| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2004 08:10:09 PM · #1 |
Hi everyone,
I have a Canon 10D which I totally recommend both in terms of image quality and value for money. I am about to buy a film camera, too - the EOS 1v HS. Before buying a new one, I thought I'd quickly check that no DPC members were seeking to off-load one as they traded-up to digital.
If you have a mint 1v HS for sale, please email me at corporatelegal@yahoo.com for a speedy and serious offer.
Thank you,
Steven |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 12:13:53 AM · #2 |
| Why would you want a 35mm camera? Digital far surpasses that format. Get a Mark III. :D |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 03:50:40 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 04:20:09 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why would you want a 35mm camera? Digital far surpasses that format. Get a Mark III. :D |
I still don't believe that digital can do tonal range like film can - there just isn't the resolution available. This is why so many digital photographers shoot for punchy colours - in that area I would say its far superior. Do you believe there are only 256 shades of black?
E
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 07:21:06 AM · #5 |
Thanks Ed, for your comforting words! I thought carefully for several days about whether it was appropriate and acceptable for me to use a digital forum to discuss analogue equipment.
In the end I decided there was a realistic possibility that a UK-based DPC member might have a 1VHS for sale, and be pleased to sell it while it has substantial value.
I love the immediacy of digital, which allows endless testing and instant review of exposures. I love my 10D and think it's the best value available, although the Canon 1Ds has recently had a tempting price-drop. The 1Ds can now be had for £4,799 at both //warehouseexpress.com (10% deposit on purchase and the balance, interest-free, in January 2005) and the fast and courteous //www.parkcameras.com (my local Sussex dealer who supplied my 10D).
Despite this, I still have a liking for film - it is great to load-up with a roll of something between ASA 50 and 800. Then there are the lovely big prints you get, which can be passed around friends without the need for computer intervention.
Basically, I love both digital and analogue and think each has powerful attractions and strengths. At least for the next 3 - 5 years, I want the pleasure of shooting both!
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 09:03:47 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by e301:
Do you believe there are only 256 shades of black? |
No, which is why cameras like the 10D have a "raw" format that outputs all 12 bits from the sensor, and raw conversion programs that generate 16-bit TIFF output... resulting in 4,096 "shades of black" from the camera (or 68.7 million colors, compared to the "standard" 16.8 million from an 8-bit device)... |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 12:58:44 PM · #7 |
My point was digital vs. 35mm film. You get more detail, larger prints, and flexibility. I love film. But I only shoot it with my 6x7 cameras. Even that is a hard comparison to the files on the 1Ds. But I miss the anticipation of waiting for film to get back from the lab and looking at them on a light table to see if you got it. Digital is too easy, instataneous feedback on whether it's a good shot or not. No life or death you better have skill to get that shot stuff.
But if the choice is 35mm or an 8 megapixel or higher digital, then digital wins hands down. The depth of film is about 16bit, a little more. But the human eye can't see (on the average) more than 16bit.
I can get a 40x50 print from my 1Ds, do that with 35mm and compare. It actually compares to the quality of velvia on my pentax 67. :D |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 02:13:07 PM · #8 |
I'm torn really, with the idea of getting a film back. My girlfriend has a manual Minolta with a 50mm f2, her only lens, and she makes brilliant photos with it. It is a joy to use...light, bulletproof (she just throws it on the floor of the car if nedessary) and it has a brilliant, bright, large viewfinder with a split window focus screen. I like relying on my skill when shooting with it and I like the anticipation of getting film back from the developers.
I'm thinking of getting a 35/2 or a 28/1.8 (I have a 28 2.8 but it's not fast enough) and using it like her camera for a while. Shooting in RAW and just taking the card to the developers' and seeing what comes out of it...for snapshots at least. THere's a professional developers down the street that proceses RAW. I'd really like to have a camera with a full-sized viewfinder, even though I know that my 10D can produce prints comparable to a 4x5 print. I've made 8x10 prints from my prime lenses that are as good as anything I've seen from a medium-format camera.
I think I might look for a used EF-mount film body as a backup and shoot some stuff with my 50 for a larf. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 03:07:17 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by e301:
Do you believe there are only 256 shades of black? |
No, which is why cameras like the 10D have a "raw" format that outputs all 12 bits from the sensor, and raw conversion programs that generate 16-bit TIFF output... resulting in 4,096 "shades of black" from the camera (or 68.7 million colors, compared to the "standard" 16.8 million from an 8-bit device)... |
Yeah - I was being a little specious there. But some of that point remains valid. The organic process of film definitely gives an effect that digital lacks, even in the greatest hands. Just like the vinyl/CD argument ... the answer to the question 'which is better?' is 'neither - they're different'.
As a subsidiary point, does anyone know what the theoretical resolution, in terms of Mpx, of 35mm film is?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 03:42:09 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by e301:
Do you believe there are only 256 shades of black? |
No, which is why cameras like the 10D have a "raw" format that outputs all 12 bits from the sensor, and raw conversion programs that generate 16-bit TIFF output... resulting in 4,096 "shades of black" from the camera (or 68.7 million colors, compared to the "standard" 16.8 million from an 8-bit device)... |
Yeah - I was being a little specious there. But some of that point remains valid. The organic process of film definitely gives an effect that digital lacks, even in the greatest hands. Just like the vinyl/CD argument ... the answer to the question 'which is better?' is 'neither - they're different'.
As a subsidiary point, does anyone know what the theoretical resolution, in terms of Mpx, of 35mm film is? |
Lets just compare it to final output size. If you can get a 24x36 print from a 35mm neg or chrome your lucky. Now, my 11mp can do a 40x50 and look pretty good.
Film is better for long exposures so far... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:26:49 PM EDT.
