Digital cameras fast enough?

One of my big beefs with digital cameras is slow auto-focus time. Photographing people I found myself constantly apologizing, “hold on a second for the focus to kick in, no wait, it didn’t take, okay let me try again, just one more second.” This was my Nikon Coolpix 990 from 2000. When the baby was born, I actually went out and bought a film camera to make sure I wouldn’t miss a shot, and since then it’s been mostly analog.
This weekend some friends were shooting with a Nikon D70. What a nice camera. The autofocus time was fast, indistinguishable from my film camera, and it could shoot at least a couple of frames per second. Still a little on the pricey side, but I’m very much looking forward to being digital again.

3 thoughts on “Digital cameras fast enough?”

  1. The D70 is incredible! I have owned one of those for a while and to be frank, the camera has made ME feel inadequate, rather than the other way around (though I am not a photographer of any merit, but an amateur tinkerer in photography). In almost every case, the D70 has been fast enough to take very nice pictures, even in the case of a high speed action shot of a pair of F-15s passing each other in mid-flight.


  2. I hear you. I ordered the Canon 300D this weekend and am really looking forward to it. It will be nice to have the larger sensor size.

    Unless you have a bunch of Nikon lenses do not ignore the 300D (something you might like: it is hackable).

    If you have some extra cash the 20D just started shipping. I decided to invest in some lenses while I wait for the 30D (the exponential decrease in shutter lag should be enough to satisfy me till then — I will be upgrading from a Coolpix 995).


  3. Get the d70 it was a chunk of change but i love it. I agree with the post above its making me feel inadequate i need to take a photography class now. I only get like five good photos for every 100 I take. One thing nice is you can shoot about 500 photos on one battery.


Comments are closed.