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?
shutterspeed said: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?
satan_18349 said:Good for you then...but i wont reply to any thread if i find it redundant... :dunno:
David said: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.
2100 said:I have been on digital. Now going on to flim.
2100 said:I have been on digital. Now going on to flim.
D2Hpeter said:that is interesting...why?
I agree with Jim...jimtong said: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.
jimtong said: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.
dkw said:Hi David,
for a differing opinion, please read my post on this thread...
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=734345#post734345
Also some independent opinions....
http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Ponti.../e_Film_versus_digital/a_Film_vs_digital.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/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,
whoelse said: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.