I used you to say this when I really didn't know for sure becuase I would compare my Film SLR to my digital compact, I had just herd on the grapevine that Film compact could kick a Digital compacts but in image quality. But I went out and bought an Olympus XA2, and shot a roll and WOW its amazing, almost as sharp as a pic taken on my SLR wideangle prime, Its a shame digital compacts are killing film compacts and companies have all but given up pushing film cameras, when film compacts are so good, and they don't seem to have much good to say about film cameras, and they ******** customers with claims that having Xmegapixels affects the quality of the image, when it doesn't the lens counts more.

I know My Fuji F610 isn't brand new but its no dinosaur and things maybe slightly better, but what is limiting Digital compacts is sensor size and a 7x5" is an extreme enlargement. (infarct I the size difference between a 35mm full frame and that on my compact is TWICE the difference between 35mm and 4x5 Large format! ) And I don't think things are going to get better until the sensor sizes get bigger Much Bigger.

I'm not saying that Digital compacts dont have a use they do, Like uninportant pictures and stuff you wana put on the net and the picture is taken for that purpose.
I really Don't want to go into the useuall Film Vs Digital debate (IE Comparing Film SLRs to Digital SLRs) Because I would rather not go there, But that is what I think of compacts.

As much as I'd like to say something in disagreement with your post (because if feels like I should be definsive), I don't actually think you're too far off from the truth in most cases.

Most point and shoot film cameras take awesome photos. Actually, I never really saw any that were horribly crappy. My Canon SD200 on the other hand really sucks in a few common situations (like strong backlight) and the prints show it.

You and I are probably going to get beat up now. Hang on friend :)

I've seen some incredible work from an Olympus XA and maybe this is a new version of it. The XA had a really sharp fixed (non-zoom) 35 f2.8 which makes it handy for street shooters, and f2.8 is pretty fast - especially for a camera like this. Even with P&S cameras, the skill of the photographer is very important. Auto everything won't change how you and I get the results but knowing how to see the light and how to get it on film is what's important.

OTOH, a Magnum photographer has been working with Olympus digital compacts lately and leaving the Leica M's at home... I'm pretty happy with prints from my Coolpix 5000 which is along these lines too. Different tools for different jobs. I'd forgotten about the XA - being on kind of a B&W kick lately I'll have to look at them again. And the cool thing is nobody pays any attention to a camera like that.

PS - Interesting post, and I can't wait to see where this goes - but we try to keep it a little more "PG" around here... Thanks.

I totally agree with you on the marketing aspect of point and shoot cameras. There are some manufacturers that really push the megapixel aspect of digital p&s, because that is what consumers look for.

For my p&s, I use my Yashica T4 Super that is a fixed 35mm film camera. This camera rocks, and is super light and the battery life is extraordinary.

The only p&s digital camera that I have liked is the Sony W-7, that offered very nice results.

I cannot wait until the sensor size of the digital p&s start to increase instead of the pixel count.

Loren

Yeah Megapixel wise they are coming close to exhausting it I think they went beyond what you can get in terms of LPM A while a go now they are close to making the image quaility worse due to inherant noise from stupid numbers of pixels.

(NOT A RANT) I, a digital lover, cannot argue with your comparisons. It is true that the current level of technology does not allow for "film quality" at an affordable price, That includes cameras and print media. However, digital is rapidly catching up. And I wish I could afford to do both. But if it weren't for digital, I wouldn't be a photographer because due to my present circumstances, I cannot afford to purchase the amount of film, much less have it developed, as I have taken over the last 3 years, with my p/s digital. And the quality, for my non discerning eye, is more than satisfactory, and the many that I have printed out are diffucult for the majority of us to tell the difference between, even though they hang next to each other on my wall. Film is great. I remember taking many wonderful pictures with inexpensive 35mm's. Sad thing is...I can can't too many rolls that still sit in the bottom of my junk drawer, because I couldn't afford to get them processed. It always seemed like milk, electricity, roof over the head, et al, always came first. Oh well...don't get me wrong...I had a good life...but there were times...hehe...
IMHO, film will always be great...but give digital it's due!!!!
Ken

I always love these type of posts. All I am going to say is that my digi p/s makes me money, and gives me some excellent 11X14's. Then again, I don't look at my 11x14 prints much, but my clients do!

