Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When do you use conventional 35mm?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 25, 2005 12:08:21 PM

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

As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?

Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
construction sites a lot.

Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.

More about : conventional 35mm

February 25, 2005 12:08:22 PM

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

Rafe:

This is the kind of answer I want. Where do you process your film
(prints I assume?) and what size prints do you scan from? Thanks a lot.


Hmmm. Makes me think that on my next trip I should just take my tiny
Rollei B. No batteries. Nothing to think about except guess distance
and read the exposure meter on the top... :-)

/ron

rafe bustin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> >there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can
get
> >with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking
about a
> >fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
> >basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the
old
> >SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do
this?
> >Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
> >slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
> >
> >Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
> >would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
heavyweight
> >runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a
18-20 mm
> >lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
> >construction sites a lot.
> >
> >Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
>
>
> I still maintain that, in a pinch, scanned 35 mm
> beats my 10D. Processing and scanning the film is
> tedious but the payback is the *potential* for a
> better larger print. At 8x10", there's probably
> no discernable difference.
>
> I took my Nikon FE on a recent trip to England,
> instead of my 10D. Why? Maybe a bit irrational,
> but I didn't want to deal with all peripheral
> electronic gear, spare batteries, charger, and
> the ImageTank (particularly on a 220 volt grid.)
>
> Seeing as how trips to England are rare (for me)
> I decided to take the film SLR and put up with
> the pain of scanning later.
>
> I think on a less "special" trip, closer to home,
> I'd have taken the 10D.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:08:22 PM

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

Ron wrote:
> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can
get
> with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about
a
> fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
> basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old

> SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do
this?
> Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
> slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?

I have quit using the film SLR altogether, although I am still scanning
in old negatives from 25 year or so of shooting film. For me at least
there is no advantage to film anymore, I maintain that my 20D will
produce prints that look as good as or better then 35mm film. With film
I am pretty much stuck at an ISO of 100 or less, if I wanted any kind
of quality at all, with the 20D I can shoot at ISO 800 with no problems
at all, and at 1600 the prints still look great.


> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
heavyweight
> runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20
mm
> lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
> construction sites a lot.
>
> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.

I would not count on the DSLR market settling down anytime soon, but
clearly if you wait the cameras will get better and cheaper.

For 8 x 10 prints you will have a hard time telling the difference
between a 6 and 8 MP DSLR.

Whether a SLR would work as a good stopgap depends in part on how many
photos you would be shooting and whether you would want then in a
digital format. I shoot about 20K photos a year so film for me would
cost more then the cost of the 20D, if you are only going to shoot a
few rolls of film a year then a good SLR is not so bad. If you want to
have your photos on the computer then film is a bit of a pain. On the
last long vacation my wife and I took she shot with a film SLR and I
shot with a digital, while I was scanning in the photos I decided that
we where going all digital. She it getting far better photo with the
20D then she ever did with the film SLR.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:08:22 PM

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

Ron wrote:

> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
> with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
> fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
> basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
> SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
> Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
> slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
> runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
> lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
> construction sites a lot.
>
> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
>

I use my film SLR for macro work, where focus and depth of field is
important. I would use a good digital SLR if I could afford one. Since
I can't, I use my old film SLR for the macro work and scan results.

The LCD screen on my Oly digital non-SLR just is not high enough
resolution to do good manual focus.

So, I'd say any time you think you will need to use manual focus, use
the film SLR.

Sure, when digital SLRs get cheap enough for me I'll likely change.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:08:22 PM

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

Ron wrote:
> Rafe:
>
> This is the kind of answer I want. Where do you process your film
> (prints I assume?) and what size prints do you scan from? Thanks a
lot.
If you are going to scan you really want to scan the negitives and not
the prints. By the time the photo is a print most of the dynamic range
is lost.

