Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68

Thread: Is Film SLR still alive today?

  1. #41

    Default Difference but not better depend on yrself

    Me like MF medium Format ,manual focus n digtial too. All r fun That why cant sell my mf cam ready dont bear to.It has it fun...Ready siew camera..lah

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    sg - bukit ho swee
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    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.
    i have all om1/2sp/3ti/4ti liao...hahaa, finally!

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    When you crop, you loose resolution. That is why we have 1.4x TC and 2x where you loose a stop. Otherwise just shoot and then crop.

    So, your dSLR crops off by 1.5x or thereabout, and so, about half of your real-estate is chopped off.

    For those who love wide angles, you miss it big-time unless you pay real big bucks for that 12mm fisheyes to get something like 18mm, and you also get lots of distortion.

    Of course, dSLR is a new toy to play with, so much fun, instant gratification and great learning tool, especially for those who are new in it. For the old hands, we know what to expect from each roll, well more or less. Now, at 1800 or so, the dSLR is quite affordable for the working adult, as a big toy to play with.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boochap
    i have all om1/2sp/3ti/4ti liao...hahaa, finally!

    Power !!

  5. #45

    Default

    s*hit man boochap, I gotta murder u and steal yr OMs

  6. #46
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain
    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.
    Hi Belle&Sebastain, Whoelse, and all the Jedi Masters.

    You are right, I can't conclude but totally agree with you.

  7. #47
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yellow_kiwi

    hi king tiger, get one film SLR and try it out for urself after u have had enuf practice with the digital medium. i guess the change itself (no preview etc) is enuf to keep u excited.

    my take is that digital n film shld not be mutually exclusive. no doubt technology has been a boon to photography. but i guess to appreciate it more would be to take part n experience its evolution, to grow with it. so i would say maybe those who started out with digital shld try out film at some pt in time.

    regards
    Ha, what your recommendation?
    Btw, which model of SLR are you using?

  8. #48
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    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.
    Yes, got a clear answer. Thanks whoelse.
    For such question, it will defintely reappear again as you say.
    However, be it a new member or pros posting identical thread, at a different stage of time frame, we may have a different conclusion, which we will never know , for now.
    Last edited by King Tiger; 13th July 2004 at 11:48 PM.

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    sg - bukit ho swee
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    s*hit man boochap, I gotta murder u and steal yr OMs
    have to admit, i am diehard with OM...simple, compact, light but hardy, and no fancy.

    wanna collect OM? go ebay..

  10. #50

    Default

    ebay is evil...

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    Hi David,
    for a differing opinion, please read my post on this thread...

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...345#post734345

    Also some independent opinions....

    http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontif...s_digital.html

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

    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 .

    Cheers,
    Hi dkw,

    It is clear from this post and the rest you are an adament supporter of digital over films.

    No flames really, I'm just answering the original question of why some people are still carrying film bodies rather than DSLRs... so my post sounds biased towards films. Surely, there are advantages of digital over film but I felt that's not relveant to the original post. For every post one gives of digital is 'better' than films, I'm sure you can find as many justifiable 'film' is better than digital.

    I'm both a DSLR and film SLR user so I see the best of both worlds. I use them according to situations. I'm not sure what films your friends are using or how they were printed. But for me, I find I like the colours of Velvia and E100VS. These sorts of colours you won't get from your 10D.

    Anyway, the 1.6x flm is still very much a pain for wide angle enthusiasts I would say. Look into the viewfinder of say a Canon EOS3 and that of the 10D both fixed with a 16-35mm lens and you will know what I mean.
    Last edited by David; 14th July 2004 at 12:06 AM.

  12. #52
    Deregistered satan_18349's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    hell 極樂世&
    Posts
    1,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CAN0N
    Nobody put a knife in your back to ask you to reply.
    Hey...may i know what do you mean by that?

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zekai
    no harm to you but it is sickening to see it every other week.
    sickening to u doesnt mean its sickening to everyone else.
    if u really feel so sick, simply dont enter the thread coz u should know the topic just by reading the thread title.
    web | blog | fb | ig

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EiRiK
    sickening to u doesnt mean its sickening to everyone else.
    if u really feel so sick, simply dont enter the thread coz u should know the topic just by reading the thread title.

    i commented it is sickening beacause i was prompted for a response. so get your kit in order.

  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David
    Hi dkw,

    It is clear from this post and the rest you are an adament supporter of digital over films.