By the way, I own a compact film, and a film SLR too.

I used you to say this when I really didn't know for sure becuase I would compare my Film SLR to my digital compact, I had just herd on the grapevine that Film compact could kick a Digital compacts but in image quality. But I went out and bought an Olympus XA2, and shot a roll and WOW its amazing, almost as sharp as a pic taken on my SLR wideangle prime, Its a shame digital compacts are killing film compacts and companies have all but given up pushing film cameras, when film compacts are so good, and they don't seem to have much good to say about film cameras, and they ******** customers with claims that having Xmegapixels affects the quality of the image, when it doesn't the lens counts more.

I know My Fuji F610 isn't brand new but its no dinosaur and things maybe slightly better, but what is limiting Digital compacts is sensor size and a 7x5" is an extreme enlargement. (infarct I the size difference between a 35mm full frame and that on my compact is TWICE the difference between 35mm and 4x5 Large format! ) And I don't think things are going to get better until the sensor sizes get bigger Much Bigger.

I'm not saying that Digital compacts dont have a use they do, Like uninportant pictures and stuff you wana put on the net and the picture is taken for that purpose.
I really Don't want to go into the useuall Film Vs Digital debate (IE Comparing Film SLRs to Digital SLRs) Because I would rather not go there, But that is what I think of compacts.

OK, time to inject a dose of reality!

I was around when the Olympus XA first came out. It was basically the first serious pocket camera. I owned a few (kept losing them) and they did an excellent job. I loved them and even have one in storage I didn't have the heart to give away.

However, these cameras did have problems. The biggest one was that the lens itself was not the greatest. Have you noticed the large distortion forced by the physical size limitation? At the time it was pretty good, by today's standards it is mediocre at best, film or digital. At the time, it wasn't the fact that the dog had bad grammer but rather that it talked at all! Enlargements were OK up to about 8x10 but fell apart after that. I tried several 11x14 from the XA using Cibas and was terribly disappointed with the results. XA quality fell apart quickly.

My pocket camera these days is a digital Canon S400. There is no way that the Olympus XA matches the quality from the S400. For example, if you are used to using print film, a lot of the problems with exposure are hidden. I always used slides which required much more demanding exposure. The S400, more lenient than slide film, works extremely well with the "slide point of view." The S400 leaves film in the dust. Regardless of the camera used, film is still film. The size of the camera is irrelevent.

There is still a lot of nostalgia for the old days. This always happens when technology makes a big leap forward. How many people still insist that vinyl records are better quality than CDs? It can be great fun to play with film and old cameras. But don't let your mind start thinking that an XA with film kicks any ass at all!

OMG When I read your post I assumed that you were talking about a Prosumer type "ZLR" camera with there lager lenses and larger sensors, but it’s a compact just like mine LMAO, of a similar age and type with the same size sensor, also it has a Zoom lens and not a prime, I really doubt our cameras are much different.

I have never herd before that the XA has a bad lens infarct it has a kind of cult (http://www.diaxa.com/xa/xastart.htm) surrounding it because it supposedly has a good lens thats why I bought it. I have herd people say they use it as a 'no compromise compact replacement for an SLR' and the original XA goes for silly amounts on eBay, Now I have a camera I can take everywhere including work witch I cycle to, it’s a kind of a never miss a moment type of thing, I doubt I will use it much.

! Know shooting film is expensive but I find most of those saving only come if you don’t print very much at the lab, and I didn’t from my digital P&S not much point!

I would be too easy to assume what you said to be BS, but Ill just say believe it when I see it.


Did I mention DOF?

I have never herd before that the XA has a bad lens infarct it has a kind of cult (http://www.diaxa.com/xa/xastart.htm) surrounding it because it supposedly has a good lens thats why I bought it.

Cults tend to do that! The XA was released in 1978. Lens design and manufacture was not even close to what it is today. For the XA, in such a small package, the lens technology at the time was pushed to its very limits. Any P&S today, film or digital, is almost assured of having a much better quality lens.

I have herd people say they use it as a 'no compromise compact replacement for an SLR' and the original XA goes for silly amounts on eBay, Now I have a camera I can take everywhere including work witch I cycle to, it’s a kind of a never miss a moment type of thing, I doubt I will use it much.

