Why not just use both media? It's not like they must be mutually exclusive. So you think KFC is better or Macdonald is better?
Cannot eat both is it?
Why not just use both media? It's not like they must be mutually exclusive. So you think KFC is better or Macdonald is better?
Cannot eat both is it?
For some(or most), resources could permit them to just go for 1 systemOriginally Posted by Minoxman
wah seh, all of u have such gd lobangs for film sia. $12-15 for roll of slide film + process + mounting. $8 for roll of film + process + scanning. eh recommend where to go leh.
anyway hor, depreciation got 2 reasons. one is wear and tear, the other is obsolesance. my calculation is comparing the 2 la. whether hamtam or shoot nice nice oso considered wear and tear. got shoot consider liao. the figures may not representive of what actually happen. just for fun nia.
i oso dun care so much abt which is better, got money then i go digital lor, now use my cheapo cam. i think by the end of the year, if we do another poll, the results will be closer to 1:2 instead of the 1:3 now.
When the Internet boom, many tot that newspaper is doom with all the online edition. News can be brought to the Internet within seconds. That was something when Radio was first invented, they thought newspaper is doom. After that we have television where people thought newspaper is doom.
While newspaper business is definately getting a pie cut. Most commuters still prefer to have a newspaper on thier hand. Sometime after hearing radio news or internet news, people may rush to get a copies of their favourite newspaper.
There goes the like-to-like stories of film. They will stay.
Let's call for more digital user to click more to the poll and see whether percentage change much or not
CrazeOriginally Posted by swimcraze
Borrow one DSLR, use your favourite len. Shoot something with same len on Dcam then one on film SLR with your favourite film. Process the film, have it scan on best equipment u can find. Compare the both. Then have the digital prosess into print and film into print. Compare them, give one format that u like.
That we are taking abt result.
Other than that obviously the work flow is different.
Pick what suit u. See the real thing and what suitable for u being digital or film.
Many here are spec. photographer, nothing much.
It's like comparing a Midi HiFi rated 1000Watts PMPO comparing with a Class-A Audiophine AMP rated 75Watts RMS. Commonly consumer forgot abt its the ear the hears the music not the spec. Tunning the volume to hear their "1000Watt" amp distorted. For photography, forget abt brand, model. It's the eyes that see. Then make sure u see them.
Here, I'm not comparing D vs F.
I'm compaing workflow and result.
If the result on Digital is better pick digital if film is better pick film since we are interested in result then workflow is not important.
If u want workflow, then why bother abt its result esp. u are a reporter and u need the picture to be send to the press like NOW.
Last edited by whoelse; 11th March 2004 at 04:46 PM.
the money factor really plays a big role whether choosing films or digital..
youngster and newbie like me (going to be 17 this year) just do not have the money to go digital.. even though the long run cost of digital is lower than film, but the starting up cost is realli expensive.. unless you have the money and is sure that you have a certain skill, i dun think i will invest that much money into digital..
for films, the SLR body are cheaper.. you can juz send to any lab to develop for you.. so there is less worries when you use films..
however if you have the money and are willing, i am sure that it is solely up to you to choose whether you wan to go for film or digital or both..
i will wan go for both oneday where i can do my own colour adjustment etc in digital and still know how to develop photos and films in the traditional darkroom..
thats my opinion..
or if just wanna enjoy photography...juz use film or digital....dun make much of a diff to me ahha
I think will stay on for film for quite some time although wanted to switch to digital totally, unless someone convince me.
Reason being i used my friend DSLR 6MP (abt S$2.5K model) to shoot some event, but I was disappointed by the performance althought i've not seen the picture yet. The shutter lag was bad, when I saw a man pass by with a banner and wanted to quickly take it, I was supprised to see the pre-view that the banner was already half way put down. It never happen to me when I use a SLR. This did'nt happen once but many times.
Another feature i don't like is the power save mode which take 2 sec to wake up, this feature really let me missed alot of shots. Although my friend told me this can be turn off but then it will trade off by using more power.
Can any DSLR user enlighten me, Thanks.
