ATTN: Photographers

[PONCHO&LEFTY]

After shooting 35mm slr film then switching to digital slr I will never go to film again. Big prints are no problem. Detail is important to me and with digital (in my opinion) exceeds 35mm film. By the way the Canon 1D I think is around $3,000 and the 1DS full frame is around $8,000. Have 10D.

[Dru]

the best currently available digital cameras are about 6-8 megapixels.

 

one slide image has an effective data content of approximately 40 megapixels although it is hard for current scanners to obtain an image of this size so the scanned file is always less than this size.

 

i'm sticking with slide film for the moment. i have a digital but don't take those "keeper" shots with it. more like take it along to shoot stuff I don't know if I want a slide of or not.

[iain]

Analog still far outshines digital technology in cameras. Slides are effectively "perfect" since they are not sampled at all.

[Dru]

ya but you can only blow em up so far before they get grainy.

 

the biggest advantage of the digital is its ability to adjust to different light conditions. no need to pop out a roll of 100 ISO and put in 800 ISO when you wanna take a picture in a cave!

[cj001f]

Analog still far outshines digital technology in cameras. Slides are effectively "perfect" since they are not sampled at all.

 

Depends. Some of the digital cameras allow you to output in uncompressed (Nikon Coolpix?). Digital cameras are approaching 35mm film in resolution - but medium & large format cameras far outshine in resolution (these are what you need if you want poster size prints)

[iain]

do you need to attach a hard drive or something? Resolutions that compete with slides must be enormous, much bigger than any memory card.

[willstrickland]

Compression is not the issue. RAW output is available on many mid-upper level dig cameras. While the sheer number of pixels will give you a general idea of the image quality, the specifics of the actual pixels themselves will also affect it (pixels can be different size, etc). The dynamic range is also an issue. Analog also has essentially a "maximum number of pixels" in that there are only so many dye particles in the emulsion on each frame. This is indeed a finite number.

 

Still, a 35mm Provia 100F or Velvia slide, scanned on a high end drum scanner will have significantly higher res and quality than even the 6-8mp digis. There are digital backs for med format cameras made by Leaf and other specialty companies, that rival film. These backs alone run over $10k new.

 

I have slides shot on Velvia and duplicates of the same shots from a Nikon digital from Yos this fall. I scanned the slides on a very inferior scanner - a 2800dpi with JPEG output. I cleaned them up in photoshop, and then cleaned up the digital files, and printed them both at 4x6. No comparison whatsoever, film blew it away. Given, this wasn't a pro-end digital, but it was a 5mp Nikon that would be in the range most non-pros could afford.

[Dru]

do you need to attach a hard drive or something? Resolutions that compete with slides must be enormous, much bigger than any memory card.

 

put it on your iPod mac boy!

[PONCHO&LEFTY]

Numbers?? Find a digital slr use it. Compare to slide. Never use slide again. My opinion. Heres another-Compareslidedigital

[Dru]

bunk

[cj001f]

Compression is not the issue. RAW output is available on many mid-upper level dig cameras. While the sheer number of pixels will give you a general idea of the image quality, the specifics of the actual pixels themselves will also affect it (pixels can be different size, etc). The dynamic range is also an issue. Analog also has essentially a "maximum number of pixels" in that there are only so many dye particles in the emulsion on each frame. This is indeed a finite number.

 

Digital also has a maximum pixel resolution. It's called the Rayleigh Criterion. The lens quality usually comes into play long before this, or film resolution matters.

 

If your interested in comparing the image quality of various SLR lenses check out www.photodo.com

 

For real world shooting, compression does matter - few us want to deal with multiple 5MB images. And image compression is something that vary's substantially between digital camera brands.

[iain]

if you do switch to digital be sure you have a backup solution for the data. More than 1 person has come into service with broken hard drives containing "irreplaceable" photos. People leave pretty devastated when they realize they've lost baby pictures, graduation pictures, etc.

[cj001f]

if you do switch to digital be sure you have a backup solution for the data. More than 1 person has come into service with broken hard drives containing "irreplaceable" photos. People leave pretty devastated when they realize they've lost baby pictures, graduation pictures, etc.

Is their anyfirm that does datawarehousing of digital pics at a consumer level? i.e. fully redundant, bomb proof storage.

[willstrickland]

...It's called the Rayleigh Criterion.

