Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
lenses if the lens is very expensive?

I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>

Impossible, as the pro DSLRs use larger sensors (1.3x & full frame). So
even if the EF-S mount does become the standard on the Rebel & 20D line, the
EF mount will remain.

Mark
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

Please correct me if I am wrong but one of the advantages of using a
sub-35mm sensor, as I understand, was that the lenses would be smaller,
lighter and most importantly - faster in terms of aperture. The newer
P&S cameras often have fixed aperture or f2.8-3.5/4 throughout the zoom
range (3x - upto 12x). But the EF-S series doesn't seem to be any
faster than the EF series, for the same price.

- Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:16:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> But the EF mount lenses work on the larger sensored digital bodies,
the 1D
> mkII and 1Ds mkII, and the EF-S lenses don't, so film isn't the issue
here.

Right. My bad. I mixed up 35mm sensor/film vs sub-35mm with film vs
digital. That wasn't the intention.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:16:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Full frame won't be affordable in two or three years. It takes well over
twice as much silicon to make compared to a APS sized sensors. I'm not
saying it will ever be done, just not so soon. I estimate that APS sized
sensors are good for at least 12 MP before noise becomes an issue. Enjoy the
digital lenses!
John
February 22, 2005 11:15:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
Your ef-s wont work on full frame sensors :+(

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
February 22, 2005 11:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:111mc4g9s7u4582@corp.supernews.com...
> I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
> You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
> Your ef-s won't work on full frame sensors :+(
>
Canon is unlikely to make consumer level cameras in full-frame. Witness the
EF-S line of lenses.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:52:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>

I am not. Unless there was a moderately priced APS-C specific lens that I
just "had to have", I'm buying only 35MM lenses. It's only a matter of time
before full-frame sensor SLRs are available in the $1-$1.5K range. I'd be
surprised if it's more than 3 years.
February 22, 2005 12:12:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


I would definitely consider a cropped frame specific lens because it
would be smaller, lighter, less expensive and better performance. I
dread the idea of a huge log sized lens and I'm having trouble
justifying the expense of additional lenses of sufficient quality. It
seems there are lots of cropped frame DSLRs out there and will continue
to be a market for re-selling those lenses.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:

> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
>>dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

Artists are getting badly squeezed here, because they don't generally
have the volumes to really benefit financially from digital. For a
commercial studio, even the high-end medium format backs pay for
themselves in saved lab charges fairly quickly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi Andrew,

andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> But there aren't any full-frame super-wide lenses that are really
> sharp. The DX Nikkor 12-24mm at its wide end is just as sharp as the
> 14mm prime, if my attempt at decoding Nikon's charts is correct. So,
> while we've got small sensors, if we want sharp wide pictures then
> this is what we do. It's not like there's a choice.

I own the DX Nikkor 12-24. And it's definitvely as sharp as an optic in
that range can be. I've shot test pics on 100ASA film, and IMHO the
12-24 is the sharpest 24mm I've ever got. And it is really weaker
wieder open, it jsut does not fill the entire 24x26 frame. On 135 it is
a 17-24 zoom.

And due to the relatively low number of elements and lenses (even less
than some primes in that range) it is very contrasty and virtually
immune to ghosting

Benedikt
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:49:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A super-wide or fish-eye only, because there is otherwise not much choice. A
give-away kit lens is also acceptable.

To be realistic, though, I have to think that it makes little sense to put a
lens mount designed for film on a digital camera, no matter how big the
sensor is. I think eventually the big manufacturers will all have a new
mount and your current lenses will be obsolete anyway.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

Not a chance. Buying lenses that cover less than full frame only
encourages them. At some point we're going to need the larger frame
size, and if we go too far into the APS-size valley it will never
happen.

I can only hope that the manufacturers interpret slow sales of
digital-only lenses correctly. Instead of "I guess people wanted
full-coverage lenses", they may well decide they have to make the
APS-size lenses even cheaper.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For my 20D I've done both.

