Camera Poll

[Len]

Just curious

 

[Anonymous]

I just made the switch from film to digital. The instant feedback you get from digital is hard to beat. I won't be giving away my trusty Nikon FM2 anytime soon though.

I am debating what to bring on my trip to Arizona and New Mexico in June - digicam only, or digicam + film camera.

 

[azcaddman]

arizona in june... ha, like it warm?

Art (in Phoenix)

 

[Anonymous]

arizona in june... ha, like it warm?

Art (in Phoenix)

But its a dry heat! 8)

We will be staying on the Kaibab Plateau where it isn't as hot, but I expect to give the AC a workout driving there.

 

[mkirda]

I am debating what to bring on my trip to Arizona and New Mexico in June - digicam only, or digicam + film camera.

Jeez... No question... I'd rent a 4x5 from Helix for a week, just to try it out...
Nothing like large format in such dramatic scenery...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

I am debating what to bring on my trip to Arizona and New Mexico in June - digicam only, or digicam + film camera.

Jeez... No question... I'd rent a 4x5 from Helix for a week, just to try it out...
Nothing like large format in such dramatic scenery...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Which brings up a question that's been mulling over in the back of my mind for awhile. With some of the newer D-SLRs, you can get such high-resolution images that you could conceivably go up to poster-size prints with little to no loss of image clarity. What, then would be the advantage (or even comparison) of a large-format film camera?

 

[azcaddman]

advantages.. hmm, lets see... tilt lens?, that 'cool' factor of a negative the size of most people's prints?, the 'fun' of going to the 1 place in town that can develop or print from it?

Art (who uses nikon cp5k for 'fun' and 35mm (velvia usually) for the 'serious' stuff)

 

[mkirda]

Which brings up a question that's been mulling over in the back of my mind for awhile. With some of the newer D-SLRs, you can get such high-resolution images that you could conceivably go up to poster-size prints with little to no loss of image clarity. What, then would be the advantage (or even comparison) of a large-format film camera?

Hmm... I'm gonna lose this argument no matter if I win it or...

Ok, Let's talk about pixels. A sheet of 35mm film will resolve down to its grain, which is anywhere between 4000 and 6000 pixels per inch, depending on the slide film used.

The Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 resolves down to 4000 dpi, which yields an image of roughly 4000 x 6000 pixels. In megapixels, that is 24 megapixels.
Roughly 5 times what the best consumer level digicams would achieve. And twice what the highest D-SLR will (that I am aware of...).

Now, take that up to 4 x 5. That is then 16000 x 20000 pixels. Or 320 megapixels.

Either way, estimating grain very conservatively, film beats digital by at least 2:1.

Will it be that way forever?
No, probably not. Eventually, digital will catch up.
I'm looking forward to that day, actually.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

I started photography in high school in the 70's. I used a 35mm rangefinder and shot black and white. In 1981 I bought a Pentax ME Super 35mm which I still use today. I've had it into the shop once since '81. I got my digital last November and haven't put a roll of film through the Pentax since. I'm in the process of scanning the 1000's of pictures I've taken, and now have the slide adapter which works pretty well. It also does negatives. My eventual goal is to have them all burned on CD. I'm hoping one day to be as comfortable with my digital as I am with my Pentax. I also think this forum was a great idea.

Regards, Eric

 

[gregr]

how big of a print do you want? that's what it comes down to really. with the 4x5 you can cover your livingroom wall practically.
8x10's are what people ask for most often. i have a 6mp camera that makes 18mb files (when the raw file is converted to a tiff)- good enough for nice big prints- in fact, i just had a 16x20 made on a Fuji Lightjet that is really stunning- like looking thru a window at the real thing.
as for which camera to bring- don't leave the film behind- you're going to wide angle lens country (i was just there last month) and i highly recommend having the 35mm equivalent of a 20mm lens.
greg

 

[Hyolee]

I agree with Mike.

I think in terms of picture quality, film still beats digital. In terms of picture quality / $, film rapes digital. If you want high quality images, but don't want to spend $$$ on dSLR's that will become dated in 2 years, get a nice Nikon N80. Most consumer stuff is pretty crappy. I have a Canon S30 and while I'm happy with it, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that with the same amount of money, i couldn't do better in terms of picture quality going film. Nikon N65 ($250) & 50mm 1.8 ($100) vs. Canon S30 ($400). Obviously there are other merits to digital (sharing, immediate feedback, etc), but for picture quality (and especially pq/$) it will take a while for digital to catch up. I am looking forward to digital though. With the Canon 10D and Nikon D100 it looks like in a few years we can get a dSLR of adequate quality for less than 500 bones.

 

[Anonymous]

I started photography in high school in the 70's. I used a 35mm rangefinder and shot black and white. In 1981 I bought a Pentax ME Super 35mm which I still use today. I've had it into the shop once since '81. I got my digital last November and haven't put a roll of film through the Pentax since. Regards, Eric

I sold my Pentax ME Super SE and all the stuff just a few months back. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 885 last summer and never touched the Pentax again either.

 

[Anonymous]

you guys are scaring me. i bought my first digital yesterday. I bought it as an always-on-me point and shoot. I bought the cannon A300. 3.2 megapixels for $200. Not bad for what I will end up using it for.

I've got a cannon Elan IIe that is my primary shooter. I hope I'm not going to stop using it altogether! (well, I could sell all the darkroom stuff I have and get a 10D.)

Brett