35mm Film or Digital
Posted by: Martin D on 04 January 2004
Hi Guys
I’ve been out of photography for about 15 years due to young family, time, moving house etc. and at the time sold my Nikon FM body 24mm 50mm and 105mm lenses which I regret BIG TIME. However, I’m in the market for another camera / system now but would appreciate anyone’s comment as I’ve seen some interesting film and camera threads already. Basically I was tempted into the digital age but am put off completely now and am considering things like:
Buy 2nd hand the sort of thing I had and loved at the time.
Similar to the above but maybe go a little up market - 2nd hand like Nikon F3 and a few lenses ( are the older “pro” items still easy to get fixed or serviced?)
New type quality kit like EOS 1 or 3 and a couple of their zooms – are they now as good as fixed primaries ?
Bearing in mind it would be nice if the said stuff didn’t plummet in value should I ever want to sell or change it (which I wouldn’t want to, but you know what I mean)
And finally film v digital. What got me thinking against digital was reading 2 things one, that a top quality film likes one of the slow Fuji’s (50 ASA?) was roughly equivalent to having a sensor with the resolution of 30 Mega Pixels plus and two, the fact that some prints can fade in only a few years.
Maybe I should go for one of those strange Leica range finder items but I’m very used to the SLR format.
Confused from the West Country
Martin
I’ve been out of photography for about 15 years due to young family, time, moving house etc. and at the time sold my Nikon FM body 24mm 50mm and 105mm lenses which I regret BIG TIME. However, I’m in the market for another camera / system now but would appreciate anyone’s comment as I’ve seen some interesting film and camera threads already. Basically I was tempted into the digital age but am put off completely now and am considering things like:
Buy 2nd hand the sort of thing I had and loved at the time.
Similar to the above but maybe go a little up market - 2nd hand like Nikon F3 and a few lenses ( are the older “pro” items still easy to get fixed or serviced?)
New type quality kit like EOS 1 or 3 and a couple of their zooms – are they now as good as fixed primaries ?
Bearing in mind it would be nice if the said stuff didn’t plummet in value should I ever want to sell or change it (which I wouldn’t want to, but you know what I mean)
And finally film v digital. What got me thinking against digital was reading 2 things one, that a top quality film likes one of the slow Fuji’s (50 ASA?) was roughly equivalent to having a sensor with the resolution of 30 Mega Pixels plus and two, the fact that some prints can fade in only a few years.
Maybe I should go for one of those strange Leica range finder items but I’m very used to the SLR format.
Confused from the West Country
Martin
Digital fan here.
Sunset Crater, near Flagstaff, Arizona January 2004.
Fuji 4700 camera.
John.
Sunset Crater, near Flagstaff, Arizona January 2004.
Fuji 4700 camera.
John.
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
LTD
Accentuate the positive
Ok 35mm is still better than digital.
That is positive.
Go on, be a divil and show us a close up of yer crusher.
Fritz Von David drinks bailey's
N..B. The Blair Peech, I mean speech nearly had me in tears, so it did.
Regards
Mick
PS I do not have a clue how to send pics but I can send one of mine to anyone via email if they can post it here.
Then you can tell me what you think of mine from a quality viewpoint.
quote:
'wet-film'
can someone tell me what 'dry-film' cameras are then
John
I'd doesn't matter what some of the others say about your picture, if you like it , job done.
Julian
John,
In my opinion your picture works only as a momento of a place from your holiday and as a photograph there are obvious fundamental flaws:
1. It's a very bland subject -- it is literally a picture of tree, by a car park in front of a hill.
2. The sun is low in the sky and it's a beautiful day and there is strong directional light, but your photograph doesn't capture this and appears flat, dull and lifeless.
3. It's poorly composed. If you wanted to take a pictured of that tree you should have walked across the car park or zoomed in or something. As it turned out you have the subject (the tree) way off in the distance so we can hardly see it, a pointless strip of bland sky at the top and a bit of scrub land / car park in the foreground.
(If you crop it down, predominantly off the top, you'll notice it immediately becomes a better picture of the tree and a rather more harmonious composition can be achieved).
