SLR or DSLR?


Status
Not open for further replies.

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#1
no doubt i have seen photo taken by both dslr and slr. they are all very good.

but personally i think that a slr film photo has a better ambience compare to a dslr.

please correct me if i am wrong. but a friend keep telling me that dslr is far superior than a slr.

is that true. but from the picture they took, i found that when editing there are color displaccment in bright are on a digital photo.

i dun know if a photo (film) is scan to a very high res and edited in a higher res. will the effect be samiliar.
 

May 26, 2004
343
0
0
Singapore
#2
Nah, film is still better but would require a lot of skill during taking and the processing part.

drektster said:
no doubt i have seen photo taken by both dslr and slr. they are all very good.

but personally i think that a slr film photo has a better ambience compare to a dslr.

please correct me if i am wrong. but a friend keep telling me that dslr is far superior than a slr.

is that true. but from the picture they took, i found that when editing there are color displaccment in bright are on a digital photo.

i dun know if a photo (film) is scan to a very high res and edited in a higher res. will the effect be samiliar.
 

KrY0LiT3

New Member
Nov 7, 2005
131
0
0
#3
ernie_ng81 said:
Nah, film is still better but would require a lot of skill during taking and the processing part.
slides are great! but there is less room for error for exposure. pple usually think more when taking film too cos there's cost involved. haha.
 

May 26, 2004
343
0
0
Singapore
#4
Exactly! I used to do MF b/w + slides but found it too costly, hence gone for digital now.

KrY0LiT3 said:
slides are great! but there is less room for error for exposure. pple usually think more when taking film too cos there's cost involved. haha.
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#5
i have taken slide before and its great. the color is very nice .
 

KrY0LiT3

New Member
Nov 7, 2005
131
0
0
#6
ernie_ng81 said:
Exactly! I used to do MF b/w + slides but found it too costly, hence gone for digital now.
on the contrary i'm going into film again cos it's cheap in my uni! haha. just need to pay 3 euros for the ilford 400 and it's unlimited use of chemicals. there are 2 well stocked darkrooms to play with too. :D

but then again, digital has no running costs. instant gratification is not really gratification sometimes. each to his own lah. lol.
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#7
i agree. i still keep a slr camera for some nice shoot. but of cos the digitial for speed.

btw, someone is telling me that digitial camera can shoot a better sky.

i feel that it is not true. i have seen very nice sky using slr too.
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#8
at least i dun have to send all the images for printing.
 

#9
it is easier to see which are keepers and which are not in digital. if you dont print, it will be a waste not to see what your camera can do. the feeling of seeing a print and image on lcd is definitely different.
 

#10
recently Nikon just annouced a major change... in placing their focus in Digital camera production and developments.... will such a move make you think that may be it's really time to put your investment into something more "future proof" (but, digital stuff have very short life cycle though)...

actually, slr or dslr, both able to do a great job in producing nice image. the matter is what's your own main usage... for example, if you are kind of photo-journalist, dslr will definitely be the choice since this is a digital world, digital information is much faster... whereas, if you don't have computer (which I think hardly)... and you prefer to play around with the old school kind of photo development in dark rooms, may be slr will be a better choice... just think in this line, may be that will help you to decide...

just my 2 cents comments...
 

Mikefellh

New Member
Oct 9, 2005
1,867
0
0
Toronto, Canada
#11
drektster said:
please correct me if i am wrong. but a friend keep telling me that dslr is far superior than a slr.
I realize I'm taking this out of context of the original question, but to look at it from a different view; I used an SLR for 20 years, and here's thw reasons why I like dSLRs better:

Ability to shoot hundreds of pictures without having to worry about changing to another roll of film (it takes a lot less time to change the CF card or battery).

Ability to quick review shots.

Ability to increase ISO.

Ability to take many shots at little cost...get lots of practice in to see how settings change the picture.
 

May 26, 2004
343
0
0
Singapore
#12
Nah, its not out of context.

Its actually a question of 'what do you want' right?

