Nikon D50 or D70s
- Thread starter lwt11137
- Start date
- Status
sorry for the wrong information on the D70s prices reconfirmed with MS sgp1700(incl gst) include only lense, body and 1 GB 80x mem card only, no extra mem card. pei sei listen wrongly. Lowest price so far is TK photo sgp1750 same as above package, but no stock earliest next week wait wait wait......
Maybe I sell off the 24mm-120mm lense and buy the kit lense do you all think ok making such decision.
Maybe I sell off the 24mm-120mm lense and buy the kit lense do you all think ok making such decision.
photobum said:IMHO, neither. Shoot film and send for hi-res scan. The current digital technology is still miles away from analog (film) standard. My 5 year-old Nikon Coolscan 2000 can produce scans that look better than any SLR digicam.
Interesting. May I know the film you referring to is slide or negative film?
Did you do some post proceesing on your scanned pic?
scanner said:Interesting. May I know the film you referring to is slide or negative film?
Did you do some post proceesing on your scanned pic?
I am shooting more slide films now. Mainly, Fujifilm Provia 100F and Velvia.
I do "mutiple-scans" on each image with special scanning software from SilverFast.
scanner said:So when you commented the "The current digital technology is still miles away from analog (film) standard." which digital technology you comparing to huh?
DSLR? Medium format with digital back? I'm interested to know.
All! DSLR compared to 35mm film. Medium format compared to 120 or 240 film. Large format digital backs compared to sheet film.
I have been working in this industry for more than 15 years. I have seen enough digitally captured images to prove my statement.
Personally, I am using a Canon EOS-1Ds MkII and a Phase One digital back at work. None of these two is comparable to their analog counterparts.
I hope I have answered at least 90% of your question.
photobum said:
Well,you might want to elaborate which area does the digital lose out to the film?
On the tonality, Dynamic range, etc?
Care to elaborate how you derive to such a remarks and if possible show us some comparisions so that we could relate to what you have commented.
This will be an interesting and healthy discussion on digital vs. film.
scanner said:Well,you might want to elaborate which area does the digital lose out to the film?
On the tonality, Dynamic range, etc?
Care to elaborate how you derive to such a remarks and if possible show us some comparisions so that we could relate to what you have commented.
This will be an interesting and healthy discussion on digital vs. film.
I do not intend to lead the discussion on digital vs. film. I am sure there will be those of you who disagree with my evaluations and findings. By the way, there are already enough of such discussion on the web, regardless of whether in Singapore or overseas.
On my own preference and speaking from experience, all I can say is digital photography is not there yet. Give it another few more years.
And for those of you who wish to know what all these mean, go shoot a roll of good transparency film and digital RAW files. Compare them yourself and you will know what I meant. G'day!
photobum said:
Well, thats others' comment, but since you mentioned that you have many years of experience and suggested that digital is no where near film quality, it will be good for you to elaborate.
Most importantly, I'm not here to challenge anyone, but to have a healthy discussion on this topic.
BTW, I do shoot many years of films before moving to digital.
Anyway, Good Day to you.
scanner said:
Since you have been shooting films all your life before converting, I am sure deep inside your heart you'll feel that something is missing indeed. I do, almost everyday at work.
The magic of silver halide crystals is just not there when I look at my digital files. This magic can only be seen and felt, but I can never explain.
photobum said:
Well, that means your fact is based on your personnel preference of film over digital because of the silver halide crystals which is not present in digital format. Isn't it?
Anyway, to each his own. There is no right or wrong over any individuals preference.
Well if you mention about something missing in digital, to me, one of the most obvious is the grain that is missing :bsmilie:, but that doesn't mean digital is no where near film quality.
Good Day.
scanner said:
In the absence of film grain, you'll end up having digital noise, which I think is worst than film grain itself.
The ability of a CCD or CMOS module to produce clean shadow and highlight details and overall tonality is still, in my opinion, not good enough.
If you have a chance to visit world-class photo galleries like the Smithsonian in Washington, DC or Gallery 212 in Carmel, CA. Take a close look at the fine works from renown masters. You will know exactly what I meant by the magic of silver halide crystals. Yes, film grains do exists in these masterpieces, but that is what make them "masterpieces".
photobum said:In the absence of film grain, you'll end up having digital noise, which I think is worst than film grain itself.
The ability of a CCD or CMOS module to produce clean shadow and highlight details and overall tonality is still, in my opinion, not good enough.
If you have a chance to visit world-class photo galleries like the Smithsonian in Washington, DC or Gallery 212 in Carmel, CA. Take a close look at the fine works from renown masters. You will know exactly what I meant by the magic of silver halide crystals. Yes, film grains do exists in these masterpieces, but that is what make them "masterpieces".
While you could be right in that digital quality is still way off as compared to film, what digital has done is to generate more interest in photography by making it affordable and convenient for the hobbyist and amatuer photographer.
For professional work, you may still need to use film/MF to get the quality, but for general use, digital should be good enough. Why need such quality when the size is only 4R or A4 usually?
I am not a professional photographer, and I use my digital camera, which is only an entry level for my general use in capturing photo of my family life, so that I can share with family and friends and also recount those moments in future. I print those out to put in the album or share with family through the net. I would much prefer the convenience of cataloging in digital format and not waste time scanning the slides into digital format. I am also not experienced enough to see a difference in the quality.
Well, the thread starter already got the D70 before your post, and I don't think he is getting a camera for professional work.
It would certainly be good to visit and see masterpiece, which was created in the past when digital is not an option.
blive said:
You are so right! I totally agree that you use a digital camera because you do not want to fuss with the hassle of having your film developed, processed and scanned. Plus, your photos can be shared among your freinds and relatives easily. FYI, I am using a Nikon Coolpix 8800 for that purpose. None of my fancy DSLR can do this job better. Why? Too bulky and too complex (to a certain extend). I want a fast working camera to capture my baby girl's huge grin with chocolate sauce all over her mouth. I don't want to fuss with histograms when I am actually "enjoying" photography. For once, it is fun and not work.
Seasons greetings!
- Status
Similar threads