 

Is that like the Jennifer Jason Leigh criteria? Like that movie Rush where the criteria was to do a bunch of smack and get freaky laid while wiggin out and digging through the carpet?

[iain]

Seems like a good idea. With everyone switching over to digital media, it seems like a pretty big market. Apple has been pushing .Mac accounts but those are hardly bombproof. People don't seem to realize how valuable that stuff is until it's gone forever.

[cj001f]

People don't seem to realize how valuable that stuff is until it's gone forever.

Even the "hard" storage options (CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, etc.) aren't that durable. The great advantage of digital(dense storage) becomes a big disadvantage here.

 

Rayleigh criteria = diffraction limited. It sets the lower boundary for pixel size.

[Alpine_Tom]

Is their anyfirm that does datawarehousing of digital pics at a consumer level? i.e. fully redundant, bomb proof storage.

It depends what you mean by "bomb proof" and "consumer."

There are any number of places where you can store data online, but if the company goes out of business, you're out of luck with no recourse. You can make archive cd-roms and store them someplace like Iron Mountain that will warehouse them in a fireproof building, but that costs. And if the cd-roms become unreadable, you'd be out of luck.

I assume a consumer wouldn't have thousands of irreplacable images, so it wouldn't be that great an inconvenience to make multiple copies of your important pics (graduation, baby, first ascent, whatever) and re-copy them from time to time. Then you can store them in multiple locations -- online someplace, in your basement, and at a friend's place back east.

[troubleski]

I have recently jumped on the digital SLR bandwagon for several reasons. A 1 gig card can be purchased for about 300 bucks. I find that without the marginal cost of film processing I can convince myself to take 100s more pictures than I normaly would. I ususally end up with 100s more sucky picutres because of this. But I have gotten some gems that in the past I would have been reluctant to burn film on.

 

Sure ... all of this can be done with a digital point and shoot as well... but speed and control offered by a digital SLR make a huge difference trying to catch your buddy flailing.

 

and you can always put the $2000 lenses on a film body if you need to make big prints.

 

As Will pointed out... the technology/price isn't quite there yet. I have a Digital Rebel that I am hoping will tide me over for a couple of years until the full frame 35mm sensor cameras (D1S) are down in my price range.

 

Happy picture taking!

[Tod]

The padded chest packs work great for SLR's. I use a SunDog SunDog Action Telezoom Camera Chest Pack with the separate harness system. The harness let's me take my pack off without having to take the chest pack off. I don't think SunDog is around anymore so the next best thing is probably the LowePro equipment.

 

For me the padded chest packs let me take photos under most any condition, except higher grade rock climbing, it get's in the way. If you have an SLR stored in your pack it's almost dead weight. To justify the weight you should be able to take pictures on the fly. If you can't have your SLR accessible a good P&S will get more use.

 

Some other things about taking your SLR on climbs:

Cameras are more durable and weather resistant than most people realize. Don't be afraid to take your camera out during a storm, that's where some of your best shots may come from. Most any good camera and lens have great seals and can handle a lot of moisture. If the camera is plastered in snow, brush it off and keep shooting. As far as durability, if you've got your camera in a padded case, it'll take a beating. When in it's padded case my Canon A2e surprises me a lot. I've fallen on it, I've drug it up behind me on a haul line, I've exposed it to driving rain and snowstorms, I've abused it more than I care to admit but it still looks and operates great.

 

Digital:

Right now I'm still using Fuji Provia 100F or Velvia because in the end it still takes a better picture. Quality slide film can still create a higher resolution photo than digital cameras. However, in order to get that higher quality photo into a digital medium you need to get a high quality scan (drum scan) otherwise all you have is a high quality photo turned into a low quality digital image.

 

If your using print film, low quality slide film or a low quality scanner then you're better off with digital. Because of these reasons it doesn't surprise me that most people get better images on their computer with a digital camera.

 

The great thing about digital is that for the average photographer, they can now take better and more pictures than they ever have been able to do before. For photographer who is still looking for the top edge in photos that they can make large prints of, high end digital cameras still don't have the resolution capability. That looks like it's going to change real quick. Canon is on the cutting edge of resolution (11.1 megapixel) and could soon surpass the resolution capabilities of pro slide film. The digital cameras keep getting better and cheaper. I'll probably be getting one as my standard camera soon....

