| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2005 10:27:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Originally posted by blad:
Originally posted by nfessel:
I never realized how much I love my camera until yesterday. I had to drop it off at the camera shop to have the CCD cleaned. I can't believe that there is already dust on it after only 2000 exposures.
The camera shop showed me how dust can easily enter the camera body and sensor. Take the lens off your dslr and rotate the lens body (zoom in and out). Put a hand by the hole in the rear of the lens, and you will actually feel air blowing out of the hole, and ultimately (if the lens is attached), sucked into the camera body. I never realized how easy it is to get air (and dust) in there
Sensor dust is not a major issue with film cameras, because the "sensor" (emulsion) is not static-the exposures are made on a "clean slate" (new film section) each time (unless you shoot multiple exposures on one section of course). Compact digital cameras do not suffer from CCD dust (normally) because the lens is sealed in the camera body. I took 10,000 exposures with my compact Nikon Coolpix 4500 and NEVER had dust on the sensor.
In the future, I hope that lens/camera manufacturers will address this mounting issue with DSLRs.
My one day of hell is almost over. I get to pick up my 20D at 4pm today, hopefully dust-free. :) |
I am new with DP and aware of it shortcomings with dust, However photography from it's early days has always battled the dust and I think it will not be solved soon or ever. For this reason many have turn back to film. As image gatherers we need to utilize the medium that best suits the condition of the shoot. |
Although others may have had different experiences, the only dust I've ever had to be concerned with when using film is the dust on the negative, which can be easily swiped off with a $15.00 (one-time price) photo cloth.
I just created my own personal list of the advantages and disadvantages of digital versus film, and I have to say that the only major disadvantages about film is the cost of the film, the cost of processing, and the lack of immediate feedback about the image. Other than that, film has many more advantages over digital. I can even get 25 ISO speed film, which isn't possible with the 20D (goes down to 100 ISO). And I can experiment with cool saturation effects (Fuji Velvia), and use the great black and white films (Ilford, etc.) Film takes the cake for me. Too bad I had to spend over $1500 to come to the conclusion. Oh well, live and learn I guess. I'm glad I came to a firm decision. |
I am in agreement if the issue is cost. THE CHOICE THAT YOU MAKE WILL NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU ACCOMPLISH.BW films are far superior, |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 10:53:12 PM · #27 |
Blad,
Yes, I have to say, cost is the only major factor between film and digital. But in some ways, I believe I am getting more for my money when using film, because of the higher number of film/lens options and the fact that the quality of the image is better (neater, cooler), especially with black and white film, which I love to use.
Message edited by author 2005-05-14 22:58:26. |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:02:20 PM · #28 |
I recently did what Alionic suggested that you try, and now have both film and digital Rebel cameras, both of which use the same lenses. It's a lot of fun shooting with both since they each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Have you looked into the digital cameras that have self-cleaning sensors? I believe the Olympus bodies come standard with ultrasonic sensor cleaning and I can't imagine why this isn't a standard feature on all digital SLRs. For that matter, in-camera image stabilization should be a standard feature on all SLRs too. Why should I have to pay extra to get image stabilization on each lens when I can just pay once to have it included in the camera body? It's a scam I tells ya! :-)
|
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:10:45 PM · #29 |
| My local camera shop will clean my sensor for $3.00. They do it while I wait -- in fact, they do it right in front of me. I've had it done twice. I could learn to do it (they swab it) but for $3, I'll let them do it. Takes all of three minutes. |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:16:37 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by boomer:
My local camera shop will clean my sensor for $3.00. They do it while I wait -- in fact, they do it right in front of me. I've had it done twice. I could learn to do it (they swab it) but for $3, I'll let them do it. Takes all of three minutes. |
$3.00 would buy a roll of film instead of having to spend money cleaning the machine. :) |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:17:55 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
I recently did what Alionic suggested that you try, and now have both film and digital Rebel cameras, both of which use the same lenses. It's a lot of fun shooting with both since they each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Have you looked into the digital cameras that have self-cleaning sensors? I believe the Olympus bodies come standard with ultrasonic sensor cleaning and I can't imagine why this isn't a standard feature on all digital SLRs. For that matter, in-camera image stabilization should be a standard feature on all SLRs too. Why should I have to pay extra to get image stabilization on each lens when I can just pay once to have it included in the camera body? It's a scam I tells ya! :-) |
I firmly believe that the advantages of film outweigh the advantages of digital. My own opinion and I'm sure others have a different opinion. When I stopped using film, after finishing my black and white photography class, and went to digital, I noticed that my images didn't have the same "pop" that they had when I used film, and since then, I haven't been completely satisfied with digital. I chalked this up to the fact that digital can't render the same information that film can, but I kept shoot digitally for 3 years. Perhaps digital can now render images "better", but digital can't render images the SAME as film. I love that classic black and white look, and you just cannot get it from digital. Period. Digital b&w always looks somehow too smooth and shiny and desaturated instead of pure b&w. Anyone who disagrees, please show me an example.
