Colcam

I use digital cameras a lot. I love the ease of instantly seeing a result, and processing costs are virtually nil if you don't count printer ink and paper.

My Canon single lens reflex, with its interchangeable lenses, has replaced my 35mm cameras, and the image quality compares well with film - up to around 10x8. Non SLR point and shoot digital cameras, with their smaller sensor plates, don't cut the mustard, no matter how many millions of pixels they are endowed with.

Most of the fotos on this site are digital from the Canon, some are 35mm.

When I need something better than even National Geographic Magazine quality, it's back to the Mamiya RB67 with it's negative some five times bigger than 35mm. A scan from one of these negatives or transparencies is around 90mb as a Tiff image. An RB67 and a roll of Fuji Velvia give results which are simply unbeatable.

But it's hard work. Lug that beast, and a heavy tripod, plus a light meter (no automation with this, and you do need a tripod) and you know what hard work is, especially going uphill. Has anybody else noticed that most photography is up a hill?

It is also extremely expensive to produce a set of pictures - around £8-00 for 10 color slides, out of which I might get 3 perfect shots, as I usually bracket the exposures.

And of course I have to WAIT to see the results.


See all recent posts.