Getting the EF-S 18-85 IS on it and will buy a EF-S 10-22mm in the
summer. I'm also getting Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens
and EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus with the camera.

I'm looking at lenses I need now and at least two will move to other
sensors in the future.


*******************************************************

"Les livres font les époques et les nations,
commes les époques et les nations font les livres."

_Mélanges littéraires_
Jean-Jacques Ampère
(1800-1864)
February 22, 2005 1:46:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>


I don't have a dSLR. If I did, I would want wide angle lenses for it.
Currently, the only wide angle zooms (say 12mm to 24mm or thereabouts)
on Canon and Nikon are digital only.

I'm never going to buy another 35mm film camera.

I doubt I will ever be able to justify a full frame sensor dSLR.

I see no drawback to digital only zooms.

Bob
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:48:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


In my case I will avoid lenses that don't give a full frame image for the time
being. IAC the next lenese on my lust-list are not digital specific.

I do have friends who are "never turning back" and they seem quite happy with
cropped sensors. (I don't know if any of them have 'digital specific' lenses
that render a smaller circle).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:18:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
>and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
>these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
>lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
>I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
>in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
>the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
>current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

Apart from the fact that my EOS 10D doesn't support the EF-S mount and
I'm limited to the small form factor lenses from Sigma and Tamron, no,
I wouldn't buy a lens designed for a small format sensor. My view is
that bodies come and go, but lenses are (hopefully) forever. When I
bought my 10D it was done with the intention of it being replaced with
either a 1D series body (or a 3D if Canon release one), which is
almost certainly going to mean a 1.3x crop at the very least. It
would have to be a *very* interesting small form factor lens to
pursuade me to by a lens knowing I'd probably be unable to use it on
my primary camera in a couple of years time.

Even so, I can see the value in vendors having a range of smaller and
cheaper lenses for those people who just want a cheap, compact DSLR
for a little more control over their photography. For this class of
consumer an APS-C sized sensor and lenses designed specifically for it
make a lot of sense, so I expect the form factor to stick around for a
while. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that as technology
moves forward, sensor sizes will get bigger and we'll all end up using
full frame sensors.

On a related note, I might however buy a lens optimised for digital
use such as Sigma's DG range, which are the full 35mm but with a
coating better designed to cut down the image abberations specific to
digital. Assuming that is, that Sigma can convince me that it's not
just a marketing exercise when I visit their stand at the Focus on
Imaging show in the UK next week, anyway...

Andy
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:18:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tell that to us who have a large number of Canon FD mount lens..... Lens do
come and go and I don't think that there will be full size sensors. I think
camera makers are thinking smaller, lighter, and cheaper and none of those
fit with "full frame" sensors. I think the sensors will stay about the same
size and just get better. There is no magic in full frame sensors except
that it get away from the "crop" with the smaller sensors and lens designed
to cover a 35mm film frame. When they have us weaned from 35mm film, the
lens will be redesigned to cover the smaller sensor and they will be
smaller, faster and better than what we have now.


--
John Passaneau W3JXP
State College Pa
jxp16@psu.edu
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.

