you are going to save money on maintenence with the film unit over the digital unit with all its sensitive electronic gizmos inside.
Let's look at some other comparisons. With a film camera you get a good old sharp photograph at a reasonable cost. The film largely determines the resolution and contrast. Take the film roll to a local developer and you get your images in from 2 hours to 4 days or so.
To get a print with most digital cameras, you have to have a computer, you then have to buy and to fiddle with a graphics program, buy and use a good printer, maybe buy some special photo paper for said good printer, and even then the picture quality of the prints produced will be debatable as to whether they have reached the level of resolution of a film camera's work.
The quality of the printer is a variable too, especially when it comes to color---certainly compared to that of a standard photograph.
And then you can have (the nightmare of) contrast problems coming out your ears, too, with digital. Ever try to fix a contrast problem with graphics software? You're a better man than I am, Charlie Brown, if you are good at it.
If you have a print camera and you want digital images which you can use for a website, or to email to Uncle Charlie, in most towns where you turn your film in for develiping you can pay a few bucks more and get back a pretty good CD-ROM with your images. This is like $5.00 vs. $1,000.00 ($5 bucks for the CD ROM versus $1,000 for the digital camera) so you're talking about a 200-to-one practicality ratio. Plus you get some nice original prints with the film camera you can show to Mama.
On another comparison level, say you go to the beach. You run out of film. You go into the local 7-11 and buy a roll of film. You're back in business. But what if you run out of memory in your digital camera (as if you would even expose it to the sand of a beach, right)? Ever try to find a flash memory card at your local 7-11, and one compatible with your camera's proprietary configurations, to boot? All you will probably find is a blank stare.
You want digital images from your film camera's prints? You could take your photo prints and copy them into computer memory with a scanner. You can do a lot of the same tricks with a scanner's software you can with a good graphics program, like cropping and so forth. So it's easy to turn a print into a digital image for a lot less money that the relatively complicated digital camera process.
The big bugaboo behind this whole debate, of course, is that (and I know there is a tidal wave of protest coming) even though consumer-level digital cameras have gotten very, very good with their image-making capabilities, in my (shudder, shudder) opinion we are still at least 5 years away from the technology-at-an-affordable-cost-level camera that will be able to compete head-to-head with a decent 35 mm film camera.
I know the writers in the computer magazines don't tell you that in their columns and tests and all, but hey, they have a conflict of interest because they want you to convert your whole world to the digital world; after all it is the ADS in those computer magazines from computer eqipment companies that pay the salaries of the people who put out the magazine in the first place. Simple conflict of interest. What stake do they have in being fair to film cameras?
This little film camera, the Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 QD, will serve you well. It comes from a family of film cameras which have done great service for at least the last 30 years. It is light, easy to load, film for it and developing for it are low-cost and everywhere, and most of all it takes a very sharp image, probably 95% the quality of what you would get with an SLR. Which means for grab shots of people, it is ideal. The zoom feature lets you crop-in-the-camera and you can get a good picture of Junior's graduation walk to get his diploma without getting a picture that makes him look like one ant among a hundred other ants.
I have another Olympus camera in this class, the Olympus Infinity, that I have had for over 30 years, and it's been a tireless trouper on beaches and mountaintops as well as at Christmas and birthday parties, for many happy years. It's produced several thousand photographs without a lick of trouble. The films I can buy for it allow for a wide range of light situations, unlike the narrow tolerances of most digital cameras.
So I know the Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 QD is going to be even better. Hang loose on the digital revolution; the bands may be playing, but the heroes haven't made it home for the parade yet. Enjoy a good film camera like the Olympus for a few years, before the revolution becomes real.
*****
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 200
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Ed.Williamson
|
 - Top 200 |
|
Member: Ed Williamson
Location: Way Out West, USA
Reviews written: 607
Trusted by: 315 members
About Me:
Fight 'em till Hell freezes over, then fight 'em on the ice!
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.