I know that film is a better fit for me, and I am going back. I only get one chance at this. Life only happens once, and I don't want to limit myself for the sake of convenience.
Message edited by author 2005-05-14 23:34:09. |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:35:38 PM · #32 |
I don't think anyone will argue with you that film, in general, is capable of producing higher quality images than digital at this point. It doesn't really matter which camera type you choose as long as you're happy with it and know how to take advantage of its particular strengths to get consistently good results. Good luck with your new camera, Nick! :-)
|
|
|
|
05/14/2005 11:57:34 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
I don't think anyone will argue with you that film, in general, is capable of producing higher quality images than digital at this point. It doesn't really matter which camera type you choose as long as you're happy with it and know how to take advantage of its particular strengths to get consistently good results. Good luck with your new camera, Nick! :-) |
Thanks Philip. I appreciate it. :) |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 12:11:16 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Blad,
Yes, I have to say, cost is the only major factor between film and digital. But in some ways, I believe I am getting more for my money when using film, because of the higher number of film/lens options and the fact that the quality of the image is better (neater, cooler), especially with black and white film, which I love to use. |
nfessel, You have just become one of my favorites. Your commitment is commendable. Your choice is single minded. The porfolio I look at is focused and clean. I would like to continue to view your photographs. There can be a way you will do both mediums. I am confident of that. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 09:48:51 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by blad:
Originally posted by nfessel:
Blad,
Yes, I have to say, cost is the only major factor between film and digital. But in some ways, I believe I am getting more for my money when using film, because of the higher number of film/lens options and the fact that the quality of the image is better (neater, cooler), especially with black and white film, which I love to use. |
nfessel, You have just become one of my favorites. Your commitment is commendable. Your choice is single minded. The porfolio I look at is focused and clean. I would like to continue to view your photographs. There can be a way you will do both mediums. I am confident of that. |
Blad,
Thank you! I really appreciate it. I shall upload my best film shots to dpchallenge, so be on the lookout. And one of these days I'll have my own online portfolio (web site).
Thank you for your comment about my work. Comments like that keep me going and make me realize that I can't do wrong, I can only learn and continue to get better. Thanks again and good luck to you with the challenges. :)
-Nick
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 09:49:27. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 10:47:50 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
In the future, I hope that lens/camera manufacturers will address this mounting issue with DSLRs. |
Olympus E-Volt
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 10:50:56.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2005 11:29:48 AM · #37 |
A forum that began as a cleaning sensor thread became a digital vs film one. So I'll give my opinion to both.
I've just came home to pass the pictures of a photo session with my brother's band for advertisement. And a major dust came out in the pictures. More than dust. A kind of "u" fiber is filling some empty blue skyes with it's u shape. And I blowen my sensor with a blower yesterday when I was preparing the camera. Has I readed before I gess blowing only gets the dust from one side to the other, and then it will fall over the sensor again. So tonight is sensor cleaning again. For the money tht yiu've paied I have bought 1 sensorwand, 100 pecpads and a botle of Eclipse. So I gess for the msame money I'll be doind 100 cleanings. The only issue is that Microtools site has charged the things twice.