I can do the same thing with the tiny S400. In fact, I always do! The zoom is an advantage and of better quality than the almost 27 year old XA prime.

Know shooting film is expensive but I find most of those saving only come if you don’t print very much at the lab, and I didn’t from my digital P&S not much point!

The XA is quite capable of producing nice slides. I can't recall every running print film through it. Cibas, at the time, were the (expensive) way to go for printing slides. But as I said before, 8x10 was about the upper limit for prints.

I would be too easy to assume what you said to be BS, but Ill just say believe it when I see it.

Bad assumption, but I'm sure you know that already.

You will see whatever you so want to believe. The XA is a wonderful small camera with a long history of great design for its time. It's an excellent piece of nostalgia and, if you are willing to pay the high costs of film, processing, and scanning, a lot of fun. I'll say it again, however: the XA doesn't kick anyone's modern ass!

Did I mention DOF?

LOL! Hate to break it to you, but the 7mm - 8mm focal length of P&S digital has more DOF than any compact film camera I've ever seen. For me, that can be a bad thing at times, not a good thing.

I bought an Olympus XA years ago. It lasted for a month or so in my pocket then broke. Perhaps I was unlucky.

Recently I had the XA's descendant - the Stylus Epic. This gives results that I can't really distinguish from my film SLR's. However you have no control over what it's doing so exposure is sometimes a little off, you can't autofocus through a window, it takes too long to focus and shoot..

Now I have the Fuji F10 6Mpix digital point-and-shoot. The results are at least as good as my D70, I can go automatically from 80ISO to 1600ISO, it fires immediately, exposes amazing well, shoots high-quality video, goes for weeks without a charge...

The F10 is much better than either of the film point-and-shoots. No competition.

Charles

I know a Digital P&S more DOF that was the point I was making.

I don't know how you can see that in LPM terms the D70 should kick the Digital compacts ass because its a Decent camera with a large sensor, Maybe I have bad eyes or possible good eyes, or maybe you arn't enlarging beyond 6x4, And I forgot to mention how bad DIgital P&S are at high ISO,
I started photography on a my Digital P&S, I bought an OM-10 because I can't afford an DSLR and I wanted to move on and I amidiately saw an obviouse image quility inprovement, and the XA isnt far off the quaility of my wide angle. Also Are you saying a modern Digital P&S will beat a modern (http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/195_mju_mju__-II.htm) film P&S or just the classic.

I think this is the first place I have come to where people have tried to tell me that Digal P&S makes cleaner sharper images than a Film P&S because at a sensor size that small you are trying to pull image data from a much smaller space. And as for a zoom producing better quailty than a Prime, why don't you go tell a lanscape photographer about that!

Not sure what is going on here but I do remember a time when I looked thought my digital prints and thought to myself, why am I bothering with film these are fine, and my heart sank, I thought why do I bother with film, then I got some of my film images out and I compared then I rememberd.


No I didn't see what I wanted to see I was skeptical as to what I would get from the XA I was supprised. I don't hate digital camera, its just its only DSLR's I like and I just hate it when I see people Ditch the Film SLRs for non equiverlent Digital Models, Like a guy I herd about who ditched a Nikon FM3 and Velvia for a Canon G3 to shoot landscapes, He also uses wide angle adapeters ETC so the images he made were auwful.

LOL! Maybe that is what he wants. I know people that degrade their images on purpose. I don't want all rainbows and butterflies myself. So, your point is, since YOU don;t like someone else's work, they MUST be using the wrong equiptment? Some people do not live in the world of make believe that you have made for yourself, where everyone can afford the biggest and best. Not everyone can afford to constantly shoot and develop film, perhaps they don;t like the wait. I can not afford a DSLR, but I make the most of what I have and enjoy it very much.

The photog you spoke about may have wanted to go digital and is making it a process, instead of jumping in. I was in constant frustration with my SLR, so I don't use it much anymore, until my skills get better. Truthfully, I will probably sell it, and upgrade my digi.

You seem to be one of those that show up to an event with tons of equiptment and smirk at guys who are just doing what they can, and trying to make a name for themselves. When you realize that a camera is a tool, and does not always make the photo, then you may get somewhere. Would you turn away a good mechanic because the guy down the road uses better tools (but is not as skilled)? You probably would. To get results, you have to master your tool, not have a master tool. Get over it!