"Andy Blanchard" <andyb@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:tlam11tac5qc6nhnam6236n5ov2cnuburs@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
> <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> >and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> >these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> >lenses if the lens is very expensive?
> >
> >I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> >in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> >the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> >current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> Apart from the fact that my EOS 10D doesn't support the EF-S mount and
> I'm limited to the small form factor lenses from Sigma and Tamron, no,
> I wouldn't buy a lens designed for a small format sensor. My view is
> that bodies come and go, but lenses are (hopefully) forever. When I
> bought my 10D it was done with the intention of it being replaced with
> either a 1D series body (or a 3D if Canon release one), which is
> almost certainly going to mean a 1.3x crop at the very least. It
> would have to be a *very* interesting small form factor lens to
> pursuade me to by a lens knowing I'd probably be unable to use it on
> my primary camera in a couple of years time.
>
> Even so, I can see the value in vendors having a range of smaller and
> cheaper lenses for those people who just want a cheap, compact DSLR
> for a little more control over their photography. For this class of
> consumer an APS-C sized sensor and lenses designed specifically for it
> make a lot of sense, so I expect the form factor to stick around for a
> while. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that as technology
> moves forward, sensor sizes will get bigger and we'll all end up using
> full frame sensors.
>
> On a related note, I might however buy a lens optimised for digital
> use such as Sigma's DG range, which are the full 35mm but with a
> coating better designed to cut down the image abberations specific to
> digital. Assuming that is, that Sigma can convince me that it's not
> just a marketing exercise when I visit their stand at the Focus on
> Imaging show in the UK next week, anyway...
>
> Andy
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow away
the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but to
suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You are dead wrong, and demonstrably so. The difference between 8mp and
6x4.5 is so slight as to need sophisticated measuring devices or an overly
critical eye to mark it, the difference is not apparent to the casual
observer. As far as state of the art 35mm type digital, 16mp is fully
competitive with up to 6x6, and maybe even 6x7. Then you have the 22mp and
32mp backs for MF bodies. The latter rivals 4x5. A sweeping comment like
"something as small as 6 x 4.5 will blow away the best money can by (sic)
digital print" shows the ignorance of which you accuse others. And you can
add scanning backs, since those would fall under the heading of "the best
money can by (sic).
Film isn't "dead", it has become a specialized niche within photography.
For more info, see:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtm...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"grilla" <grilla@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:iwGSd.39913$wi2.6022@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow
> away the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but
> to suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:51:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series

....though not all of them are limited to small-sensor DLSRs.

This is a bloody fine lens:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

In a word, no. Part of the "digital" or "APS-C" only attraction is that
they are cheaper.

That being said, I *did* pop for the 10-22, which is around $800USD. It
was completely unique at the time, though, and I don't really regret it,
as the lens has turned out to be an unexpectedly good performer.

We're never really going to have a choice of full-frame on the very short
end, it looks like. The shortest full-frame zoom lens so far is Sigma's
Popeye, at 12mm. The difference between it and the APS-C 10MMs is
amazing.

Hopefully the newly-announced Sigma 10-20 will be in the inexspensive
range and of the same quality as the Canon offering. Allegedly, it *will*
work on bigger-sensor or film bodies, though with terrible vignetting.
Cheaper plus at least works on your other cameras means less pain in
deciding to buy.

> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

I'm not sure why you'd be worried about this. Canon is probably going to
get their brains beaten out trying to compete with Sigma and Tamron at
the low and medium end. I'm hoping Canon marketing will realize this and
we'll see the return of super-premiums such as f/1.0 primes and f/1.2
zooms in the near future.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:59:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would never buy another slr, even digital, I was bored carrying my Nikon
FM-2 around with all the equipment, the better of mine photos were made with
point and shoots,SLRs are too bulky, and you have to have a large zoom lens,
separate flash unit etc.
(I have now the Kodak CX 7300 which makes excellent photos, without the fuss
of adjusting focus, aperture and shutter speed while trying to find the
right angle to photo the subject.)

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 6:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wouldn't say film is dead even in 35mm. I would say it's terminally
ill. I bought a Canon 10D in October and a 20D at Christmas. Since then
I've taken over 3000 images and sold both of my Canon 1N's. I'll never
shoot film again not because I didn't like film but because I have so
many more options with the DSLR's. I can also take tons of pictures
with no cost once I have the equipment. I took 1200 images alone in
Costa Rica and would hate to think what my processing bill would have
been with film just to look at what I took. With digital I only had
prints made from the keepers and 8x10's from the ones I really liked.
That plus the ability to change film speed (ISO) whenever I need too
(frame by frame) is just frosting on the cake. My images and prints are
every bit as good as with the 1N's and I have a lot more options.