Let me guess, u were using an older model DSLR ... and u were working under low light conditions? If so, I suppose the older models do not feature as fast AF under low light as your film SLR as the technology was not as advanced so as to do an almost "instantaneous" capture... many other factors as well... lens, flash, photog, lighting conditions, settings, etc..... (u were using a different camera anyway, need time to adapt).Originally Posted by JeffreyLD
Sure or not... what camera were you using?!?Originally Posted by JeffreyLD
Even my now obselete D1H has next to no shutter lag and with the "power safe" options activated, it still wakes on command - ready to shoot almost immediately the moment I depress the shutter.
HiOriginally Posted by SzennyBoy
I did not want to mention the brand but seems like I have to review it, its 10D with EF24-80mm USM, I used EOS5 and EF28-105mm USM before. I think the high end model like 1D or D1H may wake up immediately but this one really wake up abt 2 sec. When I found something interesting and wanted to take a snap, I hold the Cam up press the button twice still sleeping, the third time then can focus, by then bye bye already.
Thanks for your reply, the Cam is 10D and is not too old, I'm good in handling Canon camara, I use EOS5 before and I also though I did'nt focus properly but the Cam failed me not once but a few times. You may be right, it was under low light in a room, maybe thats the reason, but I was using flash and my EOS5 can do the job. Do you know the shutter lag of this cam ?Originally Posted by TME
i'll switch from film to digital in the near future, cos digital allows me to know the quality of the shots faster/easier/cheaper and i can make adjustments prior to print.
The quoted shutter lag for the Canon 10D is 190ms and the viewfinder blackout is 140ms. This is quoted as a vast improvement over the D60 with shutter lag at 240ms and viewfinder blackout at 300ms. (Source: dpreview)Originally Posted by JeffreyLD
Powderful EnglandWhen the Internet boom, many tot that newspaper is doom with all the online edition. News can be brought to the Internet within seconds. That was something when Radio was first invented, they thought newspaper is doom. After that we have television where people thought newspaper is doom.
huh?It's like comparing a Midi HiFi rated 1000Watts PMPO comparing with a Class-A Audiophine AMP rated 75Watts RMS. Commonly consumer forgot abt its the ear the hears the music not the spec. Tunning the volume to hear their "1000Watt" amp distorted. For photography, forget abt brand, model. It's the eyes that see. Then make sure u see them.
Well anyways, technology is advancing and there will be many more ways to capture images in the future. However, the spirit of photography would never change. So whatever medium you choose to capture the image, there is that same spirit that links these mediums together. I use film because i love the nostalgic feeling of it, especially when using RFs and TLRs. Developing the b/w film I shoot is even better because it gives me the feeling that it was through my own efforts that i was able to create that image out of silver halide (Not been able to make my own prints yet, no moolah for a darkroom ) Well, just remember that photography is an art, your camera the paintbrush and light as your paint.
if my camera is there at the right moment, click, all I have to do is accept it.
I am! still using nps, provia n ekta quite frequently
Originally Posted by Ansel
I wholehartedly agree with Ansel on this. I'm not against Digital per se, i just don't think the specs/performance of DSLRs today justify the investment yet.
As Ansel pointed out the depreciation factor is crippling in DSLRs, and with technology improving so fast, you're top-of-the-line DSLR will be behind times in 1 to 2 years. Couple this with the cost of memory and other accessories, the cost will add up. I guess that if were to go DSLR now, i'd upgrade in maybe 2 years - besides depreciation, i think my accessories like Memory and even lens may have to be changed. Memory requirements will increase (256MB today won't give you the same mileage when cams have increase megapixel count), and formats may change - today it's CF, SD, Microdrive, tomorrow who knows? As for lenses - it won't be hard to imagine if larger CCDs are available in prosumer cams - this may mean "throwing away" your current investment "digital" lenses (like the 17-40mm etc).
My personal plan is to stick to film for now as i'm in no hurry to go digital. Unless something compelling happens (like Ilford, Kodak and Fuji stops producing film), i'd wait till the techology "stabilises" in digital before i buy. Right now we are the steep side of the tech curve where improvements by leaps and bounds. In fact, not only have i not moved to DSLRs yet, i've in the "opposite" direction by going to Medium Format. So now i have a 35mm, MF cam and plan to get a compact digital point&shoot to replace my snapshot cam.