For the other and more delicate issue: And this is only my humble opinion:
YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!. Uff, I just had to say this. Yesterday I was reading an interview of Carl de Keyzer, photografer for Magnum. He recently adquired a Canon EOS 1Ds MkII, and he never looked back. He doesen't ever uses his Mamya 6x7 anymore! I think your cameras must be broken or with some kind of defect. And why should it be equal to shoot digital or film? Is it equal to shoot Minolta or Nikon? Or Canon and Sigma? Of couse not! Each to his own. Every camera has it's own personalaty, each film has it's own characteristics, their own color rendition. Even each lens for crying out loud. So why should be equal to shoot digital and film? Of couse that they have diferences. But it's in the eyes of the beholder to take the "instrument" and to use it accordingly to achieve the final "piece".
|
|
|
|
05/15/2005 11:32:57 AM · #38 |
Nfessel, are you unhappy with the image quality as viewed on your monitor, or in print as well? If the answer is only on your monitor, then I would say it's an unfair comparison you're making between film and digital, as an image on the monitor is a result of light shining through it, and thus much harder to produce the deeper richer shadows you seek in film. A print of a film image is a reflectance from an opaque object (paper) and so easier to get those deep tones.
Unless you are willing to do your own film post processing in the darkroom, and deal with all the chemicals (which can be toxic), digital allows you full control of your image in every respect. To me, that's a very important part of digital...YOU are fully in control of the image's final appearance, and not a darkroom, or print lab technician. or
As has already been pointed out by a few posters, Olympus E-system cameras have an ultrasonic cleaning device that works very well and is automatically put in operation with every startup of the camera or initiated manually by the user. I'm sure that the other camera manufacturers are aware of the problems of dust on sensors and will be addressing this issue as newer models come out. In addition, Olympus cameras are constructed very well and have good ergonomics. Though they may have slightly more noise at higher ISOs it is very easily cleaned up in noise reduction software and the noise appears like film grain. Dynamic range is very wide and color is superb. Plus, their lenses are exceptional.
There are pros and cons to both and I would hope that you don't leave digital completely. All of the film manufacturers are taking big losses in sales and have closed down film production plants. Digital, imo, is the way to go and is worth learning. I can hear your frustration but the major thing with digital is the learning curve and the willingness to work at the entire process of producing your vision. You may leave digital for only a short while, but I would imagine that at some point, you will return.
Good luck in your decision. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 12:05:11 PM · #39 |
| I have been thinking about upgrading to the 20D from the Rebel, but after seeing the amount of people that get dust inside there camera I might just keep my Rebel. Have had it for over a year with NO dust in the camera and I use zoom lenses all the time including the push pull Canon 100-400mm zoom. I think if you use a little caution while using your camera, you shouldn't get the dust inside. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:28:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Nfessel, are you unhappy with the image quality as viewed on your monitor, or in print as well? If the answer is only on your monitor, then I would say it's an unfair comparison you're making between film and digital, as an image on the monitor is a result of light shining through it, and thus much harder to produce the deeper richer shadows you seek in film. A print of a film image is a reflectance from an opaque object (paper) and so easier to get those deep tones.
Unless you are willing to do your own film post processing in the darkroom, and deal with all the chemicals (which can be toxic), digital allows you full control of your image in every respect. To me, that's a very important part of digital...YOU are fully in control of the image's final appearance, and not a darkroom, or print lab technician. or
As has already been pointed out by a few posters, Olympus E-system cameras have an ultrasonic cleaning device that works very well and is automatically put in operation with every startup of the camera or initiated manually by the user. I'm sure that the other camera manufacturers are aware of the problems of dust on sensors and will be addressing this issue as newer models come out. In addition, Olympus cameras are constructed very well and have good ergonomics. Though they may have slightly more noise at higher ISOs it is very easily cleaned up in noise reduction software and the noise appears like film grain. Dynamic range is very wide and color is superb. Plus, their lenses are exceptional.