I don't know how you can see that in LPM terms the D70 should kick the Digital compacts ass because its a Decent camera with a large sensor, Maybe I have bad eyes or possible good eyes, or maybe you arn't enlarging beyond 6x4, And I forgot to mention how bad DIgital P&S are at high ISO,
I started photography on a my Digital P&S, I bought an OM-10 because I can't afford an DSLR and I wanted to move on and I amidiately saw an obviouse image quility inprovement, and the XA isnt far off the quaility of my wide angle. Also Are you saying a modern Digital P&S will beat a modern (http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/195_mju_mju__-II.htm) film P&S or just the classic.

I think this is the first place I have come to where people have tried to tell me that Digal P&S makes cleaner sharper images than a Film P&S because at a sensor size that small you are trying to pull image data from a much smaller space. And as for a zoom producing better quailty than a Prime, why don't you go tell a lanscape photographer about that!



Let me start out by saying that the Fuji F10 is not just any point-and-shoot and that I chose it specifically for its qualities.

Yes I am saying that the F10 makes better images than the current MU2 that you have pointed to. The key is the variable ISO on the F10. I carry these pocket cameras around with me at work and in order to get maximum versatility with the MU2 I used a 400ISO colour negative film - a compromise in order to do on the same film a landscape, a night scene, a computer suite etc. The F10 is streets ahead on versatility.

Yes I am saying that the F10 JPG is as good as the D70 JPG, despite the smaller sensor, even at 1600ISO. I've even done a test with a friend who didn't believe it and he couldn't say which were done on which camera (I gave him 12 original 6Mpix JPG's of different subjects and he spent the evening peering at them at pixel level in Photoshop).

Prime vs zoom, big sensor vs small sensor, film vs digital - this is all theory. I just tell you what I've observed in the field.

Charles

No I didn't see what I wanted to see I was skeptical as to what I would get from the XA I was supprised. I don't hate digital camera, its just its only DSLR's I like and I just hate it when I see people Ditch the Film SLRs for non equiverlent Digital Models, Like a guy I herd about who ditched a Nikon FM3 and Velvia for a Canon G3 to shoot landscapes, He also uses wide angle adapeters ETC so the images he made were auwful.

These arguments miss the point for me. Content is what counts. Image quality is great. But it's easy for us to get caught up in these comparisons and forget about seeing what's in the viewfinder and pushing the button at the right time. In the case of the photographer who gave up the Nikon and Velvia, my guess is the the G3 helped the photographer consistently create more meaningful images. Image quality isn't the most important element of a good image.

I'm always looking for the perfect compact camera. I'm not interested in film anymore because I like the instant feedback of digital and I can make most digital files look as good or better than film. The quick turnaround time and instant tuneability of digital lock it up for me. Like Loren said, I wish the manufacturers would make a digital compact with a dSLR-sized sensor. I want a digital Yashica T4 Super.

By the way, I had an XA2 when they first came out. I've actually had a couple of them. I thought it was a great camera. But I think the lenses on current point-and-shoots - film and digital - are much, much better. And most point-and-shoots made now offer more control, with spot meters and exposure compensation. If you found a camera that's working for you, that's awesome. There are a bunch of toy camera photographers here that are inspired by plastic optics. I'm not comparing your camera to a toy camera. But your post had a challenge in it. It was bound to stir things up, whether you meant it to or not. Don't be surprised that people challenge your assertions.

That guy who was shooting with a G3 was shooting landscapes, so he could of easily of used the digital camera to bracket, thats what I do, Whats the point of having mass of pictures, Doesn't do it for me, its like being offerd infinate sex, acept its with a Donkey and not a women!
(BTW please remember I am talking about digital compacts not DSLRs)

No I don't have all expensive equipment I have a couple of manual SLRS and an Olympus XA witch I seem to have lost :confused: and an F610.

Do you know how many Line pairs per MM you would need to get a better picture from a F10 than a D70?

I didn't get into the High ISO argument or mention the fact that I got flamed in another forum because the XA isn't a fair comprison.

"Don't be surprised that people challenge your assertions." Prolly right.

Right thats it I'm out of this forum! before I get flamed.