Scott
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:08:23 PM

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

I bought a Canon 10D in October and kept one of my Canon 1N bodies for
film and backup. I bought the canon 20D at Christmas and two weeks ago
sold my last film body and the Canon 10D. I use the 20D for everything
and haven't looked back and even I was shocked at how fast the
transition happened. I now have the money for another Canon 20D but I
have decided to wait until Canon brings out it's replacement.
The 20D offers so many options in camera setting that can be changed
image by image if needed. I have no need for film because the 20D
takes pictures that match or exceed film quality for the types of
photo's I take. The the cost saving once you have the equipment can't
be ignored. I've shot 3000 digital pictures since October and will
easily take around 10 to 15K this year. That would be a ton of money in
processing costs.
That plus film camera body prices have plummented now and will only
continue to go down as more and more people buy DSLR's. I sold both
Canon 1N's that were in near mint shape for $275 each. That's actually
sad when you think of what a great camera they are. I sold them when it
became apparent that I was never going to use them again.

Art Salmons
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:29:57 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:

>As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
>there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
>with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
>fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
>basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
>SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
>Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
>slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
>Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
>would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
>runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
>lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
>construction sites a lot.
>
>Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.


I still maintain that, in a pinch, scanned 35 mm
beats my 10D. Processing and scanning the film is
tedious but the payback is the *potential* for a
better larger print. At 8x10", there's probably
no discernable difference.

I took my Nikon FE on a recent trip to England,
instead of my 10D. Why? Maybe a bit irrational,
but I didn't want to deal with all peripheral
electronic gear, spare batteries, charger, and
the ImageTank (particularly on a 220 volt grid.)

Seeing as how trips to England are rare (for me)
I decided to take the film SLR and put up with
the pain of scanning later.

I think on a less "special" trip, closer to home,
I'd have taken the 10D.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:31:23 PM

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

Ron wrote:

> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
> with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
> fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
> basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
> SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
> Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
> slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?

I have an old EOS 650 that I drag along on vacations. It was my
main camera for quite a few years, but now I only carry it in
along as a backup in case my 10D should fail.

I used it once last year. I picked up a Sigma 15-30 lens and
wanted to see how 15mm looked in a full frame viewfinder
rather than on the cropped DSLR.

It felt strange taking film it to be developed :-)

> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles?

SLRs do take good pictures. I just don't like the developing
and scanning. Too much work for me. My scanner died on
me last year and I haven't got around to replacing it yet :) 
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 1:26:12 PM

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

"Ron" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:uqGTd.1321$p31.123@fe07.lga...
> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
> with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
> fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
> basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
> SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
> Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
> slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
> runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
> lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
> construction sites a lot.
>
> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
>
Copy work. My 6mp dRrebel can't match ISO 100 film (shot at 50) with my
sharpest 50mm lens stopped down for copy work. When 10+ MP is reasonable $
in a dSLR, I will have little use for film at all. In another week marks the
last time I made a film exposure in a year.
bg
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 1:48:50 PM

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

On 25 Feb 2005 06:44:03 -0800, "Ron" <rkgood@charter.net> wrote:

>Rafe:
>
>This is the kind of answer I want. Where do you process your film
>(prints I assume?) and what size prints do you scan from? Thanks a lot.
>
>
>Hmmm. Makes me think that on my next trip I should just take my tiny
>Rollei B. No batteries. Nothing to think about except guess distance
>and read the exposure meter on the top... :-)
>
>/ron


I scan the film, Ron. By the time you've had
a drug store print made, you've lost most of
what's on the film.

And it's not a machine scan; it's done "by
hand" on my own LS-8000. That is to say, on
a good 35 mm frame, I might spend upwards
of five minutes tuning the scan parameters
and carefully checking the scanner focus.
It's a tedious process, for sure.

I've also found that a lot of the damage
and mis-handling of film (in labs) happens
after the film's been processed, and as it's
being run through the machine to make prints.

So when I bring the film to the lab, it's
for processing only, no prints. $2.50, for
a roll of 135-36 or for a roll of 120 (MF).

It turns out it's a very local lab, less
than a mile from where I live. They do
excellent work - the film comes back clean
and spotless. (I've had many battles with
shoddy labs over the years.)

I shoot ISO 100 color negative film almost
exclusively, usually Fuji Reala, which I
buy from BH. I think it's about $3.00 a roll
for either 135-36 or 120.

