Sign in to follow this  
Beefsteak

Film photography V Digital

Recommended Posts

Not to mention the Zenith Photosniper...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit bloody cumbersome that thing !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon here got some 2.8 lenses & that means that you are set to stick with Nikon unless you win the lottery

Same goes with Canon you get good lenses thats it you stick with Canon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the modern lenses are made as good as the old lenses.

Canon FD series of lenses of the 1970s were of superior build quality when compared with todays.

Both the lens

fdfront.jpg

And the mount

fdmount.jpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get an adapter but you lose the electronics.

Lens Reversers make them excellent Macro lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years I had Canon film cameras, but for some reason changed over to Nikon once I went digital. I now have a D300 (which is a DX) and I can't fault it. I reckon it beats the Canon hands down in low light situations. Lenses tend to be more expensive than Canon, but as I mainly use primes, I don't pay out silly money for fast telephotos.

Strangely, I have stuck with Canon for compacts - I never go anywhere without a camera. I have had a series of Ixus models, which work well providing there's plenty of light (not so well when there isn't) and last year treated myself to a Powershot S95. It doesn't fit quite so snugly into my pocket, but has full manual control and most importantly, can take RAW pictures (I'm a great fan of Photoshop). I also have a Canon G12, which is the nearest thing they do to a bridge camera (but no interchangeable lenses).

Taken with 7mp Ixus

5378251581_77f54ba044_o.jpg

Besides portraits/weddings/etc from which I earn a few shekels, I do motorsport, so can't use compacts for this due to shutter lag (not as bad as older cameras, but still a problem with compacts) but the Nikon is superb for that. Although that is the only time I don't shoot in RAW, due to speed/buffering.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A busy wasp? Or is it a worker bee? Could be either. I used to wonder why wasps existed, considering the nuisance they can be and then I read what Compo had to say on them and he described well their reason for being. Now I know of the vital part wasps have to play in nature. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital is getting better by the years, I doubt picture quality will improve more by the pixel count though, seems the camera companies are still in the pixel wars.

I can understand pros who take photos for posters needing terra pixel. but the average person taking snapshots would ever notice the difference between am 8Mp camera and a 12Mp camera.

A site I frequent has many pros who just use 12Mp DSLR's, seems the most common pro cameras are the Cannons in the wedding, family portrait crowd.

Mines a 12.3Mp, and I've enlarged a "RAW format" until the picture starts to deteriorate, and believe me, I'd never enlarge a photo to that size anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Suffer" isn't eaxactly an appropriate word to describe the Hoverfly (Yeas that is what it is!) . They don't have a sting and are therefore harmless. Again they do far more good than harm as they do a lot of pollinating.

My EOS550D is 18 meg, and boy do you notice the difference between that and the old 40d which is just 10.1 meg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the Mps or the newer techonology and software though Ian??? Seems a lot of pros are sticking around 12 Mps.

I think it comes back to cameras in the old sense, give a top of the line SLR 35mm camera to a rank amateur and he still won't take any pictures better than he did with a Brownie box camera, yet top pros could take some superb photos with a Brownie that nobody could tell the difference between it and his expensive SLR.

Today I think we equate that thinking with software, both in camera and post editing.

Some of the earlier "Bridge" cameras Kodak made around 8Mps produce some remarkable images as good if not better than our DSLR's.

Sure if you want to produce 20 by 15 posters the lack of more Mps becomes apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to think that the megapixel wars have become a bit like the "watts per channel" wars of a few years ago in the hi-fi business. After a certain point it becomes irrelevant unless you are trying to fill a room the size of the Albert hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zacktly! Who will spend the brass on the 28Mps plus cameras, they work out at around $1000 per Mps. From what I read, only the high class pro's use those cameras. Posters, Fashion and of course National Geographic magazine require that sort of quality. I'm sure there's a 68Mps camera out now, but with a hefty price tag.

For someone who won't edit their snaps, my wifes Kodak "bridge" camera takes some great photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beefsteak, I feel that 'suffer' is an appropriate verb to use concerning the humble hoverfly in my case: for the past nine years that I have lived in my property, swarms of them have converged around my kitchen window, under the porch - trapped in their flight path.

I do suffer them because I like to sit on my garden seat under the porch - maybe have a cup of tea in between breaks from gardening - and no matter what I do, example: carefully swat them back out into the garden, the naughty little so and so's insist on flying back up to the kitchen window. Any ideas on what I can do to stop this? Would be most grateful. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this technical, photographic jargon; over the years I've worked wonders with my simple, little Olympus. It's all about knowing when the quality of light is right. :)

PS: I've had a couple of photographs accepted and exhibited in the prestigious 'Nottingham Castle's Open Exhibition'.

Not bragging but it's all about capturing the right light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the "subject matter" too, I've missed many a good shot over the years through not having a camera with me, one was a dog with his paws on a shop door window looking in. I could have kicked myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find I get a lot "sharper" images with the new camera and more pixels , it seems to be easier to edit them. Look at those Moon pictures I posted for example , and they were all taken hand held too !!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/beefsteak44/sets/72157629209984367/

You may be right about it being the new technology making it better , but I doubt there's been much advance made (Other than the pixel count) over the space of a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better chips overall, Ian, better on camera software, some have larger sensors but not in our price range.

There's even a mirrorless "DSLR" out now.

Electronics over the last 40 years has been advancing in leaps and bounds, although computer CPU's have remained stagnant, due to coming as far as anyone can with technology getting to the end of the road for designers. Only thing chip designers could do was double up and triple and now quad CPU's in one package to gain extra speed.

"We" have to find an alternate to silicon now that allows closer spacing of solid state junctions, maybe even find an alternate to semi conductor technology? Most of us still have a knowledge of valve technology and recall it's demise, not totally yet though, as many high power transmitters still use vacuum tubes in the drivers and finals. Then along came germanium, was soon ousted by silicon.

Who knows what next year will bring??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was only a few years ago down at the local camera club, some were saying.

"digital will never match the quality of film.

Having used a 5x4 (inches) sheet film camera, I can say.

It still has a lot of catching up to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll happen Mick, as sensors get bigger and better. TV cameras have been digital for a number of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this