admin
A comment was made in the "Who wants to play dark room one day soon?" post and I am curious as to what 35mm film will give you that digital crop sensor will not?

I am pretty sure that crop sensor digitals are blowing 35mm cameras out of the water in nearly every aspect. Except for field of view. Yes, you do lose a lot of your field of view on the wide end, but you also gain distance in the long end.

Full Frame Sensors, MF and LF Film systems are a whole different story and have no place in this discussion.

This meant for open discussion, not for calling people out.

Anyone should feel free to chime in here, but keep it friendly and civil.

So, why do you think 35mm beats a crop sensor digital SLR?
admin
duluthiscool Posted 10 years ago. Edited by duluthiscool (admin) 10 years ago
Regarding crop sensor... there are those that believe, and apparently also have the data to back up what they believe. What do they believe? That the crop senso might actually be a GOOD thing?

Huh? Well... they go on to claim that the part of the image that you give up is ok to lose... and that the part of the image that you are left with... is taken with the SWEET spot of the lens... and that the portions around the edges are more prone to distortion, etc.

I'm still saving for the new Canon 5d Mark II. Mostly because I really can't afford all the lenses that are required... if I didn't get it. And because it's damn cool.
admin
K. Praslowicz Posted 10 years ago. Edited by K. Praslowicz (admin) 10 years ago
Its all about the apocalypse. I don't want anything that can be taken down by an EMP.
admin
K. Praslowicz 10 years ago
Oh yeah, and I also need my camera, when attached to my strap, to be able to knock a zombie over, and then let me take a picture of it.

Its the little things really.
admin
A serious discussion is hard to come by.
MOD
maxcaven Posted 10 years ago. Edited by maxcaven (moderator) 10 years ago
I think usability of the Digital sensor as a whole is better than compared to 35mm. Full frame or crop.

And like duluthiscool, I'm currently attempting to make the jump to a full frame dslr.
admin
K. Praslowicz 10 years ago
My responses are serious to a point. More or less an abstract distilled down version of the same arguments I've responded with over & over & over again for the past seven years on various discussion boards.

I'll expand, unless So, why do you think 35mm beats a crop sensor digital SLR? was meant to be more like So, why do you think 35mm sized sensor(or film plane) beats a crop sensor digital SLR?. Are you are only asking for a discusion about comparison between sensor/film area size? I took the meaning of it as a comparison between the two systems as a whole, which for me, has a lot more of the meat that I like between the two then just the size of the area recording the data.
admin
Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer (admin) 10 years ago
I am talking about 35mm film vs. A crop sensor digital.
What will you get from a 35mm negative that you will not get from a Crop Sensor?
Aside from Field of view?

I am not talking about a Full Frame Sensor or MF and LF equipment.
fallfaceforward 10 years ago
kip ignored me in the hall again today. it was sad.
admin
I am asking this as seriously as I can. I started on digital and am just trying to soak up some knowledge.
Karl had made the statement and it got me asking questions.
admin
K. Praslowicz Posted 10 years ago. Edited by K. Praslowicz (admin) 10 years ago
Well. I prefer wider, so the field of view is a biggie for me. I image someday there will be a full frame camera that can mount my wide primes, but I also expect it will cost a hellton more then $100 Bessa L & a pile of film.
But, that isn't what you're after. ;) Here is bit of what I percieve as advantages.

I'm extra lazy when it comes to backing stuff up, and fear having to update all my archives periodically as file formats media devices change. Keeping eveyrthing in boxes & binders that can be reread as input technology advances I find far easier. I have stashes of old negatives from the 40's and can now use current technologies to easily make excellent images from them that the original shooters ever could imagined. I wouldn't doubt that the same will hold true for whoever inherits my work. Downside. I can't easily duplicate my stuff to have a failsafe if my house burns down, or I spill fixer on them and don't realize it until its too late. Tradeoffs.

Eight hours day in front of a computer at work. Possibly three or more when I get home. As much as I love my computer, sometimes it jutst really nice to know I can do at least one of my hobbies from start to finish without having to touch one.

Sitting on my couch spooling my own film using my dead grandfather's hideous neon green gaffer's tape that coated all of his AV equipment while he was alive to label it is much more spiritual then formatting an SD card.

Remember. There is much more to photography then trying to make the sharpest image. (Least for me)
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
This is really just the "film vs. digital" conversation again, but more specifically comparing two media that have roughly the same resolution.

It's sort of a stupid conversation. Rarely do painters say to one another, "Why do you use acrylic? Oils are clearly so much better." They judge each others work, like we should be doing.

The answer is going to be very subjective no matter who you talk to. Why do I shoot film?

Because I like the way film looks. There doesn't have to be another reason.

Jason
Anna Merritt 10 years ago
liking film over digital...I think there is that little bit of something that digital just can't catch...I use digital because it is easier and customers like that...however, it lacks that...essence, spirit...something...
MOD
Karl W. 10 years ago
Well I what I was mainly getting at is the limited field of view with the cropped sensor. I was loooking at some pics my dad took on our trip with a $3 point and shoot and I was just in a bit of aww when I saw how wide the shots were compared to mine with my dslr with a 18mm.