People who lean more towards film will always feel film is better and its the opposite otherwise. Both have its pros and cons but I suppose with the coming of the digital age, even though film would produce such superb quality, DSLR's are catching up real fast especially with each improvement on those computer darkroom's like PS.

Mikefellh said:
I realize I'm taking this out of context of the original question, but to look at it from a different view; I used an SLR for 20 years, and here's thw reasons why I like dSLRs better:

Ability to shoot hundreds of pictures without having to worry about changing to another roll of film (it takes a lot less time to change the CF card or battery).

Ability to quick review shots.

Ability to increase ISO.

Ability to take many shots at little cost...get lots of practice in to see how settings change the picture.
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#13
ernie_ng81 said:
Nah, its not out of context.

Its actually a question of 'what do you want' right?

People who lean more towards film will always feel film is better and its the opposite otherwise. Both have its pros and cons but I suppose with the coming of the digital age, even though film would produce such superb quality, DSLR's are catching up real fast especially with each improvement on those computer darkroom's like PS.
it is like paintings and photography, no matter how good photography can be, it have never replace paintings. But for me digitial is very good photogràphy too, but it really depends on skills. if one is skillful, no matter how difficult a scene can be the photo will be good even with a digitial camera or SLR camera, if one do not have the skills, even the best camera could produce nothing nice.

one thing for sure, if your digitial camera fell dead due to dried batteries, extreme cold temp, you cannot take picture at all. but the cas is different compare to my old FM2. right?
 

May 26, 2004
343
0
0
Singapore
#15
Yeah, Fully mechanical cameras are the best man. will not fail even if a nuclear warhead hits nearby, causing shockwaves. Like that broken arrow show. :bsmilie:

My mechanical kit: Rolleiflex 3.5F also very reliable!

Hacker said:
You are right about the FM2, fully mechanical.
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#17
yes, the person behind is important but in some condition when say u are on a two week amazon expedition without power sources. your mechanical camera will still perform while the digitial or semi automatic will die.

no one is blaming the camera but just stating the fact. this happens to me before.

but no doubt both gives good picture.
 

#18
drektster said:
yes, the person behind is important but in some condition when say u are on a two week amazon expedition without power sources. your mechanical camera will still perform while the digitial or semi automatic will die.

no one is blaming the camera but just stating the fact. this happens to me before.

but no doubt both gives good picture.

anything can happen to your rolls and rolls of bulky film during the expedition... as much as anything can happen to you, your mate, your guide, your GPS, or your 4WD or boat that runs on the electronic and oil, etcetc.. anything can happen besides a DSLR failure. again, don't blame the camera. ;pp

btw, i'm a mechnical OM1/2/3/4 SLR user and collector, speaking on behalf of murphy's law... ;p
 

drektster

New Member
Aug 28, 2005
149
0
0
#19
true, i also have experience when my film got damage by xray.

but i am not saying that manual camera has no cons.

both type has its pros and cons. it is up to the situation and scenario which you are using your camera.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#20
How can one compare? The most major effect on the image quality is the lens, followed by the steadiness of the photog at the point of shutter release, and the quality of the film chosen.

Then you have to ask, are you comparing an 8 MP DSLR, 10 MP DSLR or 16 MP DSLR with the film SLR?

If you really want to know the answer, you'd have to do it scientifically-- same lens, same subject, same conditions, same exposure, etc.

In general, we can say that film has more resolution (esp ISO 25/50) than most current DSLRs, but the gap is closing with every new DSLR released. Colour-wise, tone-wise it's a matter of personal preference. They are different, but to say A is better than B is a difficult statement. If you have enough experience, you'll be able to see that certain films have a certain look to them which might appeal to you more than others.


drektster said:
no doubt i have seen photo taken by both dslr and slr. they are all very good.

but personally i think that a slr film photo has a better ambience compare to a dslr.

please correct me if i am wrong. but a friend keep telling me that dslr is far superior than a slr.

is that true. but from the picture they took, i found that when editing there are color displaccment in bright are on a digital photo.

i dun know if a photo (film) is scan to a very high res and edited in a higher res. will the effect be samiliar.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom