Just like to do a survey here.... Do you used convectional meaning film previously? If yes/No, wat's make you go digital?? 
Convectional Vs Digital
- Thread starter SMC
- Start date
- Status
Yes. To me the most important reason is because digital is much more cost-saving in the long run ( Erasable memory compared with Film )
i still prefer film......what you see and shot will be what you
get.....more challenging.
where else for digital, image seems to be untrue cos most
of it can do touch-up over the PC. photos can be very very nice
and exciting.......but artificial.
get.....more challenging.
where else for digital, image seems to be untrue cos most
of it can do touch-up over the PC. photos can be very very nice
and exciting.......but artificial.
Yeah i guess so, although I am a film user, I really still think that digital has the edge in that you are able to review immediately after shooting and the virtually zero running cost.
Whether or not you can edit it is really not an issue as there are filom scanners in the market that can scan 11 MP equivalent images from 35 mm film.
I suppose the only barrier to entering the digital realm is the extremely high cost of entry. Prosumer digitals still canot compare to an SLR in terms of the EVF, focus lag, etc... An SLR is still an SLR... So the only way to go is DSLR, but the cost is simply too great to justify as a hobby....
Whether or not you can edit it is really not an issue as there are filom scanners in the market that can scan 11 MP equivalent images from 35 mm film.
I suppose the only barrier to entering the digital realm is the extremely high cost of entry. Prosumer digitals still canot compare to an SLR in terms of the EVF, focus lag, etc... An SLR is still an SLR... So the only way to go is DSLR, but the cost is simply too great to justify as a hobby....
I use both... conventional film for personal pleasure but mainly digital for work! The digital route allows rapid viewing and transfer of fairly high quality images without the hassle of processing and scanning. But when it comes to my own stuff, I still prefer slide films like Provia and Velvia.
i used both too. prefer film but hardly use them. as digital is far more efficient in terms of post processing work.
agreed with nivlekx tat editing is not an issue here as film can still be drummed scanned for editing. touching up on the negative itself can still be done with great patience and practice.
the best part abt digital is that u can jus change colour to monochrome without the need carring another camera during the shoot.
agreed with nivlekx tat editing is not an issue here as film can still be drummed scanned for editing. touching up on the negative itself can still be done with great patience and practice.
the best part abt digital is that u can jus change colour to monochrome without the need carring another camera during the shoot.
Hi,
Though I am primarily a film shooter I feel digital is the way to go. The thing about digital being able to touch-up and thus "unreal" is not entirely true. When you send in your negs to print, a decent lab actually indivually colour corrects all of them. Want the ultimate lack of such things? Shoot slides.
Whatever resolution your film is scanned at, it's never going to be better than a straight digital file. I've been there, done that. A 4000dpi and above scan resolves more grain than anything else. And the grain gets in the way when doing enlargements. And when you do enlargements, you need to sharpen the scanned image, which will sharpen the grain in one way or another.
Being grainless, digital files enlarge way better than film scans, that's why even 3 megapixel D30 files can be printed A3 and beyond. I am pretty confident the current crop of 6mp prosumer DSLRs and the 11 and 14mp pro DSLRs can do much better.
When you shoot for clients (not just for your own hobby) shooting digital increases your profit margin dramatically as you can now shoot a lot without worrying about film and processing costs.
Then when you are in situations where the light is changing rapidly, you'll appreciate having the on-the-fly ISO change on the digital cameras. You instantly have the equivalent of films all the way from ISO 100 to 3200 without having to carry them all and do the mid-roll rewind. Was in the bird park with jed recently - he was shooting D1x, me Provia 400F when the skies darkened. While I am stuck at ISO 400, he has the flexibility of getting ISO 1600 on demand, and still get his shot.
Instant review lets you check images on the spot to see if you've got what you want, and reshoot if you don't. Of coz, this does not apply to fleeting moments, but in most cases, it's better than knowing much later that you screwed up.
Despite what naysayers say, quality is now no longer an issue. Forget about what people tell you about NEEDing 300dpi for a decent print. It's not true.
Regards
CK
Though I am primarily a film shooter I feel digital is the way to go. The thing about digital being able to touch-up and thus "unreal" is not entirely true. When you send in your negs to print, a decent lab actually indivually colour corrects all of them. Want the ultimate lack of such things? Shoot slides.
