Should I sell my F707 and get a D30/similar?

So should I change?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoomer

New Member
Feb 4, 2002
645
0
0
Singapore
reverac.com
#1
Now that I've waded into this, I find that the F707's inability to capture good images at high ISOs (max ISO400, unusable due to a lot of noise) limiting. I can go to at most ISO200 before the noise really overwhelms the image. I can take night shots but must lug a tripod around. (ISO100, sucks) :( Thats for scenery, people shots at night must use flash.

I think I'm going the way of Wai. :( :) ???

P.S. I'm a student, and don't have a deep pocket. Should I?? :)
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#2
Originally posted by Zoomer
Now that I've waded into this, I find that the F707's inability to capture good images at high ISOs (max ISO400, unusable due to a lot of noise) limiting. I can go to at most ISO200 before the noise really overwhelms the image. I can take night shots but must lug a tripod around. (ISO100, sucks) :( Thats for scenery, people shots at night must use flash.

I think I'm going the way of Wai. :( :) ???

P.S. I'm a student, and don't have a deep pocket. Should I?? :)

wahh D30 can take night shots without tripod. Buy Buy Buy!
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#4
You don't seemed to know what you're talking about. Tripods are mandatory for night shots, 707 or D30 doesn't matter. They all need tripod for night shots.
 

siron

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2002
2,115
0
0
38
somewhere near...
www.geocities.com
#5
Originally posted by Zoomer
Now that I've waded into this, I find that the F707's inability to capture good images at high ISOs (max ISO400, unusable due to a lot of noise) limiting. I can go to at most ISO200 before the noise really overwhelms the image. I can take night shots but must lug a tripod around. (ISO100, sucks) :( Thats for scenery, people shots at night must use flash.

I think I'm going the way of Wai. :( :) ???

P.S. I'm a student, and don't have a deep pocket. Should I?? :)

As long as the shutter is long....You will need tripod, it's almost or rather no way our hands can take long shutter without any shaking to the camera.
So the same...but if you have money....BUY BUY BUY.. why not? hah
 

Zoomer

New Member
Feb 4, 2002
645
0
0
Singapore
reverac.com
#6
No, I don't mean night shots as night scenery shot... :rolleyes: I mean pictures of moving objects, etc.

Eg. At night, with dim lighting, the ability to capture without the use of flash.
 

L

Loke

Guest
#7
Originally posted by Zoomer
No, I don't mean night shots as night scenery shot... :rolleyes: I mean pictures of moving objects, etc.

Eg. At night, with dim lighting, the ability to capture without the use of flash.
I think you mean using high iso to shoot pictures. You are right in this aspect. The D30 outperforms the F707 at high ISOs.
 

mylau

New Member
Jan 19, 2002
1,019
0
0
33
#9
If you have the money, by all means go ahead and get the D30. The image is definitely better than the F707 at low light situations.

If you don't have the money, then that's another story.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#10
Originally posted by Zoomer

I think I'm going the way of Wai. :( :) ???
:embrass:

last time i have to sell away 707 in a hurry to get D30, cos i expect 707 price will start to drop very soon, i also feel that 2nd hand D30 price is stable already and will not drop any further in a year time....therefore....rather waiting for the price of 707 to drop, i quickly upgrade to DSLR.

however, since the price of F707 already dropped, i will suggest u to sell away the 707 and get a 2nd hand SLR + some good lenes + good tripod first, then give me the rest of the $$ to safe keep for you (in case u spend the excess $$ in other stuff)

just like what Bluestrike and Docile did, they sell away their DC and go to film SLR, to get used to the weight and handling of SLR (shooting with optical viewfinder and LCD is very different, SLR is so much heavier and bulky too) and at the same time collect some good lenses, and then save up and finally got their D30

dun end up like me who got a D30 but only have a 50mm to use
 

Zoomer

New Member
Feb 4, 2002
645
0
0
Singapore
reverac.com
#11
Dunno leh.

The price of D30 dropped or stable?
What about 707?? Should be about the same, right? :)

As for your sugesstion of playing with film first, yes, I have done it. Played with school cams, don't really find them to be heavy at all. (EXCEPT the stupid 300-500 super zoom) The rest are okay.