Just to be clear my post is about DSLRs and not digital cams as a whole. I think that snapshot digicams are great due to the convenience and relatively lower cost (compared to dslrs). Besides, i'm not after super quality or manual control in these cams, so they serve the purpose i need. Due to the lower cost, i can live with the depreciation and tech advances. Afterall my needs from a P&S cam won't change too much in the next few years.
Damn this was a long post. I hope my 2 cents was worth a read, and didn't offend anyone.
Nice post glt, although I must say I disagree on quite a few counts. A lot of how people feel about film versus digital stems from where they have come from in terms of development of their photographic skills. I used to shoot film on an old Nikon F601 SLR, when I travelled I would maybe take 2-3 rolls a day, so was at least a moderate shooter in terms of volume. Out of each roll I would have maybe 5-6 pictures which I think would be acceptably good, so a 15-20% keeper rate. I didn't have a choice though of which ones I could print, I had to develop the WHOLE ROLL. I wouldn't shoot casually as the hassle of finishing a roll and actually viewing an image was too great, so I never really improved my photography skills due to lack of feedback and experimentation. Since Canon opened the opportunity a few months with the 300D, my whole outlook on photography has changed. I have, between my 2 Dslrs and 1 P&S, shot at least 20K pictures in the last 8 months, that's 550 rolls! My understanding of photography and shooting skills have improved leaps and bounds (still pretty lousy, but getting better each week!), and I will say this, in my hands......DIGITAL BEATS 35MM FILM for QUALITY....I kid you not! Comparing 8R prints from my film days vs the digital ones, absolutely NO CONTEST. Digital gives me much cleaner pics, with more detail and 'pop'. Colours are moretrue and vibrant also.Originally Posted by glt
Yes, the depreciation for a Dslr is currently high, but waiting for it to stabilise will be another 2-3 years. Meanwhile I sit on my hands whilst my baby grows up, important events come and go, I travel to nice places, and I limit my shooting to 2-3 rolls of film a month? No bl..dy way! If you shoot the volume I do and cull for printing, then digital is far cheaper than film in the long run. Not only that, it has really allowed me to experiment and improve my skills, much more in the last 8 months than I had in the 10 years before that by shooting film. Oh...did I mention....in my hands, it blows film away!
I've noticed that most people replying to this thread are still on film, I guess cos the thread says Who here still shoots primarily film? Anyway, I'll add the alternative digital voice and say that I'm very glad I got my digital camera. As an "interested amateur" (i.e. one who is keen on photography but hasn't achieved the expertise she likes) digital has been great in allowing me to experiment without the cost of developing and also see my results instantly, allowing me to make corrections in white balance, exposure, depth of field, ISO etc. White balance and ISO are also tough to change on a film camera, short of changing mid-roll. In my case, my brother and I have both improved a lot in our photography because we feel so free to experiment, without the constraint of "you're wasting film if you take that!".
Most of my friends are on digital too so that they can email friends with their pics easily. I think for me, I'm definitely taking better pictures now than on film, not because my pitiful 3.2mp sensor matches up to the quality of film, but because I'm more free now to play around with new rules I've learnt and grab the shots I want!
Thanks too for your comments. I guess it depends on your individual preferences and what's important to you. Like i said, not only have a stayed on film, i've moved to MF. So i'm giving up features i've taken for granted all these years like autofocusing, and zoom lens. I got a rangefinder (which isn't too bad once you get used to it), with fixed focal length. Those familiar with MF will know that you only get 10 shots per roll (6x7) - i'm sure DSLR users will weap tears of pity for me . So while you gone on to shoot 20k+ of pictures, i am actually gonna be taking less shots. To each his own right?Originally Posted by dkw
I concur that DSLRs are fantastic tools to take photos with, even more so as beginer (so you experiment and see your results immediately). Likewise, i was reflecting on my earlier years when i just got my EOS cam. I don't think i could have progressed much without autofocus, and zoom lenses. Right now though, i believe going to MF will help me move in the direction i desire in photography.
Before i digress much further, the point i'm trying to make is that these cams are tools for us to fulfill our passions. Some prefer DSLRs, some Leicas, some Canon, some MF cams, etc. What's counts is the art we create with the tools in our hands, whatever the tools maybe.
Last edited by glt; 13th July 2004 at 11:42 PM.