Is Film SLR still alive today?
- Thread starter King Tiger
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Belle&Sebastain said:
Hi Belle&Sebastain, Whoelse, and all the Jedi Masters.
You are right, I can't conclude but totally agree with you. :cheers:
yellow_kiwi said::thumbsup:
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?
whoelse said:
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 :dunno: , for now.
whoelse said: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..
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
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.
zekai said:
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.
EiRiK said:
i commented it is sickening beacause i was prompted for a response. so get your kit in order.
David said: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,
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. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
This should be the right way for topic discussion and debating.
Applause to both of you. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
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.
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.
Totally agree with you dude :thumbsup:, also, the grains on a Tmax/Tri-x would be vastly different from those of a digital SLR.Kho King said:
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
===
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
===
Watcher said:
- Status