I don't mean to over-praise film. If not
dead, film is on its last legs -- at least
35mm, anyway. But in the short term, if
you're willing to put in the time, there
are some (slim) benefits to dealing with it.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:07:43 PM

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

Ron <rgood@netzero.com> writes:

> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can
> get with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking
> about a fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily
> in the basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take
> the old SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do
> you do this? Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether
> from prints, slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
> heavyweight runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly
> in a 18-20 mm lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang
> around construction sites a lot.
>
> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.

I'm reasonably happy with scanned film. However, scanned pixels
aren't "worth the same" as digital original pixels in terms of picture
clarity. It varies in my experience, based on subject as much as
anything else, but something like *twice* as many are needed for an
equally good print.

I use film when I need the wideangle extremes (I can currently only
cover out to 25mm equiv. on digital), when I need a second body (two
lenses mounted ready for instant use), and when I'm doing a lot of TTL
flash. The TTL flash works *much* better on my N90 than it does on my
Fuji S2. I believe other models used with modern enough flashes
pretty much solve the TTL flash exposure problems I have.
--
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 25, 2005 3:07:44 PM

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

One of the things that is a bit frustrating is that if you want to
compare two digital cameras there are all sorts of places on the
internet where you can find full resolution photos that you can print
out and see for yourself how thay look as a print,. this kind of
comparison with film is much harder for a number of reasons, the first
is that film photographers rarely post full res photos and even when
they do the scanner that they use has a lot to do with the quality of
the digital image. Having said that you might check out Pbase.com, they
have a data base of photos taken from different cameras including 35mm
film cameras, it takes a bit of looking but you will find some full
resolution photos in there.

A 35mm camera can produce a good looking 8 x 10 print but only if a
fair bit of care is taken, a good DSLR can produce a good 8 x 10 print
with out much care. So what do I mean by care, you need to use good
film which means nothing over ISO 100, you need good glass on the
camera and you need a photo-processor who knows what they are doing and
if you want to do your own printing you need a high quality scanner. A
digital camera does not need as good glass as a film camera for two
reasons, you can shoot at ISO 800 or even higher and so can stop the
lens down to its sweet spot, and since the photo has less noise you
can do more sharpening of soft photos.

If you are going to shot 35mm film and want to get all this detail
everybody keep telling you that you can get with film you best bet is
to get a couple of good prime lenses. If you are going to shoot film
it would also be a good idea to carry a tripod with you.

Scott
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:09:46 PM

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

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <stauffer@usfamily.net> writes:

> Ron wrote:
>
>> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
>> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can
>> get with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking
>> about a fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily
>> in the basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take
>> the old SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do
>> you do this? Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether
>> from prints, slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
>> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
>> heavyweight runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest
>> mightly in a 18-20 mm lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster
>> because I hang around construction sites a lot.
>> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
>>
>
> I use my film SLR for macro work, where focus and depth of field is
> important. I would use a good digital SLR if I could afford one.
> Since I can't, I use my old film SLR for the macro work and scan
> results.

Interesting. You do understand that, by that choice, you're getting
much *less* depth of field in your photos?
--
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 25, 2005 3:51:04 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:29:57 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

snipped
>
>I took my Nikon FE on a recent trip to England,
>instead of my 10D. Why? Maybe a bit irrational,
>but I didn't want to deal with all peripheral
>electronic gear, spare batteries, charger, and
>the ImageTank (particularly on a 220 volt grid.)

I used to do extensive international travel and never found power much
of an issue just a good converters and selection of plugs for it.

The best place I know of for international power and telephone
converters is:

http://www.shop.teleadapt.com/


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

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:52:28 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:44:49 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

snipped
>
>Final thought -- the ethereal nature
>of digital information. Film degrades,
>it's true. But it can be touched,
>and held - and rescanned. A digital
>capture, once lost, remains lost.

Depends on how is was lost and how much you want to pay to recover it.


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

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:36:18 PM

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

rafe bustin wrote:
Scaling down a thing doesn't always make it cheaper
> -- the opposite may be true. Eg., laptop computers
> compared to desktops, or Porsches compared to Buicks.

This is very true, and for wide angle lenses scaling them down will
increase the cost of the lens since the tolerances will have to be held
a bit tighter. My point was more then a design that works for a full
frame camera will work for a 20D, if you scale all the dimensions of
the lens down by a factor of 1.6.