Art
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <PmHSd.33730$xt.28118@fed1read07>,
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>"grilla" <grilla@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:iwGSd.39913$wi2.6022@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow
>> away the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but
>> to suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
>
>You are dead wrong, and demonstrably so. The difference between 8mp and
>6x4.5 is so slight as to need sophisticated measuring devices or an overly
>critical eye to mark it, the difference is not apparent to the casual
>observer. As far as state of the art 35mm type digital, 16mp is fully
>competitive with up to 6x6, and maybe even 6x7.

Certainly the image quality that can be delivered by DSLRs from a rather
small area is very impressive, but IME you are vastly overstating its
capabilities - with slow slide film, a reasonable estimate is that you
should be able to get at least 1 "DSLR-quality" megapixel-worth per square
centimetre of film area, and possibly a bit more if you are using good
equipment and technique. This matches the results I'm seeing from scanned
120 E6 films.

This puts 35mm slide film at around 8 megapixels worth, which seems to match
what most people are seeing. Your claim for near equivalence betwene 8 mp
and 645 puts 35mm at under 3 megapixels. That's probably true for consumer
print-film, but for slow E6 films, it's a absurd claim.
February 22, 2005 7:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You will see many dealers trying to send back unsold 35mm film SLR cameras
before they are discontinued. I certainly don't need any covered with dust
on my shelf. Film is dead, get over it!
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My limit is about $400.00 on these lenses. No way I'm investing more than
that when full-frame will be coming in a couple years.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:34:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siddhartha Jain <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

But there aren't any full-frame super-wide lenses that are really
sharp. The DX Nikkor 12-24mm at its wide end is just as sharp as the
14mm prime, if my attempt at decoding Nikon's charts is correct. So,
while we've got small sensors, if we want sharp wide pictures then
this is what we do. It's not like there's a choice.

Andrew.
February 22, 2005 9:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Personally, I'd stick with EF lenses on the same premise as yourself - i.e.
being able to get the equivalent of the something like the EOS1Ds MkII in a
couple of years time (without having to get a second mortgage!).

Regards

DM

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
February 22, 2005 9:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry Dimitrios but why bother posting this in a group entitled
"rec.photo.digital.slr-systems"?

Clearly the rest of feel digital SLR systems are worthwhile & enable the
capturing of far better shots, more often, with better framing than 'point &
shoot'.

Just how do you define an excellent photo when you've no control over your
aperture, shutter speed, etc.?

Regards

DM

"Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <use@address.below> wrote in message
news:cvfain$n9u$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
>I would never buy another slr, even digital, I was bored carrying my Nikon
> FM-2 around with all the equipment, the better of mine photos were made
> with
> point and shoots,SLRs are too bulky, and you have to have a large zoom
> lens,
> separate flash unit etc.
> (I have now the Kodak CX 7300 which makes excellent photos, without the
> fuss
> of adjusting focus, aperture and shutter speed while trying to find the
> right angle to photo the subject.)
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
> major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
> FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
> dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
> ? "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:1109068306.499561.187310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
>> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
>> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
>> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>>
>> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
>> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
>> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
>> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>>
>> - Siddhartha
>>
>
>
February 22, 2005 11:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And who suggested it was dead until you introduced it at this stage of the
thread? The thread was about the merit of EF-s versus EF mount lenses and a
query as to whether one should stick to EF as it's compatible with both the
Rebel/10D/20D, etc. (with a 1.6x multiplier) and also Full-Frame format
(EOS1-D+ as well as film).

Regards

DM

"grilla" <grilla@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:iwGSd.39913$wi2.6022@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow
> away the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but
> to suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
>
February 22, 2005 11:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nonsense,

The current EF-s lenses are a solution geared up to the smaller image sensor
models but why should that indicate that as the technologies march on they
won't release a full-frame prosumer model?

Personally, having witnessed the quality from the latest 20D sensor released
only a year behind the 10D (which seemed remarkable at the time) I can only
wonder what we'll be able to look forward to in another 12 months.