There are pros and cons to both and I would hope that you don't leave digital completely. All of the film manufacturers are taking big losses in sales and have closed down film production plants. Digital, imo, is the way to go and is worth learning. I can hear your frustration but the major thing with digital is the learning curve and the willingness to work at the entire process of producing your vision. You may leave digital for only a short while, but I would imagine that at some point, you will return.
Good luck in your decision. |
Well I just bought a Nikon N80 and a Nikkor 28-100 lens. I am psyched!! :) To answer your question, with digital, I do not care for both the quality on the monitor AND the quality in print format. I never could get a great black and white print on the monitor or on the screen. Perhaps that is a failing on my part, but with film, I was ALWAYS able to print a clean crisp black and white shot that even looks good on the monitor. I challenge anyone to digitally mimic the effect that Ilford HP-5 Plus 400 film provides. It is probably close to impossible, unless you're a professional Photoshop user.
As for film companies going out of business, this is largely hype information. I can confidently say that film will never die. I am sure others disagree.
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 13:35:40. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:32:29 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by fsteddy:
I have been thinking about upgrading to the 20D from the Rebel, but after seeing the amount of people that get dust inside there camera I might just keep my Rebel. Have had it for over a year with NO dust in the camera and I use zoom lenses all the time including the push pull Canon 100-400mm zoom. I think if you use a little caution while using your camera, you shouldn't get the dust inside. |
I owned my EOS 20d for two months, and dust suddenly appeared. As for being cautious, I kept my camera free from dirty environments. I kept it in a camera bag and always kept a UV filter on the lens. I never removed the lens from the body, UNTIL I had the dust problem. Consider yourself lucky for not having dust issues. Anyway, I'm glad I switched to film. I don't plan on switching back until digital surpasses film, and even then, I may not switch back.
-Nick
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 13:36:26. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:35:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
.... I don't plan on switching back until digital surpasses film. That day will come, but it is not here yet, contrary to others' opinions. |
That has happened a looong time ago with the Canon 1Ds... |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:37:05 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by nfessel:
.... I don't plan on switching back until digital surpasses film. That day will come, but it is not here yet, contrary to others' opinions. |
That has happened a looong time ago with the Canon 1Ds... |
Who has $8000 for a camera? :) not me. I can shoot film and get the same effect with a $500 camera including lens.
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 13:37:35. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:38:58 PM · #44 |
And in terms of dust...well, have you ever tried digitizing a slide or film with a scanner? Sensor dust is nothing compared to that. And you will get dust too on film prints...my dad owned a photo lab and dust was a big problem on film, you would get squigglies on the print once in a while cuz dust or carpet fiber got on the film while the printing was happening...
|
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:40:21 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
And in terms of dust...well, have you ever tried digitizing a slide or film with a scanner? Sensor dust is nothing compared to that. And you will get dust too on film prints...my dad owned a photo lab and dust was a big problem on film, you would get squigglies on the print once in a while cuz dust or carpet fiber got on the film while the printing was happening... |
I'm well aware of dust. I worked in a darkroom and had to deal with it constantly. But there is a difference between having dust on the exposure (the actual shot) and having dust on the physical medium (after the shot) which can be wiped off. I'm not going to sit there in photoshop and try to clone the dust. That's ridiculous. :) I'm sure you agree.
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 13:41:19. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:41:32 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
...lm has many more advantages over digital. I can even get 25 ISO speed film, which isn't possible with the 20D (goes down to 100 ISO). And I can experiment with cool saturation effects (Fuji Velvia), and use the great black and white films (Ilford, etc.) Film takes the cake for me. Too bad I had to spend over $1500 to come to the conclusion. Oh well, live and learn I guess. I'm glad I came to a firm decision. |
I, personally, believe that digital SLRs these days are capable of a dynamic range which exceeds that of film, and that this difference is marked and quite easily discernible especially with Canon's pro bodies, if you shoot RAW and take advantage of appropiate glass as well.
