8 to 10 mp for $1,000.
Briefly describe the top three features that an affordable digital SLR would have to have in order for you to consider it as the camera for you.
- Log in or register to post comments
I am actually using a CANON EOS-10D. I recently considered replacing it with an EOS-20D, but am holding off for the following features: 1) Wider dynamic range (At Least that of color print film) 2) "Film-equivalent personality settings" (meaning, I can get vivid colors like Velvia, or tonal values like Tri-X, or skin tones like Astia). 3) Even better battery life than the 20-D.
How can a person justify spending nearly a thousand dollars or more on a digital slr when an equivalent film camera costs around 200 dollars? And why would you spend 200 or 300 dollars on a point and shoot digital when you could spend that money on a solid film slr? Why is digital so much more expensive...does it cost that much more to make it?
1. When the image quality really reaches film levels, NOT just a very selective group of transparancy films. 2. When manufacturers view the real needs of endusers and not just their own ideas. Some of the "features" are really not. Eliminate some of the FAT and give us a digital Nikon F-type DSLR. 3. I currently prefer to use 35mm film and SCAN frames into my computer for adjustment in Photoshop. I use a dedicated film scanner for highest quality without the compromises inherent to "do-it-all" scanners.