    No flames really, I'm just answering the original question of why some people are still carrying film bodies rather than DSLRs... so my post sounds biased towards films. Surely, there are advantages of digital over film but I felt that's not relveant to the original post. For every post one gives of digital is 'better' than films, I'm sure you can find as many justifiable 'film' is better than digital.

    I'm both a DSLR and film SLR user so I see the best of both worlds. I use them according to situations. I'm not sure what films your friends are using or how they were printed. But for me, I find I like the colours of Velvia and E100VS. These sorts of colours you won't get from your 10D.

    Anyway, the 1.6x flm is still very much a pain for wide angle enthusiasts I would say. Look into the viewfinder of say a Canon EOS3 and that of the 10D both fixed with a 16-35mm lens and you will know what I mean.
    Hi David,
    no problem , this debate has raged on for a long while (and will continue to rage), but we can have a nice civil discussion, after all, its not religion!
    Regarding your contention about film colour, I would have to respectfully disagree. With the exception of slide film, which is still regarded by most people as the KING of colour rendition, many writers already regard digital sensors as equal or better than 35mm negative film for colours. The links I provided to Petteri Sulonen's (and advanced amateur with some really insightful writings) and Michael Reichmann's site, have them outline further quality advantages of digital images. This has indeed been my personal experience.
    OK, I'm butting out of this discussion now!

    Cheers,

  16. #56
    Senior Member King Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the heart of SengKang
    Posts
    5,882

    Thumbs up Good Discussion

    Both dkw and David give well explain and solid conclusion base on their own experience.
    This should be the right way for topic discussion and debating.
    Applause to both of you.

  17. #57

    Default

    one of the reason if I were to shoot film: SLIDE!
    DR KOH KHO KING

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    My opinion first: yes, film will stay alive for quite some time. If nothing else, the low entry price for a PnS will continue to make it happen. The enthusias will keep it going. B/W was not killed off by color after all.

    My comments on the comments:
    1.5/1.6 FLM is an issue if your system does not have the equivalent. Not to turn it into a brand flame war, but lets put it this way from the system that I chose: DX lenses give you back all the wide angles (16mm fisheye equivalent from the 10.5mm DX, 18-36mm from 12-24DX or the Sigma 12-24). No doubt that it is not identical in performance (f/4 for 12-24 vs f/2.8 for 17-35, etc), it is good enough (eg f-stop difference? ISO to the rescue ).
    That is why when you by DSLR, you have to choose the entire system.

    Also, the 1.5/1.6 takes, it also give back. A 200mm cropped becomes 300mm equivalent, etc. For those shooting long, you can't deny that it give this advantage.

  19. #59
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kho King
    one of the reason if I were to shoot film: SLIDE!
    Totally agree with you dude , also, the grains on a Tmax/Tri-x would be vastly different from those of a digital SLR.

  20. #60

    Default Flm

    Does it? But I can crop all my film shots to give me 6 MP images with 1.5X FLM as well if I want to. So where is the advantage of the DSLR? In fact, it's a disadvantage because I can see outside the 1.6x frame with a film SLR and hence have a chance at better composition (almost like a Leica viewfinder!).

    The digital marketing people really did themselves a favour when they called it a "multiplier" and not a "crop factor", which is what it really is. A whole generation of photographers seem to believe that the "multiplier" actually extends the focal length.

    But it really does not. If you shoot a 300 mm lens on a film camera and a 200 mm lens on a DLSR with a 1.5x crop factor, the area of coverage will be different, and the DOF will be totally different too. A 200 mm lens is still a 200 mm lens, just because you cropped out the centre of the image does not change its characteristics.

    So this really plays havoc with our intentions. Eg. I want to use a 100/2 lens because I want the DOF characteristics at F2 for a portrait. But with a 1.5x crop factor, I have to move back much further, which changes my DOF relationship completely. On the other hand, if I used a 75 mm lens I can maintain the same subject distance, but I won't get the DOF I want. So how?

    I do not doubt that a whole new generation of photographers will grow up accustomed to the 1.5x crop factor and the new DOF's associated with them. But I find it hard to accept the statement that it's an advantage.

    Wai Leong
    ===
    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Also, the 1.5/1.6 takes, it also give back. A 200mm cropped becomes 300mm equivalent, etc. For those shooting long, you can't deny that it give this advantage.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •