Our family has a reunion here on Oak Island every year. Just termed "beach week" by the folks, we had four houses rented this year - quite a crowd! Being a good columnist I am always on the lookout for a story, and one of the trends I have noticed over the years is the evolution of photography from film to digital, represented by what new cameras the group brings each year.
Back seven or so years ago when we started, everybody (including me) was using film. I was one of the first to go digital with my Kodak DC-265 camera. It took some good photos and was certainly not equivalent to digital cameras today, but was a curiosity in those days. I then moved to a SLR-like (more on that later) Olympus E-10 and then eventually to a Nikon D70. In the mean time, the family switched to digital as most people have. The cameras were all of the point-and-shoot variety as was common in digital photography up until recently.
But what struck me this year was that there was a definite trend in the family toward DSLR cameras (Digital Single Lens Reflex). All but one of the "serious" photographers in the family was DSLR equipped. DSLRs are generally bigger, more expensive, and somewhat harder to use. Why is this trend happening? The answer: picture quality.
Popular film camera generally came in two formats: point-and-shoot cameras, also called "rangefinder" cameras, and SLRs. Not to get too heavily off into definitions here, basically a point-and-shoot camera has a single zoom lens, usually of mediocre quality. SLR cameras had larger bodies and the lens was separate. The lenses were much better in quality (some could be VERY expensive), and the camera bodies had much better shutters and electronics. This resulted in a clear advantage in photo quality. The downside was cost, weight, and size.
Early digital cameras followed the point-and-shoot model, although in some cases the lenses and camera electronics were quite good. This developed into the "prosumer" type of digital camera that offered a higher level of quality but was still using a fixed lens.
But if you want something more, the next step was a digital SLR, and now these are becoming available at better prices. As mentioned above, the Nikon D70 has been an enormously popular model with the somewhat lesser expensive D50 now added. Canon countered with the Digital Rebel, and now the Rebel XT. All of these models are true, detachable lens DSLR cameras and take photos a cut above the point-and-shoot variety. The camera bodies are still expensive at less than $1,000, but the lenses start at around $200 and go up steeply. But if you want some really wide angle portraits, or if you want an extreme telephoto shot of a bird or a sports shot, you need these better lenses.
I have two lenses right now. They are both Nikon lenses, although other manufacturers make aftermarket add-on lenses that are quite good. One is a wide-angle lens that will give about a 27mm (in film camera equivalent) photo and zooms to 105mm, and there other lens is a zoom telephoto that goes from 105mm to 450mm. You can't hand-hold the camera with a 450mm lens - a tripod is mandatory - but you can really get some close shots when needed.
The downside of DSLRs is size, weight, and cost - you will probably end up with your "kit" costing $2,000 or more by the time you are through. But there is another, more sinister problem. Digital photo sensors are smaller than the equivalent film size, and thus are more sensitive to dust. When you change lenses in a DSLR you need to do it in a manner that introduces a minimum of dust into the camera body. Cleaning the sensor can be a daunting task when necessary, and it will become necessary at some point in time. But it's all part of the hobby!
(Bob Seidel is a local computer consultant in the Southport - Oak Island area. You can visit his Website at www.bobseidel.com or e-mail questions or column ideas to him at bsc@bobseidel.com. For specific inquiries, please call Bob Seidel Consulting, LLC at 278-1007.)