The great things is - so long as you don't lock yourself into the wrong
choice of glass - swapping bodies is no great shakes if there is a large
technological benefit.

Regards

DM

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:GuCdnbRxqKPvqIbfRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
>
> "YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:111mc4g9s7u4582@corp.supernews.com...
>> I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
>> You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
>> Your ef-s won't work on full frame sensors :+(
>>
> Canon is unlikely to make consumer level cameras in full-frame. Witness
> the
> EF-S line of lenses.
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:43:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:mj1se2-cso.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <PmHSd.33730$xt.28118@fed1read07>,
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>"grilla" <grilla@swbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:iwGSd.39913$wi2.6022@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>> any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow
>>> away the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but
>>> to suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
>>
>>You are dead wrong, and demonstrably so. The difference between 8mp and
>>6x4.5 is so slight as to need sophisticated measuring devices or an overly
>>critical eye to mark it, the difference is not apparent to the casual
>>observer. As far as state of the art 35mm type digital, 16mp is fully
>>competitive with up to 6x6, and maybe even 6x7.
>
> Certainly the image quality that can be delivered by DSLRs from a rather
> small area is very impressive, but IME you are vastly overstating its
> capabilities - with slow slide film, a reasonable estimate is that you
> should be able to get at least 1 "DSLR-quality" megapixel-worth per square
> centimetre of film area, and possibly a bit more if you are using good
> equipment and technique. This matches the results I'm seeing from scanned
> 120 E6 films.
>
> This puts 35mm slide film at around 8 megapixels worth, which seems to
> match
> what most people are seeing. Your claim for near equivalence betwene 8 mp
> and 645 puts 35mm at under 3 megapixels. That's probably true for consumer
> print-film, but for slow E6 films, it's a absurd claim.

You're probably right, I let my irritation with blanket statements lead me
into one of my own. But in the range of 100-400 ISO, digital, 8mp and up,
does have an advantage over film of the same ISO up to the lower reaches of
MF, mainly due to it's lack of grain/noise. The advantage increases, I'd
say, with sensor size and pixel count. Since film, transparency or
otherwise, with an ISO of 100 or over is far more common than at 40-50 ISO
(I can only think of one, off hand), wouldn't it be more fair to compare
equal ISOs?
And if 35mm slow trans film is the rough equivalent of 8mp, where does that
leave 8mp digital when compared to 100-400ISO films? And where does that
leave film, regardless of ISO, when compared to the 16mp Canon 1Ds mkII, the
22mp Mamiya ZD and 32mp Hasselblad HI digital back? Not to mention scanning
backs? Remember, the guy I was responding to said "any medium format print
from something as small as 6x4.5 will blow away the best money can buy
digital print."
And I did say that the difference between 6x4.5 and 8mp isn't apparent to
the casual observer, but shows to the critical observer and sensitive
measuring devices. Not such an absurd claim, really, when you think about
it.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:25:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 02:31, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?

I buy what fits my criteria.

> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

My film 35mm system is Nikon (FM2's and AI Nikkors), but my DSLR is
Canon. (One D30 right now with a Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 DC. And since
you're wondering: I bought it instead of a D70 or D100 or Fuji S2,
because the D30 satisfied most of my criteria.) And since I'll never
go Canon for film, I have no real need to buy "full frame" lenses for
the digital unless such lenses are required to fit a photographic
requirement like the need for very long or fast teles for which there
are no "digital only" equivalents. (I'm sure there will be soon.)


I doubt full-frame DSLRs will ever become reasonably "affordable." I
think the full-frame, very high MP, cutting edge digital camera will
always be for the pro, and cost in the 1000s of dollars, because pros
need and demand the best, regardless of cost. Look. With Canon and
other lens makers specifically making lens lines for APS-C sensor
DSLRs, which are marketed to the pro-sumer, do you think they'll
obsolete them by bringing out "affordable" full-frame DSLRs, also for
the pro-sumer, that everyone will buy instead and thus eliminate the
market for those new "digital" lenses that they've spend millions
developing and marketing? No. I think APS-C size sensor DSLRs will be
around for quite a while, since it seems to be the optimum size sensor
on a cost of production vs quality of image produced basis.

