13th July 2004, 10:13 AM
If I shoot less than 1 roll per film, does it make sense to go digital since most DC would have been obsolete within 1 - 2 years?
13th July 2004, 10:39 AM
I think for people working in this profession, they would require both film and Digital SLRs because they caters to different customers. For Example, some wedding couples prefer film to be used while some prefer digital as it is faster to 'develop' the prints and they can be uploaded on the big screen using laptop + projector during the wedding dinner effortlessly.
13th July 2004, 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by shutterspeed
Oops, I meant month.
13th July 2004, 11:55 AM
Nobody put a knife in your back to ask you to reply.
Originally Posted by satan_18349
13th July 2004, 12:12 PM
Digital, although it has advanced quite a bit, is too volatile a technology. To give an eg: Some people enjoy photography but they don't shoot so frequently. Maybe only during the occasional birthday parties and when they travel. I think it's more worth it to get a good film SLR than a lower end DSLR like the D70 or 300D. The 300D kit may cost near $1900? I'm sure within 2 years, if Canon continues its marketing trend, a 2ndhand 300D with kit lens will fetch probably <$1000. That's a loss of some $1000 in less than 2 years. Some people don't spend so much even on film and processing in that period of time. Prices of film SLR bodies don't drop that drastically.
Other than this, lower end to mid-ranged DSLRs still suffer from the 1.5 and 1.6x flm. That's a pain. Many people are paying another close to $1000 or more just to get a wide angle zoom. But what do they get in effect? Something like 27-60+mm or so. This is achievable by many good quality consumer zoom lenses fixed to a film SLR body with an even longer zoom range, eg, 24-85mm or 28-105mm. So in effect, DSLR users are often 'compelled' to pay another extra $1000 for that wide angle zoom to use on their DSLR bodies!
Other than this, I still feel film has a better dynamic range than digital and if you use pro films, I find they beat the colours of digital hands down. Nothing like using slides and get the saturated colours in a what you see is what you get fashion.
Also, for 3-6MP DSLR, it's hard to justify the high quality of lenses used. I've taken many shots both on more expensive L lenses and as a test, on a $200 kit lens. It's usually difficult to tell the images apart. With films, if you use high quality glasses, the quality is obvious in the prints and slides.
Oh... and another point to add... For those less savvy with computers or especially photo editing programs, there is no hassle in trying to meddle with Levels, Curves, Sharpening etc. Prints done by newnies often suffer bcos their phot editing skills are not up to standard yet. It doesn't do justice to their otherwise excellent photo taking abilites. Use a good lens on a film body, good film, and a good shop to do the film processing and you will possibly get a winner.
Last edited by David; 13th July 2004 at 12:18 PM.
13th July 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally Posted by David
for a differing opinion, please read my post on this thread...
Also some independent opinions....
I think the current Canon CMOS 6MP sensor already beats 35mm negative film in almost all respects except for dynamic range (certainly in my experience). As for slide film, well, digital is getting close and will be there very shortly . I believe if you conducted a blinded test (i.e. same shot on film and digital), a lot of the film proponents will find themselves preferring the digital output. Up till last weekend a few friends of mine who dabble in photography still swore that 'film beats digital', until I showed them some 8 x 12 prints from my 10D. I assure you that opinion has been well and truly changed!
As for lenses, I have 3 pieces of L glass, plus had owned a number of other varying grades of lenses. I assure you, the difference is obvious! A 6MP sensor is outresolving a lot of consumer glass, and I'm not talking cheapo stuff. My 100-400IS gets close to being beaten by the sensor many a time, and the deficiencies of my previous copy of 70-200IS at f2.8 is clear for all to see. No chance I could have picked this up on film.
As for newbies, well, I'm a newbie, and digital is a far more interesting, forgiving and educational introduction to photography than film ever was to me. I've really rediscovered my love for photography, thanks to Canon and the wonderful consumer level 300D .
13th July 2004, 02:35 PM
13th July 2004, 04:40 PM
that is interesting...why?
Originally Posted by 2100
13th July 2004, 04:58 PM
I have both film SLR and DSLR, many times if you were to expose for the shadow in extreme lighting condition, on a DSLR the highlight will washout... it is diff in film as it has a wider dynamic range.
Originally Posted by D2Hpeter
13th July 2004, 05:00 PM
I agree with Jim...
Originally Posted by jimtong
I like both of them...prefer slr more to dslr...however, a dslr will be a GOOD companion for a short holiday. you'd simply snap snap snap.
13th July 2004, 05:02 PM
digital is for the "common man"
nowadays most common folks find it hard to accept film. their impression of film is thats ite meant for "artistic people" or "artistic professionals". the avarage common man just want fast n convenient results from digital..whether good or not and whether the issue of post-processing is paramount to them is another issue. digital is also psychological..most ave folks thinks its "cool" to use digital. like my sister...she just ditched her film PnS and is now aiming for a digicam...i recommend her canon A80 but she want to buy sony (must be a hangover from the early days of using sony discman )and i got to teach her 3 things: (i) fundamentals of photography lesson 1101, (ii) how SLR photography translates in the digital world ie relationship between 35mm SLR terms and digicam world terms; and (iii) post processing and printing. hehehe! ;-)
13th July 2004, 06:56 PM
ya, you are right.