Whatever resolution your film is scanned at, it's never going to be better than a straight digital file. I've been there, done that. A 4000dpi and above scan resolves more grain than anything else. And the grain gets in the way when doing enlargements. And when you do enlargements, you need to sharpen the scanned image, which will sharpen the grain in one way or another.
Being grainless, digital files enlarge way better than film scans, that's why even 3 megapixel D30 files can be printed A3 and beyond. I am pretty confident the current crop of 6mp prosumer DSLRs and the 11 and 14mp pro DSLRs can do much better.
When you shoot for clients (not just for your own hobby) shooting digital increases your profit margin dramatically as you can now shoot a lot without worrying about film and processing costs.
Then when you are in situations where the light is changing rapidly, you'll appreciate having the on-the-fly ISO change on the digital cameras. You instantly have the equivalent of films all the way from ISO 100 to 3200 without having to carry them all and do the mid-roll rewind. Was in the bird park with jed recently - he was shooting D1x, me Provia 400F when the skies darkened. While I am stuck at ISO 400, he has the flexibility of getting ISO 1600 on demand, and still get his shot.
Instant review lets you check images on the spot to see if you've got what you want, and reshoot if you don't. Of coz, this does not apply to fleeting moments, but in most cases, it's better than knowing much later that you screwed up.
Despite what naysayers say, quality is now no longer an issue. Forget about what people tell you about NEEDing 300dpi for a decent print. It's not true.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by Fundee
digital for me but film for my paying customer..
Aiyo, charge them based on film, shoot and deliver digital. Use the money saved to buy me a good dinner.
Regards
CK
Still prefer Conventional, but nowaday very lazy to develop n keep all the negatife n film, especially after 10 years of shoot, imaging how to keep all negatife n printed material....
but still prefer on B&W and still develop myself n print myself....
go digital is because costless, although camera is very expensive....
Just my opinion...
but still prefer on B&W and still develop myself n print myself....
go digital is because costless, although camera is very expensive....
Just my opinion...
I have been out of photography for a few years and picked up a Coolpix 5000 two week before xmas. Got it and thought this is great. I like the results but don't like the feel of the camera.
A couple of weeks later I picked up a F80s outfit and now the Coolpix is up for sale.
No, I am not giving up on Digital but will be sticking with 35mm till I can afford a D-SLR. (a Nikon D100 body is around AUD$4300, Canon D60 even more here in Australia)
I have never been that keen of compact style cameras. So if I want digital it will have to be a D-SLR (which hopefully will be around the the middle of the year)
When I owned my last 35mm outfit (F4s and FE2) I had a Nikon compact 35mm as well and it never used it, I prefered to carry an F4s with me were ever I went.
So the CP5000 is now up forsale while I can still get a good price for it and put the money towards a D-SLR
But even when I get the D-SLR I will still shoot a lot of stuff on slide.
So give me an SLR (hopefully soon D-SLR) any day.
A couple of weeks later I picked up a F80s outfit and now the Coolpix is up for sale.
No, I am not giving up on Digital but will be sticking with 35mm till I can afford a D-SLR. (a Nikon D100 body is around AUD$4300, Canon D60 even more here in Australia)
I have never been that keen of compact style cameras. So if I want digital it will have to be a D-SLR (which hopefully will be around the the middle of the year)
When I owned my last 35mm outfit (F4s and FE2) I had a Nikon compact 35mm as well and it never used it, I prefered to carry an F4s with me were ever I went.
So the CP5000 is now up forsale while I can still get a good price for it and put the money towards a D-SLR
But even when I get the D-SLR I will still shoot a lot of stuff on slide.
So give me an SLR (hopefully soon D-SLR) any day.
Actually, compact digital cameras have their places, even for the DSLR/SLR user. Especially those with swivel LCD or lens like the Coolpix 9xx, 5000, Canon G series, etc. They let you shoot easily from weird angles unattainable with normal SLRs without contorting your body.
Those with movie recording better still, can record short clips easily. If you've shot video tapes, you know it's a pain to get the clip into the PC to edit, and outputting that again to VCD/etc. With such cams, you get a AVI/MPG/MOV straightaway. Quality is rather decent.
So, I'll probably still keep my 3 year old Coolpix 950 even after I eventually get a DSLR.
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
CK,
I am not sure about this one cos when I bought my G2 in December - the swivel was one of the factors that swayed me in the direction of the G2. However, I find that I hardly ever need it and the LCD stays flat on the cam - I practically never swivel the lens out.
What sort of situation do u use the swivel lens for ur coolpix?
- Status
Similar threads