Anyway the point is not to critique your picture (although I have to say that you will learn and improve more in a single picture critique thread than a lifetime of gear/tech threads) but to lament the endless obsession with issues like Film Vs Digital, and shadow detail to the detriment of discussions about pictures and photgraphy.
"Not bad for a camera available now for around £200"
That photograph could very easily have been taken on a cheap film compact and it would have looked *exactly* the same. And, if you'd picked up a cheap-but-good compact like a Yashica T4 and used some film suited to your subject (Velvia say) the results would have been a lot better. And I maintain this is true whatever the views of the people on the "Gadget Show" (Have they covered CD players yet? What was their conclusion?).
"This debate is probably akin to the CD vs Turntable discussions we have here"
A far more accurate analogy would be the difference between those who talk about music and those who talk about latest uber product from Naim (or whoever).
Having said all that, I will give you kudos for two important things:
1) You actually posted a picture which most people don't.
2) You have realised that you don't need an expensive camera to take photographs (although I think you are missing the point that it's not becuase they are good as much as the better ones don't actually help you take better pictures)
Julian said "I'd doesn't matter what some of the others say about your picture, if you like it , job done"
That is, of course, true in a reductive sense and it's exactly how most people approach photography. But if that is your view then you might as well stick with the cheap compact and some snapshot memories of friends, familys and holidays (which is not a bad thing, just an unremarkable thing).
Matthew
PPS You should not put "photographic paper" into your printer. What you want is inkjet paper.
PPS If you are going to take a picture of a tree in a bland landscape you need to ratchet up the interest with a dramatic composition and/or dramatic light and colour. For exmaple:
Note that whatever one thinks of these pictures, the fact that there is some blocked up shadows on the truck is almost entirely irrelevant.
In my opinion your picture works only as a momento of a place from your holiday and as a photograph there are obvious fundamental flaws:
1. It's a very bland subject -- it is literally a picture of tree, by a car park in front of a hill.
2. The sun is low in the sky and it's a beautiful day and there is strong directional light, but your photograph doesn't capture this and appears flat, dull and lifeless.
3. It's poorly composed. If you wanted to take a pictured of that tree you should have walked across the car park or zoomed in or something. As it turned out you have the subject (the tree) way off in the distance so we can hardly see it, a pointless strip of bland sky at the top and a bit of scrub land / car park in the foreground.
(If you crop it down, predominantly off the top, you'll notice it immediately becomes a better picture of the tree and a rather more harmonious composition can be achieved).
Anyway the point is not to critique your picture (although I have to say that you will learn and improve more in a single picture critique thread than a lifetime of gear/tech threads) but to lament the endless obsession with issues like Film Vs Digital, and shadow detail to the detriment of discussions about pictures and photgraphy.
"Not bad for a camera available now for around £200"
That photograph could very easily have been taken on a cheap film compact and it would have looked *exactly* the same. And, if you'd picked up a cheap-but-good compact like a Yashica T4 and used some film suited to your subject (Velvia say) the results would have been a lot better. And I maintain this is true whatever the views of the people on the "Gadget Show" (Have they covered CD players yet? What was their conclusion?).
"This debate is probably akin to the CD vs Turntable discussions we have here"
A far more accurate analogy would be the difference between those who talk about music and those who talk about latest uber product from Naim (or whoever).
Having said all that, I will give you kudos for two important things:
1) You actually posted a picture which most people don't.
2) You have realised that you don't need an expensive camera to take photographs (although I think you are missing the point that it's not becuase they are good as much as the better ones don't actually help you take better pictures)
Julian said "I'd doesn't matter what some of the others say about your picture, if you like it , job done"
That is, of course, true in a reductive sense and it's exactly how most people approach photography. But if that is your view then you might as well stick with the cheap compact and some snapshot memories of friends, familys and holidays (which is not a bad thing, just an unremarkable thing).
Matthew
PPS You should not put "photographic paper" into your printer. What you want is inkjet paper.
PPS If you are going to take a picture of a tree in a bland landscape you need to ratchet up the interest with a dramatic composition and/or dramatic light and colour. For exmaple:
Note that whatever one thinks of these pictures, the fact that there is some blocked up shadows on the truck is almost entirely irrelevant.