My point was not that scaling down the lens save money more that the
optics don't really get that much harder when the lens is small. For
a camera like the 20D this scaling is pretty small and so not much of
an issue. It is a good thing that the lens design does not have to
improve much as sensor size is reduce or my Sony F828 would have to
have very expensive optics, a zoom lens that shoots pretty sharp with a
zoom range of 7:1 with and f-stop of 2 to 2.8 is pretty impressive.
Not as good as a good Canon L lens but then the L lens will likely cost
as much as I paid for the F828.

So putting it another way I would say the optics need to become sharper
but not better for a reduced size sensor. Better to me would mean more
resolvable lines across the working field of view of the lens, so if we
increase the resolution and decrease the image circle we don't have a
lens that is "better" just scaled differently.

Scott
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:44:07 PM

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

Ron <rgood@netzero.com> writes:

> Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles?

I wouldn't count on the dslr market settling. The nice thing about
buying a used film camera is you can put new film in it. Used digital
cameras come with used sensors. The used digital camera market can't
put much pressure on the new digital camera market.

> For example, I
> would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
> heavyweight runs 'only' six megapix

Only? If I'm calculating right, six megapixels would make an 8x12 print
at 250 dpi. That should be sharp enough, unless you're doing landscape
posters from a tripod or something. It may be that the sharpness of a
6MP dslr would be more than slightly better than your current 5MP, if
there are more factors involved than megapixels.

> and I would have to invest mightly
> in a 18-20 mm lens.

Wasn't there a thread on this group recently about all old Pentax lenses
fitting the *ist D and DS?

> And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang
> around construction sites a lot.

You could stick to your Oly 5060 for that work, right?

> Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.

I'll share my non-professional situation.

You have a better non-SLR digital camera than I do, but I also have a
Pentax SLR (K-1000 with 2 lenses), and I'm also eyeing the Pentax DSLRs.
I'm not going to buy one any time soon, but eventually I know I'll want
one. Ideally at family events I would take one or two good shots, then
participate. The point+shoot+wait mode requires too many tries for me
to get those one or two good shots (and yes I do hold the button halfway
to prefocus). Low light is also an issue.

Still, it's been almost a year since I've used my film camera. I have a
roll of 800ASA film that's been in the fridge for about a year.

I have a flash that tilts up to scatter, but I've never used it that way
for fear of getting the exposure wrong. With a DSLR I could take test
shots and get it right. Someday...

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.
I rarely read mail sent to brlspam@yahoo.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 6:51:02 PM

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

rafe bustin wrote:
> From personal experience, I've seen it
> the other way.
>
> That "one little scratch" might disappear
> after dICE. Or it might disqualify the
> image as a prizewinner, but you'd still
> have that precious image of grandma or the
> kid's birthday or the Hindenberg explosion.
>
> But a bit of carelessness with backups,
> combined with a drive failure, and your
> digicam captures could be gone.
>
> Ask me how I know. So I lost one or
> two outings' worth of 10D images,
> maybe five or ten images that might
> have been saleable.
>
> I lost three or four films' worth of
> scans, but those have all since been
> redone. See my point?

I hate to give film credit for much of anything but at this point in
time I have to say that over all film has the advantage in terms of
safety in the storage of images. I do believe that with care digital
photos can be kept very safe, but knowing the computer skills of many
of my friends I have to worry about their ability to give the care
needed. And whereas it is possible to transfer digital photos to film
hardly anybody is doing this, the cost are too high. The other way
around people do all the time, transferring from film to digital. So it
is pretty much a losing argument that digital is a safer storage media
if the people shooting film can store in both film and digital.

I have negatives from over 20 years ago that seem, for the most part,
fine. There is some degradation and I would suggest that people either
scan their negatives shortly after getting them developed or get a the
photos put on a CD when they have their film developed.

People loose data off of computers all the time, I am sure it happens
with photos as well. You can tell people to back up until you are blue
in the face but some simply won't listen.

Scott
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 6:58:41 PM

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

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:

> Final thought -- the ethereal nature
> of digital information. Film degrades,
> it's true. But it can be touched,
> and held - and rescanned. A digital
> capture, once lost, remains lost.