 

Tod

[Kevin_Ristau]

I carry my SLR in a LowePro Topload Zoom case, slung over the shoulder and underneath the packs waist strap if i am wearing a pack, or clip it to my harness to keep it in place. I made up an extra long camera strap out of climbing webbing that allows a lot of freedom while still remaining around my neck or clipped in.

[EWolfe]

These are the shiznit for hands free pictures:

 

The wired version can plug directly into our Micro VCR to be used as a body worn system for covert operations. Great new technology. The wireless system uses one of our transmitters about 18" away from the camera so it can be placed in a pocket or worn on a belt.

 

 

 

Includes:

•All 2.4 GHz transmitters come with a 2.4 GHz receiver.

•All necessary power supplies and battery packs are included.

 

Black & White

•ST-137G Wireless Camera with 2.4 GHz Transmitter

•ST-137W Wired Camera with Plug & Play

 

 

Color

•ST-137GC Wireless Camera with 2.4 GHz Transmitter

•ST-137WC Wired Camera with Plug & Play

 

Specs

Image Sensor=1/3" CMOS (B/W) 1/4" CMOS (Color)

Resolution=400 Lines(B/W) 380 Lines(Color)

Min. Illumination=.05 Lux(B/W) 1 Lux(Color)

Lens=3.7mm Wide Angle

Pixels=270,000

Sync. Type=Internal

Shutter Speed (NTSC)=1/60 ~ 1/100,000sec

S to N Ratio=45dB

Rev. Polarity Protection=Yes

Power Required=9 Volts

Current Consumption=150mA Max.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Get a camera strap deal. If it is around the shoulder then something to make it close to the waist the better. Using something warm for the camera or storing it inside a jacket will help for digitals as I have found 2 problems with mine - Cold weather makes it freeze to a point where I cannot shoot. Water and snow get it wet.

 

I prefer to take my digi over anything else these days but have a large camera as well... Carrying my digi camera inside my jacket seems to do the trick most of the time in colder times but sucks if you are sweating a lot and will fog the lense perhaps.

 

David Parker has a very nice olymus digital camera that is weather resistant and worth looking at for climbers.

 

One thing I noticed about your post is that you are mostly snowshoeing hiking etc. If you are on moderate terrain then carrying a camera in bluebird or nearly that sort of weather would be ok in your pack according to me. But actually technically climbing maybe not so much. IN that case I carry mine in a ziploc back or another camera in a kayakers waterproof back. Ziploc more user friendly. I got one of those plastic carabiners at a climbing shop to attach my camera leash to the camera case in case I drop it.

[Ursa_Eagle]

I just burned all my digital photos from this past year onto CD's, and I'm leaving them at my parents house in MA. It's not bombproof, but it's redundency. I figure that I'll replace them in about 5-10 years once a new storage medium is available.

[bchaps]

Get yourself a neoprene case for SLRs and attach a biner to each side. This clips nicely on the back of your harness. Works great for technical routes, with some possible problems in chimneys.

[Braumeister]

Here's another vote for chest packs--I bought a Sun Dog Action Harness for about $10 from Sierra Trading Post and it holds my smaller-sized SLR in a compromise between out-of-the-way yet still accessible for quick shots.

 

On the digital vs. film debate:

I will be making the move to a 6 mpx digital SLR this winter. True, film still has the edge, but I've found in my experience, you can only get those super-high-quality film shots by utilizing the following good photographic habits:

1. Use really slow film (e.g., ISO 50 Fuji Velvia).

2. Shoot from a tripod

3. Take your time

 

Since I don't find any of these techniques practical while climbing, skiing, or backpacking, a quality poster-sized image isn't likely to be created anyway. Consequently, a move to digital isn't going to create a problem for me but it will increase convenience and reduce film processing expense and hassle.

 

Yes, my digitized images are stored on my computer's hard drive, but I periodically back them up to DVD (along with my personal and legal documents) and replace the existing backup copy in my safe deposit box at the bank. Another DVD sits next to my computer in case a minor "oh shit" incident occurs. Back up, back up, back up!

 

I should also point out that there are some very talented photographers on this site as evidenced in the photo gallery. Whatever you're doing, please keep up the good work and continue sharing it with those of us who aren't fortunate enough to live near the mountains that inspire us!