I'm not flamig you, but so far I like the guy thats taking the sucky landscape photos with the G3( I dont have a clue as to what that is) because according to you , he's taking pictures! You only tell us what cameras you have and nothing about the pics you have taken, which could be cured by you posting a pic or two. As far as having sex with a donkey, Hey I've seen it, but thats on a different site!
Post and crit some photos, and hang out here.
Mark.

Right thats it I'm out of this forum! before I get flamed.

I've followed this whole thread and didn't sense any overly flamed responses. Some folks have "strong voices" but their intent isn't to upset anyone. Their intent is only to argue their points, and yours.

I hope that last comment you made was just about this thread and not the whole site. From the points and arguments you've made in your posts, I'd say many folks would be happy to have you and your opinions here. I surely wouldn't want you to go.

Hope to see you around some more.

Edit: I reread some posts on this thread and I do actually see at least one inflammatory remark directed towards you. I stand corrected.

I'm not flamig you, but so far I like the guy thats taking the sucky landscape photos with the G3( I dont have a clue as to what that is) because according to you , he's taking pictures! You only tell us what cameras you have and nothing about the pics you have taken, which could be cured by you posting a pic or two.
Mark.

That's a good point. For some people though, including myself, much of the fun with photography comes in playing with new equipment and technology. Heck, I know a few people where the technology represents 100% of the reason they play with photography.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. Do you?

That guy who was shooting with a G3 was shooting landscapes, so he could of easily of used the digital camera to bracket, thats what I do, Whats the point of having mass of pictures, Doesn't do it for me, its like being offerd infinate sex, acept its with a Donkey and not a women!
I guess most of us will just have to defer to an expert in this case. :D

Am I the only one having trouble following this post?

You are not alone Adina. It seems to have started with something basic, and then alot of stuff got added, and changed. I am confused too. The only thing I do know for sure, is that a camera is a tool, just as a paintbrush is a tool, and the result depends on the artist effectively using the tool.

Do you know how many Line pairs per MM you would need to get a better picture from a F10 than a D70?

I don't care about line pairs in this case. Image quality is nice, but it's not the ultimate measureof a good photo. My point is that it's the image that counts, not the image quality. Image quality only enhances what the photographer captured. Line pairs don't make a good photo - the photographer does. And if a G3 helps someone get better content, then it's a better camera for that photographer. The XA2 might be the best camera ever for you. And that's great. But trying to tell us that it "kicks digital compacts ass" is an oversimplification of the facts, and not even really accurate.

I agree with Trevor, though. Happy to have you. If you've been flamed elsewhere and you feel attacked here, you might consider your approach to the subject. It's an excellent subject, but you jumped in with a little attitude.

Maybe when I was posting this orionaly I should not have choosen the title I did I only said it because I just got my prints back.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ajuk/bird.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ajuk/Busman.jpg

Do you know how many Line pairs per MM you would need to get a better picture from a F10 than a D70?



Lets not forget that the D70 and the F10 have different sensor sizes which are again different from the 24x36 film format that's usually used when talking about resolution in terms of lines/mm.

However if you convert the D70 format to an equivalent of 24x36 then Le Photographe magazine says the resolution is 39 lines/mm (with the 18-70). Usually a film camera+lens will do 50 lines/mm and a top lens will do 63 lines/mm. But then there's the effect of the grain and the fact that in real shooting you never reach the optimum figures with a tripod and special film..

Charles

[QUOTE=ajuk]Maybe when I was posting this orionaly I should not have choosen the title I did I only said it because I just got my prints back.

;) The first pic is just awesome! The second is excellent! I think anyone would assume that, especialy the second pic, was shot with an slr. This camera does work well for you.
I hope that you will post these in the photo critique forum. I would like to see what others think of them.
Keep shooting and posting,
Mark.

Yeah, very cool shots - especially the first. Like John says, it's content that does it for me. I've seen really big prints that were technically excellent but not very exciting. I'd rather have an 8x10 that blows me away or even a 16x20 that's got some flaws of an image that really grabs me. Sometimes the things we think of as flaws might add to an image, too...

Both of those photos are wonderful. The first one is absolutely incredible. For me, it's ART - and that's as big a compliment as I can offer. Not only is it aesthetically nice, but it's also suggestive and speaks to the heart and soul. Please, please stick around and share more photos like these!

Maybe our "photographic sensitivities" are different http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=14192