You've got it backwards, Rafe. One little scratch on the negative and
it's *forever*, but I can recover my digital photos from two hard
disks or three or more CDs or DVDs in two different cities.
--
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 25, 2005 7:30:04 PM

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

I have high end sSLR and EVF cameras.
In general scanned 35mm negative film yields higher quality images in every
possible way. Digital is "good enough" for the ubiquitous 8x10.
CDs yield higher quality than MP3: yet the convenience of small players like
the iPOD are destroying the market for big home stereos.
Convenience beats quality.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:07:47 PM

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

In article <p5du115gecartl18or11j2aimsdt2tl54v@4ax.com>,
rafeb@speakeasy.net says...
> I took my Nikon FE on a recent trip to England,
> instead of my 10D. Why? Maybe a bit irrational,
> but I didn't want to deal with all peripheral
> electronic gear, spare batteries, charger, and
> the ImageTank (particularly on a 220 volt grid.)

Most DC converters are voltage independent. When I went to London, all
I needed was a plug adapter.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:14:43 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:58:41 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:
>
>> Final thought -- the ethereal nature
>> of digital information. Film degrades,
>> it's true. But it can be touched,
>> and held - and rescanned. A digital
>> capture, once lost, remains lost.
>
>You've got it backwards, Rafe. One little scratch on the negative and
>it's *forever*, but I can recover my digital photos from two hard
>disks or three or more CDs or DVDs in two different cities.


From personal experience, I've seen it
the other way.

That "one little scratch" might disappear
after dICE. Or it might disqualify the
image as a prizewinner, but you'd still
have that precious image of grandma or the
kid's birthday or the Hindenberg explosion.

But a bit of carelessness with backups,
combined with a drive failure, and your
digicam captures could be gone.

Ask me how I know. So I lost one or
two outings' worth of 10D images,
maybe five or ten images that might
have been saleable.

I lost three or four films' worth of
scans, but those have all since been
redone. See my point?

So, are you checking up on all those
backups in those "two different cities?"

How often will you need to move that
entire base of data to new media? And
who will handle all these chores if
you're not able to do it yourself?

I'm telling you, this is all getting to
be a pain. I've got 180 CDs worth and
65 DVDs, and it seems I spend a third
of my time on the computer archiving
and catalogueing my images.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:47:41 AM

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

"Ron" <rgood@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:uqGTd.1321$p31.123@fe07.lga...
> As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
> there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get

I no longer find any quality advantage to 35mm film over Canon digital, and
my 35mm film cameras are now languishing in various cupboards. For high
quality jobs I go MF tranny.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:01:00 AM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:

>As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
>there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
>with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
>fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
>basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
>SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
>Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
>slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
>Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
>would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
>runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
>lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
>construction sites a lot.
>
>Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.

When we are packing, I often sneak the minolta with a 20 mm lens in
amongst the underwear, when the wife is not looking. When back here
the negatives go though a Canon FS2710, tedious but good pictures
taking up as much as 90MB.

Borge, Perth
Pentium P4 2.4Ghz, 1 Gb memory, 600 GB space
Olympus 2100UZ, Pentax Optio S, Canon S1.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:09:32 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <stauffer@usfamily.net> writes:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
>>>there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can
>>>get with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking
>>>about a fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily
>>>in the basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take
>>>the old SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do
>>>you do this? Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether
>>>from prints, slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>>>Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
>>>would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current
>>>heavyweight runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest
>>>mightly in a 18-20 mm lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster
>>>because I hang around construction sites a lot.
>>>Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
>>>
>>
>>I use my film SLR for macro work, where focus and depth of field is
>>important. I would use a good digital SLR if I could afford one.
>>Since I can't, I use my old film SLR for the macro work and scan
>>results.
>
>
> Interesting. You do understand that, by that choice, you're getting
> much *less* depth of field in your photos?


Well, a slight bit. But I always shoot at highest f/# (f/16 or f/22,
depending on which lens I use). My digicam doesn't stop down that far.