I think it is the more likely that the 35mm film camera will become
obsolete in the next 10 to 15 years just like the Super8 movie camera
was supplanted by video years ago.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>
> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage very
soon. ;-)
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:

>Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
>dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
> > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
> > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
> > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
> >
> > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
> > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
> > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
> > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
very
> soon. ;-)
>
>
May I be your garbage man?
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
>> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
>> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
>> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
>>
>> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
>> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
>> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
>> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
>
> Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
> Only
> dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
> very
> soon. ;-)
>
>
>
>
But the EF mount lenses work on the larger sensored digital bodies, the 1D
mkII and 1Ds mkII, and the EF-S lenses don't, so film isn't the issue here.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
February 23, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:

>While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage very
>soon. ;-)

If it is Canon stuff, I'll send you a pre-paid recycling box addressed
to me. :) 

Wes

EF F1

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>

> Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
very
> soon. ;-)

wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
film is film and digital is digital.
do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?

they are just different and have different stregnths and weaknesses.
personally, i use both film and digital and plan to do so as long as
possible.

in the end though, i believe that film photography and traditional
wet-darkroom printing is a craft that deserves to be kept alive.

i guess i'm just a dinosaur though.
:) 
-c.


>
>
>
>
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
> >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
>

Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).


Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to even a
blip on the statistical radar.

Many pro photographers are using digital, but FEW of them are shooting
digital only.

Going digital only before the technology matures would be stupid for a Pro.
There are still many things that work well on film that either aren't as easy
with digital or simply dont work well (yet).

Film wont die until you cant get it at the camera store, or order it from
your supplier, and that time is a while off.

Personally, I dont shoot much film myself any more, but I dont consider it
dead, not by a long shot.

I wouldn't buy a "digital only" lens, unless there was something REALLY
SPECIAL and LUCRATIVE about the camera.

IOW not unless I was going to make some money with it (enough money to cover
the cost of the lens and then some). OTOH I would no longer buy a lens that
is for "film only".

I had considered the OLY E-volt (which uses a lens that ONLY fits digital
4/3) because it has the ultra-sonic cleaner, and I probably could make up the
cost of the camera and a good lens in 2 weekends shooting with it. Then I
tried the camera... NO THANKS... I dont care how clean the sensor stays, it
doesn't have the capabilities of other, less restrictive hardware.. Like the
new DRebel (or even the OLD DRebel for that matter).

Some of the film lenses I have cant be used on Digital cameras that I can
afford, and some CAN.

I havent yet bought a good DSLR, but that hasn't stopped me from giving the
lens issue a LONG HARD THINK...

I have some very nice fully manual lenses for Yashica cameras circa 1970..
and I no longer own a working Yashica or Contax body.. That hasn't caused me
to throw away the lenses.

Someone that I forgot to thank posted a URL where I could get adapter mounts
for those lenses, so I may use them digital yet!

I was given a suitcase of Canon lenses that probably represents 15 to 20
thousand dollars when they were new (I havent even gone through them yet).

If I sell those lenses, I'll sell them to someone who is shooting film, and
there are a lot of those people around.

Joe sixpack may well have gone "pocket digital" but the whole world hasn't
done it yet.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

How big prints are you talking about?

Film is DEAD, Agfa and Ilford are both in the equivalent of Chapter 11,
Kodak is dropping a lot of different films. Medium Format is dead, look at
Bronica. Mamiya and Hasselblad are building digital product. I work in a
large busy camera shop in Ottawa, I haven't shown or sold a 35mm SLR since
September 2004.
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <NULSd.31212$911.29938@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
cfalisenospam@austin.rr.com says...
>
> "Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
> news:f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com...
> > On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> > Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
> Only
> > dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
> >
> > While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
> very
> > soon. ;-)
>
> wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
> film is film and digital is digital.
> do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
> do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?
>
> they are just different and have different stregnths and weaknesses.
> personally, i use both film and digital and plan to do so as long as
> possible.
>
> in the end though, i believe that film photography and traditional
> wet-darkroom printing is a craft that deserves to be kept alive.
>
> i guess i'm just a dinosaur though.
> :) 
> -c.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

You aren't the only one!!!