Good black and white conversion methods, however, need to be used to exploit the dynamic potential of DSLRs. You just cannot, simply, remove colour data and adjust Levels/Curves and compare the ensuing results black and white film. Proper conversion methods exist but appear to be known and applied by the few and, not yet, by the many.
If you like the saturation of Velvia film, you may want to try Fred Miranda's 'Velvia Vision' plugin to achieve
a similar effect. Much can be done or 'prepped' already, IMO, via RAW conversion. If, however, you do not take full advantage of the dynamic potential of a DSLR by continuing to shoot JPG, then, of course film will continue to look more impressive...
|
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:41:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by nfessel:
.... I don't plan on switching back until digital surpasses film. That day will come, but it is not here yet, contrary to others' opinions. |
That has happened a looong time ago with the Canon 1Ds... |
Who has $8000 for a camera? :) not me. I can shoot film and get the same effect with a $500 camera including lens. |
Well you can get a 2nd hand 1Ds for pretty cheap these days. I guess you have to qualify your statement by saying you can't get film quality on a $400 digital when blowing up a 20x30. I blew up a 20x30 print with a shot taken by my 1D and the print is 10x better than any 35mm film blowup could ever make.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:42:59 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
...I'm well aware of dust. I worked in a darkroom and had to deal with it constantly. But there is a difference between having dust on the exposure (the actual shot) and having dust on the physical medium (after the shot) which can be wiped off. I'm not going to sit there in photoshop and try to clone the dust. That's ridiculous. :) I'm sure you agree. |
And it is as easy to remove dust on your sensor...a 2 minute job I do every so often... |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 01:44:12 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by nfessel:
...lm has many more advantages over digital. I can even get 25 ISO speed film, which isn't possible with the 20D (goes down to 100 ISO). And I can experiment with cool saturation effects (Fuji Velvia), and use the great black and white films (Ilford, etc.) Film takes the cake for me. Too bad I had to spend over $1500 to come to the conclusion. Oh well, live and learn I guess. I'm glad I came to a firm decision. |
I, personally, believe that digital SLRs these days are capable of a dynamic range which exceeds that of film, and that this difference is marked and quite easily discernible especially with Canon's pro bodies, if you shoot RAW and take advantage of appropiate glass as well.
Good black and white conversion methods, however, need to be used to exploit the dynamic potential of DSLRs. You just cannot, simply, remove colour data and adjust Levels/Curves and compare the ensuing results black and white film. Proper conversion methods exist but appear to be known and applied by the few and, not yet, by the many.
If you like the saturation of Velvia film, you may want to try Fred Miranda's 'Velvia Vision' plugin to achieve
a similar effect. Much can be done or 'prepped' already, IMO, via RAW conversion. If, however, you do not take full advantage of the dynamic potential of a DSLR by continuing to shoot JPG, then, of course film will continue to look more impressive... |
Your thoughts bring me to another point, and this is one of personal opinion, but I thought I'd share... I'd much rather spend more time shooting than sitting in front of a computer trying to apply effects. Capturing the shot is the most important thing. I really don't want to spend time trying to mimic film when I can just USE film. As for applying effects after the shot, when I get a great film shot, I will have it scanned digitally and do some manipulation, but I'll have a professional work on it with me. Just my opinion. :)
So I'm going to stop jabbering and get shooting. :)
Message edited by author 2005-05-15 13:46:53. |
|
|
|
05/15/2005 05:24:54 PM · #50 |
$50.00 for cleaning????? $3.00 for cleaning????
Where are you guys? The camera shop in Wash DC that handles Canons (where the Canon rep actually told me to send my 10D for it's "18 month general cleaning/calibrating", wants to charge me $165.00, NOT including overnight shipping to/from (so I won't be without for any length of time).
Now granted, this is for a little more than just cleaning the sensor, but looking at what you guys are paying, this seems a little outrageous to me.
|
|