But more importantly, for what depth of field I have, I can place almost
exactly the plane of best focus. I do a lot of model (miniature)
photography. My Canon SLR has a split image focusing aid in center of
viewfinder, so I can set that plane with great accuracy. Usually I can
get the whole model in acceptable focus, though the background (a photo
backdrop) is out of focus- but that is what I want. Look at my web
site, go to the MODELS link and look at the airplane and car photos to
see what I get.

I tyically place the plane of best focus at a point about 1/3 of way
from closest part of model to furthest part of model.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:13:46 PM

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

Bruce Lewis wrote:

> Ron <rgood@netzero.com> writes:
>
>
> I wouldn't count on the dslr market settling. The nice thing about
> buying a used film camera is you can put new film in it. Used digital
> cameras come with used sensors. The used digital camera market can't
> put much pressure on the new digital camera market.
>

Actually, new film SLRs are a bargain right now. The price difference
between a new SLR and a used on isn't that great anymore. Most camera
lines have 'entry level' SLRs that are very good cameras and very
reasonably priced. Bodies without lenses run about 200 bucks on these,
a package with a moderate range zoom isn't all that much more. $250
bucks will buy a decent film SLR these days.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:23:00 PM

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

rafe bustin wrote:
>
> Scaling down a thing doesn't always make it cheaper
> -- the opposite may be true. Eg., laptop computers
> compared to desktops, or Porsches compared to Buicks.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Certainly true. Scaling down a lens requires scaling down manufacturing
tolerances, which can definitely raise price. 35mm lenses are already
manufactured to pretty tight tolerances. I suspect that many of the
digicam lenses do not scale the tolerances accordingly, but stay with
about the same values as 35mm lenses are made to.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:37:54 AM

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

I haven't picked up my film SLR since getting my first DSLR more than 3
years ago.

Mark
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:37:55 AM

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

Mark B. wrote:
> I haven't picked up my film SLR since getting my first DSLR more than
3
> years ago.
>
> Mark

I picked up my film SLR not too long ago, I had to remove the lens on
it so I could put it on my DSLR :) 

Scott
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:36:34 AM

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

Mark B. wrote:
> I haven't picked up my film SLR since getting my first DSLR more than 3
> years ago.
>
> Mark
>
>

For the type of photographs I take, the digital is ideal, and the film
camera is a pain in the ass. Those with other needs may feel differently.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:57:27 PM

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

Mark B. wrote:
> I haven't picked up my film SLR since getting my first DSLR more than
> 3 years ago.
>
> Mark

Did you remember to remove the batteries?

<G>
March 4, 2005 10:25:53 AM

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

This is not a debate issue for me. I'm still waiting for the right
DSLR :-). I find that film is still my mainstay for mixed reasons. My
cameras get the most use when I'm traveling on business (at least one
week per month). They get used when the light is low and often in
groups of people. I find that a SLR with a fast 28mm or 35mm lens
satisfies my picture taking needs. As far as the processing, I use a
quality mini lab for making 4x6 in proofs. I scan on a Nikon 4000 ED.
Using lenses that require auto focus assist lights or strobes kill the
spontaneity in the group of people I travel with.

I still enjoy getting the pack of photos back from the processor. I
don't have time to spend at my computer sorting through piles of
photos. I do end up with filing memorable photos in an album.

Of those I scan, about half are for sharing and the others are for
serious enlargements.

Anyway there are a lot more reasons. The quality of digital is not
really an issue for me (pixel wise my Canon S60 does a great job).
However, the optics quality, selection and speed is an issue as is
cost. The current stopper for me right now is the availability of this
generations DSLR with a viewfinder comparable to a Nikon F100/F5. The
D70 would be a candidate except for the pentamirror. I still don't
know where I'd be able to get the focal length equivalent of a 28mm f2
/ 35mm f1.4 / or 50mm f1.4. A D2* and the 17-55mm f2.8 giving me
largely the control, viewfinder and lens quality I'm used to. However
is some instances it still is lacking at least one if not two f-stops.
It also includes a lot of bulk which my travel situation, on
occasions, does not permit.

My wife uses here digital to take far more photos than I do. However,
she has not interest in displaying them, but has a keen interest in
sharing them. Just different things for different folks.

For me the DSLR is still in the future, but the horizon is getting
shorter at a rapid pace.