(just wanted you to know)


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in news:gnhre2-
qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org:

> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

Hey - we are talking about 35 mm lenses or digital lenses.
You can't make all that larger prints from 35 mm film
compared to current crop of dSLRs.


/Roland
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C. Falise wrote:

>
> wow - i am so sick of the "which is better" debate.
> film is film and digital is digital.
> do painters argue about which is better - watercolors or oils?
> do writers argue about which is better - longhand or the pc?

Yes, they do. And painters obsess about brushes too. And gear heads
argue about brands of wrenches. And game players graphics cards.

Every thing about our conspicous-consumer realities makes us want the best.

Our quest for the best makes us want to justify our decisions.

Bob
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Op Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:51:12 GMT schreef Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com>:

>In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
>Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
>>dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
>
>Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
>digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

Aren't it the dinosaurs who made the largest (foot)prints?

Bart
you can send email to me using
mendelson-at-mendelson-dot-nl
www.mendelson.nl
February 23, 2005 1:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c84f01496674a409896e6@news.individual.NET...
> In article <gnhre2-qmm.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> > In article <f15m11luerg9gqbg5mi68fn86sh6vcdss3@4ax.com>,
> > Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
Only
> > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
> >
> > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
> > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
> >
>
> Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).
>
>
> Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
> digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to
even a
> blip on the statistical radar.
>
Well our store hasn't sold a 35mm film SLR since September 2004, effectively
Ilford and Agfa are gone, Kodak discontinues various films at will. Hate to
say it but film is dead, about half our lab business is digital files.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:31:02 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
>digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to even a
>blip on the statistical radar.

I seriously doubt that.
I read recently that digital cameras outsold film cameras in the US
last year (2004). That's a fair-sized blip on anyone's radar.
Canon announced that the 350D's *starting* production will be the same
as the 300D's current run, which is about 50% higher than the starting
run. IOW, even low-end DSLRs are selling like the proverbial hotcakes.

Obviously, film isn't anywhere near dead. But it's fast losing its
crown, if it hasn't already.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:o 91n11h9ov2cj3bo3obhn4edsr6um5liph@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:30:12 GMT, Chris Brown
> <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Please! Let's make at least an attempt at comparing apples with
> apples.
> My Expedition will carry more passengers than someone else's Corvette;
> that doesn't mean the Corvette somehow is inferior. The two are simply
> not in the same class. Just because they both use roads and go from
> point A to point B doesn't make them comparable.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

thank you bill.
-c.
February 23, 2005 1:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
>
> Obviously, film isn't anywhere near dead. But it's fast losing its
> crown, if it hasn't already.
>

Maybe "terminal" is the word you are looking for?
February 23, 2005 1:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:p 01n115bmglleb3jsrg4m4b4fp68g4mdke@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:31:02 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
> >digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to
even a
> >blip on the statistical radar.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
> I read recently that digital cameras outsold film cameras in the US
> last year (2004). That's a fair-sized blip on anyone's radar.
> Canon announced that the 350D's *starting* production will be the same
> as the 300D's current run, which is about 50% higher than the starting
> run. IOW, even low-end DSLRs are selling like the proverbial hotcakes.
>
> Obviously, film isn't anywhere near dead. But it's fast losing its
> crown, if it hasn't already.
>
Sorry to say, but film is dead. I haven't sold even a point and shoot camera
in 6 months. I sold a couple used Pentax K1000s to students at the end of
August. No film cameras have moved since then. We sell several dSLRs and
lots of P&S digicams daily.
!