Originally Posted by jimtong
I was looking at one of my photo taken at tokyo disneyland 15+ years ago, when i first used a slr [ a pentax manual borrowed from my uncle]. I am amazed at how sharp/clear mickey's face still is under all the background spot lights. And imagine the print actually lasted that long without much color fade.
13th July 2004, 07:18 PM
The very same reason National Geography use:
From their FAQ:
What types of film do National Geographic photographers use?
Nearly all use 35mm transparency film, such as Fuji Provia 100, Fuji Velvia 50, Kodachrome 64, and Kodachrome 200. Brand and type are up to the photographer, but most use three or four different emulsions, depending on the situation. They also use small amounts of other 35mm transparency emulsions as well as some 35mm color negative and larger format films. In 1995 they shot 32,000 rolls of film on magazine assignments.
What types of cameras do they use?
It’s up to the photographers, and their most popular choices are Canon and Nikon 35mm SLRs and the Leica M6 range finder.
How much film is shot on an assignment?
The number of rolls (usually 36 exposures each) ranges from 300 or 400 to more than 1000 for complex stories. While this seems high, you must remember that professional photographers “sketch” with the camera, much like writers probe with questions to get at the essential information. They explore subjects visually by shooting many sides of a subject in many ways. It is usually the combination of enough time in the field and enough film exposed that provides the depth that has become the hallmark of our coverages.
How do photographers ship their film?
Mostly by air express. The film is put into the original film can and packed securely to prevent damage from impact and moisture. The rolls are numbered in sequence as they were shot. When a fairly large amount of film is shipped, a photographer will often divide the film into two shipments—even-numbered rolls in one shipment, odd in another. This way if one shipment is lost or damaged at least every other roll will survive. A photographer usually notifies headquarters when a shipment is made and provides the air bill number: If the shipment does not arrive when expected, it’s easier to trace it successfully if the process is initiated immediately.
Do you want the best?
13th July 2004, 07:24 PM
Originally Posted by dkw
in terms of resolution as in lines per mm, the 6 Mp sensors are basically the equal of film. If you use a very high end scanner, you may be able to squeeze just a little more resolution out of film. But when I look at the Coolscan IV scans resolution wise, 6 Mp about equals it.
However, in terms of colour, I find that there is something special about the colours of a good transparency be it Astia/Provia/Velvia. The consumer DSLRs be it D100 or D60/10D are not there yet in terms of colour representation. The sole exception I've encountered is the S2 Pro. As for better bodies such as the Mk II and 1Ds, they are pretty good colourwise as well.
13th July 2004, 07:26 PM
its a matter of choice and perference, you like you use, you dun like dun use. why like that? Cos everybody is different and have different needs and resources.
Doesn't mean if digital has arrived, ppl would not use film, go and ask those vintage car drivers why are they still driving their old cars, or ask the DJs and other fans of vinyl records why not use CD? its a personal choice.
13th July 2004, 07:34 PM
tat's why there are still newspaper, fax and contract signed by pen. not tat the technology cant do it but simply something just cannot be replace.
belle&sebastain has says it all, king_tiger shd get his answer too. however, rest assured this qns will resurface again another few more weeks. if u cant tell wat u like, other ppl will confuse you even more. at the end of the day, if u dunno, then seriously u gotta thing abt the reason why.
We all live in this cave with 2 windows. The cave is our brain and the windows are our eyes. It is through this limited windows, we shape our narrowed mind.
Last edited by whoelse; 13th July 2004 at 07:37 PM.
13th July 2004, 08:15 PM
Well, I'm on the verge of cancelling my newspaper subscription, and my company instituted electronic signatures for documents last year . If, as B&S has suggested, film will eventually join the ranks of vintage cars and vinyl as specialty/hobbyist items, it tells you who the winner will be in the real world of applied photography . The fact that we can have this discussion now, when 3 years ago you would have been laughed out of the shop if you even suggested that digital can be compared to film, shows you how far the technology has come in a very short time.
Originally Posted by whoelse
As for NG, well, they recently published an article shot entirely on digital (December 2003, Nikon D1 something I think), so even the last bastions of film conservatives are being stormed.
I remember in my youth, somebody suggested you could program a computer to beat Kasparov at chess. At that time, we all thought it was fantasy. Well, it happened.....
Digital WILL match and surpass film, only a question of when. As the Borg say, resistance is futile, you WILL BE assimilated....
Take care and happy shooting, whatever you use .
13th July 2004, 08:30 PM
Precisely, technologically it is possible but that does not mean they will be replace totally.
NG did the digital project once for a reason, so wat is it? hehee.
Your last statement says it all -- well done!
cos the end of the day, no one really care wat we use except ourself since we are the one using it. click click.
Last edited by whoelse; 13th July 2004 at 08:35 PM.
13th July 2004, 08:41 PM
13th July 2004, 08:46 PM
ohhh...OM-3Ti very nice! I have a Pentax KX, recently bot a MX and also a black Yashica Electro 35 GX.
So much fun.