Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Is Film SLR still alive today?

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    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!).
    In that case, why don't the wild life and sports people use film and a 200mm and crop all their images? The reason is that it does not make sense. The time, much less the effort in scanning makes it not up to the same quality if you do that on the faster ISO films; the grains will show up.

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    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
    ===
    You "intentions" is your expectation, call it prejudice for a lack of a better word. Yes, I do agree with the issue you raise but lets put it this way: it can be corrected and just be willing to learn the different way. It is the same as those shooting both 35mm and MF. All the DOF/focal length/etc issues are the same. Just think like shooting another format; a digital format, with its pros and cons.

  2. #62

    Default A different relationship

    It can't be corrected, DOF and perspective for a lens are ruled by the laws of optics and physics and no one can correct them.

    But it can be accepted, yes, and people who don't know any different will wonder what the fuss was all about in the first place. Although I fervently wish for the day when a full-frame sensor DSLR will be at the same price at a 10D today.

    The difference between SLR and MF and SLR and DSLR is that in the former, one knows that one is using a completely different set of lenses and hence the expectations are totally different, whereas in the latter, the marketing people sell the 1.5x factor by witholding the other dirty facts.

    My main beef is not with film vs digital, but with how the DSLR marketing people have pulled the wool over consumers' eyes by calling it a "multiplier" factor. If there is ever an award for deception in advertising, this should be one of the nominees.

    Wai Leong
    ===
    PS I mentioned DOF before, perspective is another very important point, a 75 mm lens and a 105 mm lens also have very different perspective, so a true 105 mm lens image and a 1.5x 75 mm lens image would be quite different, not just in terms of DOF, but in terms of perspective. And before the flames come, yes I know 75 x 1.5 > 105, just that I'm lazy to calculate the theoretical number, and in any case, not sure if anyone makes a 70 mm lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    You "intentions" is your expectation, call it prejudice for a lack of a better word. Yes, I do agree with the issue you raise but lets put it this way: it can be corrected and just be willing to learn the different way. It is the same as those shooting both 35mm and MF. All the DOF/focal length/etc issues are the same. Just think like shooting another format; a digital format, with its pros and cons.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    The correct word for it is 1.5x Cropping factor. Pure and simple. If you lens can do say 100 lp/mm on the film plane, with the full-frame, then after cropping, you get only 67 lp/mm. So, that is why a mediocre lens that can only do say 60 lp/mm would result in having only 40 lp/mm after the cropping. That is why cheap or lousy lens would give you terrible results in a dSLR! If you have a fantastic lens that can resolve to say 120 lp/mm, after cropping, you get a decent 80 lp/mm.

    So, lets hope that the days of affordable Full-frame dSLR is not too distant, like in 2 to 3 years or so. By affordable, I mean say 3k or so. Right now, the full-frame Kodak DCS is like 7-8k. So, 3k in 2 - 3 years is not unrealistic. and then, we no longer have this cropping problem so that we can make full use of all our precious lenses, especially those WiDE angles like 20mm and below.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tiger
    I was at Orchard Road today and happen to see a few people carrying SLR (not DSLR) camera.
    2 people which I notice happen to carry F4 and F5 respectively with a very new Lowepro Bag, Manfrotto tripod.
    I was wondering, in the digital age of 21st century, with more and more digital camera in the market, like 8080, 5700, A2, Pro 1, F828, 300D, 1D MK II, D100, D70 and more to be coming out soon, will SLR be phase out and become an antique in the national museum?

    I still see people buying SLR.
    Is SLR a precious diamond? Is there any fun or interest using SLR?
    There is no image preview on SLR.
    Why so good about SLR?

    P.S. Hey guys, I am not insulting SLR professional, just ponder why still a lot of ppl using, just a forum discussion so as to solve my curiousity.
    My Leica M6 and Contax T3 is still alive & I believe that they would last another 10 -20 years down the road.
    I dun say that I am a firm believe of film cameras but film cameras is just for me.

  5. #65

    Default

    i use digital cams daily and own more than 1 body but my last 5 cameras i bought in the last 6 months are film ones, what does it tell, nothing much right?

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boochap
    Oohhh...i just bought a mint condition OM-3Ti mechanical SLR last weekend, for 2000$.

    y? digital maybe ge getting closer to film with all the crapy cmos or what sensors.

    because i like the back to basic and classical feel of mechanical gears and film photography.


    tomorrow going to dark room u know....
    You paid $2000 for OM-3Ti? From where had you get it from? It is way too expensive to pay for a system which is no longer being manufactured and supported!
    With this sum of money, you can easily get a 2nd hand mint condition Leica M4-P anytime!

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    My Leica M6 and Contax T3 is still alive & I believe that they would last another 10 -20 years down the road.
    I dun say that I am a firm believe of film cameras but film cameras is just for me.
    some day i will try a leica too... just to see the effect

  8. #68

    Default

    I don't think at the end of the day the medium use matters much unless you are able to bring out the difference or make a difference to your pictures when using either medium as compared to the other.
    The rest is just talk.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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
  •