Given all that, I have some very memorable photos with my S60 using it
at 28mm f2.8 equiv FOV. A great snapshot camera and a camera with
enough adjustment to allow for other serious work.

Regards,
Roger

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:

>As I wrestle with dslr issue (am very, very happy with Oly 5060 but
>there are times I need better quality extreme wide angle than I can get
>with it and conversion lens in some situations) I keep thinking about a
>fine old Pentax system and its set of lenses resting happily in the
>basement. So, I would be curious to know how many of you take the old
>SLR out and use it to complement your digital work. When do you do this?
>Why? Are you satisfied with scanned images -- whether from prints,
>slides or negatives (my great Epson scanner does all)?
>
>Is SLR a good stopgap until the dslr market settles? For example, I
>would love to have a top of the line Pentax, but the current heavyweight
>runs 'only' six megapix and I would have to invest mightly in a 18-20 mm
>lens. And, I want a built-in dustbuster because I hang around
>construction sites a lot.
>
>Just thinking and looking for practical experience and ideas.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:47:33 AM

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

Roger wrote:
> This is not a debate issue for me. I'm still waiting for the right
> DSLR :-). I find that film is still my mainstay for mixed reasons. My
> cameras get the most use when I'm traveling on business (at least one
> week per month). They get used when the light is low and often in
> groups of people. I find that a SLR with a fast 28mm or 35mm lens
> satisfies my picture taking needs.

But you have hit on one of the areas that a DSLR is very good at, low
light shooting. I assume that if you care about the quality of your
photos you are not shooting above ISO 100 on your film SLR, with a DSLR
you can go to ISO 800 with out problems. This means that you don't need
to use as fast a lens on a DSLR when shooting in low light. Even
shooting at ISO 1600 on the 20D give photos that are find for printing.
And if you really want to work in low light get a fast wide angle
lens, like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L, there is no film camera that will
come close to the low light performance of a 20D with one of these on
it.

And if you shooting mostly when traveling you have to worry about the
x-ray machines at the airport, when using film.

Scott
March 4, 2005 1:12:52 PM

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

Scott,

I think you have really hit on the major point for me. A DSLR, whether
I stay in Nikon or switch to Canon, is still a new system - new body,
new flash and a new zoom lens to meet the WA requirements. I just
don't want to buy a new bulky f2.8 zoom lens to get what I can already
get with my SLR. I find that ISO400 and f2/1.4 fit my needs. The fast
zooms and large bodies do not meet my travel requirements, I'm just
not ready to put up with that yet. I've used my F5 and other zooms as
a test. When traveling to several consecutive locations, with business
gear, clothes for multiple climates, etc, well it just doesn't appeal
to me now.

Besides, I don't think I can smuggle it into the "opera"....

I am thinking about this seriously and your suggestions are certainly
a good solution. Even in looking at the 28mm f1.4 AFD Nikkor, the size
is that of a small zoom.

I'll check out the 20D viewfinder, thanks.

Regards,
Roger

On 4 Mar 2005 07:47:33 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And if you really want to work in low light get a fast wide angle
>lens, like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L, there is no film camera that will
>come close to the low light performance of a 20D with one of these on
>it.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:37:57 PM

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

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> That "one little scratch" might disappear after dICE. Or it might
> disqualify the image as a prizewinner, but you'd still have that
> precious image of grandma or the kid's birthday or the Hindenberg
> explosion.

> But a bit of carelessness with backups, combined with a drive
> failure, and your digicam captures could be gone.

> Ask me how I know. So I lost one or two outings' worth of 10D
> images, maybe five or ten images that might have been saleable.

> I lost three or four films' worth of scans, but those have all since
> been redone. See my point?

> So, are you checking up on all those backups in those "two different
> cities?"

> How often will you need to move that entire base of data to new
> media? And who will handle all these chores if you're not able to
> do it yourself?

The Right Answer is to keep everything online, all the time, and use
mirrored file servers.

> I'm telling you, this is all getting to be a pain. I've got 180 CDs
> worth and 65 DVDs, and it seems I spend a third of my time on the
> computer archiving and catalogueing my images.

That's only a few hundred gigabytes, which isn't a huge storage
problem.

Keeping files online won't help your catalogeing problem, for sure...

Andrew.
!