Film slr is interesting, and comparitively cheap (Canon EOS 50, not bad cam at ~$400+ 2nd hand) but I think I will not do any shots just to try or even at all...cos of the thought of film/developing costs.

Side note: Shooting on school's film rocks. Almost the same as digital...click click click except cannot have instant preview and delete. :D
 

M

Midnight

Guest
#13
If you have the cash to spare (like someone else in these forums who said that ""budget is not a problem"), by all means do take the plunge. I would say that you do get what you pay for, in this case.

However, if you have reason to be more cautious in parting with your money, do remember that there are many other factors to consider than high ISO performance. Firstly, as already mentioned, the price of the camera body is tremendous compared to consumer/prosumer level digicams. Are the features worth that much to you? Secondly, with an SLR system, you're going to be investing even more money on fairly expensive lenses. Are you prepared to do that? Thirdly, don't forget that the physical form factor of 35mm lenses is comparatively bulky--getting the equivalent of your F707's 38-190mm 5x zoom lens is not a small matter (literally). Fourthly, digital camera technology is still very fluid at this point in time, and things are getting both better and cheaper month after month; who knows, before long the kind of performance we're seeing on DSLRs today may well be commonplace on lower-end digicams. Are you willing to accept the risk of 'obsolescence' and thus of diminishing returns from your hefty investment?

If you ask me--this is my personal opinion only--digital SLR technology has not matured to a point where it is worth it to plunge in unless you really have sufficient disposable income to spend. They definitely do not qualify as worthy long-term investments at this stage. For me, I am content to stick with a "prosumer" level digicam and wait for some proper standards and technological maturity to emerge in the DSLR market (no more of this "more and more megapixels" thing, please). For low-light action shots, I personally feel that 35mm film is still the most cost-effective solution. Once again, this is just my own S$0.02's worth. Hope this provides some food for thought.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#14
Originally posted by Zoomer

The price of D30 dropped or stable?
What about 707?? Should be about the same, right? :)
I still see pple selling D30 at $2.4k to as much as $3k

but for 707, better sell it before Sony annouce anything new lor...the price is dropping already, from $1999 list price to $1500 now??
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#15
Originally posted by Zoomer
Dunno leh.

The price of D30 dropped or stable?
What about 707?? Should be about the same, right? :)

As for your sugesstion of playing with film first, yes, I have done it. Played with school cams, don't really find them to be heavy at all. (EXCEPT the stupid 300-500 super zoom) The rest are okay.

Film slr is interesting, and comparitively cheap (Canon EOS 50, not bad cam at ~$400+ 2nd hand) but I think I will not do any shots just to try or even at all...cos of the thought of film/developing costs.

Side note: Shooting on school's film rocks. Almost the same as digital...click click click except cannot have instant preview and delete. :D
Haizzz...........this is exactly why people accuse of digital killing photography.
 

revenant

New Member
Apr 8, 2002
1,101
0
0
33
collinyeo.blogspot.com
#16
Originally posted by mylau
If you have the money, by all means go ahead and get the D30. The image is definitely better than the F707 at low light situations.

If you don't have the money, then that's another story.
He won't be asking if he don't have the money :D
 

M

Midnight

Guest
#17
Originally posted by Zoomer
Here is another flaw of the 707.
100% crop, max resolution.
I dunno what it is called, but looks...noisy??
Are you referring to the colours in the shadow areas? This is partly due to the Bayer interpolation required for all existing digital camera sensors. More megapixels will help (especially for printing), but until the Foveon X3 technology enters production, it's pretty much inescapable, I think.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,692
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#18
Btw, there is no doubt that digital cameras allow users more flexibility in experimenting but doing the click and delete thingy is counter productive if you don't really understand what's going on.

On the other hand, if you think through your shots, consider and compose your shots carefully e.g. not being trigger happy, film can be sustainable as well. Wastage will be reduced.
 

Zoomer

New Member
Feb 4, 2002
645
0
0
Singapore
reverac.com
#19
Originally posted by Kit


Haizzz...........this is exactly why people accuse of digital killing photography.
Nope, its just that I won't even try to take at all...and maybe miss a good shot cos hesistating "is this a good shot?" rolling about in my mind.

Wai: D30 is still so ex??? Thought D60 should push its price down??
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom