13th July 2004, 08:51 PM
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
13th July 2004, 09:12 PM
i have all om1/2sp/3ti/4ti liao...hahaa, finally!
Originally Posted by whoelse
13th July 2004, 09:35 PM
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.
13th July 2004, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by boochap
13th July 2004, 11:10 PM
s*hit man boochap, I gotta murder u and steal yr OMs
13th July 2004, 11:32 PM
Hi Belle&Sebastain, Whoelse, and all the Jedi Masters.
Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain
You are right, I can't conclude but totally agree with you.
13th July 2004, 11:36 PM
Ha, what your recommendation?
Originally Posted by yellow_kiwi
Btw, which model of SLR are you using?
13th July 2004, 11:46 PM
Yes, got a clear answer. Thanks whoelse.
Originally Posted by 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.
13th July 2004, 11:51 PM
have to admit, i am diehard with OM...simple, compact, light but hardy, and no fancy.
Originally Posted by whoelse
wanna collect OM? go ebay..
13th July 2004, 11:54 PM
14th July 2004, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by 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.
14th July 2004, 01:12 AM
Hey...may i know what do you mean by that?
Originally Posted by CAN0N
14th July 2004, 08:02 AM
sickening to u doesnt mean its sickening to everyone else.
Originally Posted by zekai
if u really feel so sick, simply dont enter the thread coz u should know the topic just by reading the thread title.
14th July 2004, 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by EiRiK
i commented it is sickening beacause i was prompted for a response. so get your kit in order.
14th July 2004, 08:43 AM
Originally Posted by 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!
14th July 2004, 08:53 AM
14th July 2004, 09:21 AM
14th July 2004, 10:57 AM
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.
14th July 2004, 11:01 AM
Totally agree with you dude , also, the grains on a Tmax/Tri-x would be vastly different from those of a digital SLR.
Originally Posted by Kho King
14th July 2004, 11:14 AM
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.
Originally Posted by Watcher