Quite impressive how a whining post by someone who got conned into paying too much for their sensor cleaning, and hadn't read enough before buying a dslr to realise that dust would actually be an issue, can quickly grow into a full-on "digital sucks, back to film!" thread. Since we're on a site dedicated to digital photography, i'll leave the argument itself well alone, but there were a couple of points that rather struck me:
Originally posted by nfessel:
I HATE the "zoom factor". That is ridiculous. |
The crop factor is a major plus for some photographers, especially wildlife photographers who generally use the longest lenses that are practical anyway. Either way, the crop factor is hardly a viable argument against digital in general, considering how many full-frame dslrs are available.
Originally posted by nfessel:
And not to mention all the worrying about whether or not the thing is going to operate correctly. |
Funny, that's generally one of the major reasons people give for switching over to digital from film - the ability to see instantly whether the thing has operated correctly rather than having to wait til your film is out of the developing tank, miles from that priceless unrepeatable shot, to find some tiny mistake.
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. |
At 35mm, this has not been true for quite some time. It's only at medium and large formats that film can still compete in terms of image quality alone, and even this is generally because of the ludicrous cost of the hasselblad etc digital backs.
|