So I guess it's really just a cost vs. bang for the buck thing. For me to get a dslr "full frame" with a wide lens it would cost probably over $3,000. Or I could get a film slr, film scanner, a few lenses, and a pile of film probably for under $300. That could have much higher resolution. Main disadvantage is you can't see what you've just taken but i think from the use of my dslr I'm getting to the point where I don't have to have instant review of everything.
admin
thanks Karl.

That is what I was wondering, I wasn't looking for a film vs. digital argument at all.
MOD
Karl W. 10 years ago
I guess film might be better for those few special case photographs instead of digital. Like when you want a wide field of view or super high resolution.

I'll probably end up investing in a Film system of of these days and probably just do large batch developing at the depot or something.
admin
Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer (admin) 10 years ago
But, I don't think you are going to get higher resolution or sharper prints from a 35mm Negative. MF more than likely and LF for sure, but 35mm, I am not so sure.
My answer is strictly based off of reading on different websites, so I could be wrong.

Here is on of the websites with comparisons from a 35mm scan and a 6mp DSLR
www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

Field of View seems to be the big one. I agree and I find myself trying to get wider with my 16mm on my Crop sensor.
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
Actually, what you're talking about is a feature of point and shoot vs. SLR cameras. 35mm Point and shoot cameras usually come with a very wide angle lens -- I'm guessing that this was to decrease the distance from the rear lens element to the focal plane and make the camera more compact.

For a modern digicam, this is moot, because the tiny sensor makes the 18 to 22 mm lens a normal lens, but in the days of 35mm film when the photosensitive media was always a fixed size, this was a wide angle.

Jason
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
"But, I don't think you are going to get higher resolution or sharper prints from a 35mm Negative."

Why does it matter? I am convinced that the only people who notice when one image is infinitesimally sharper than another are pedantic photographers.

Jason
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
"I'll probably end up investing in a Film system of of these days and probably just do large batch developing at the depot or something."

You don't need a darkroom to develop film. You need a changing bag or a dark closet.

Jason
admin
HBRstudios 10 years ago
There are many types of images where grain and sharpness make no difference, and then there are those images where "soft" or "grainy (noisy)" images ruin them completely. Each has their place and it is good to know how to use both.
admin
K. Praslowicz Posted 10 years ago. Edited by K. Praslowicz (admin) 10 years ago
but i think from the use of my dslr I'm getting to the point where I don't have to have instant review of everything.

Not being able to instantly check every shot, and still getting results back that look great is good for building self confidence in your shooting.
admin
manley.josh 10 years ago
shawn: the crop sensors allow you to buy lenses for less. Like Rich said you use the sweetspot of a lens with your images, which means the manufacturer can build a lens that doesn't need full frame coverage to give a great all around image quality. they don't need to worry about corner sharpness and vignetting when you only use the center of the lens. This is why you can buy Canon EF-S or Nikon DX lens for cheaper than the old EF (full frame) and F (full frame) lenses.

As far as the amount of megapixels there is a point when it gets to be more of a marketing ploy than a benefit. All said and done I am going to buy the new Canon 50D 15.1mp 1.6x fovc vs the Canon 5D mk II 21.2mp full frame because i don't need the higher resolution, i would rather have more FPS (6.5 vs 3.9), and my lenses will cost me less since i don't need to buy the best lenses that canon makes just to get a good image(i still will though cuz i like that little red stripe).

converse on...
MOD
Karl W. 10 years ago
Well my thought with the cheapness if you get a canon film that uses Fd lenses, you could get them for pennies on the dollar compared to newer ones.
admin
manley.josh 10 years ago
but then you need an adapter to make that FD fit on your EF canon digitals :( why can't canon be more like Pentax...(tongue in cheak) sorry shawn i'm not gonna start this battle in your thread. HA.

I do agree with Karl about the old manual focus lenses that all the manufacturers make, they made some great lenses that just don't have all the electronics in them and you can buy them for dirt cheap.
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
"Well my thought with the cheapness if you get a canon film that uses Fd lenses, you could get them for pennies on the dollar compared to newer ones"

ALSO, if you act now you could get a free FD to M42 screw mount from some guy named Jason, who is trying to get rid of one.

flickr.com/groups/duluthphotographersguild/discuss/721576...

Jason
MOD
Karl W. 10 years ago
well I would just get a FD film camera was my thought, then I could get some ultra wide stuff "in comparison to digital" with a wide angle. Since my parents have some old FD lenses anyways.
admin
manley.josh 10 years ago
oooooooh old inherited FD gear...fun.
MOD
Karl W. 10 years ago
M42?
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
M42 is the standard screw mount of the old Pentax lenses. Like my Super Takumar. They are so cheap, they're essentially free.

Jason
admin
Super Takumars are so sharp
admin
Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Shawn Thompson - Lake Superior Photographer (admin) 10 years ago
I don't know that any Quality super wide in any format is cheap though.
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
"I don't know that any Quality super wide in any format is cheap though."

I agree with that assessment. Especially because we've actually come a long way in optics, and it's a LOT easier to make very wide angle lenses than it used to be (thank you, computer models). So going back in time isn't always the answer -- wide angle lenses from the 60s and 70s are going to be slower and generally average compared to their modern counterparts.

Jason
admin
K. Praslowicz 10 years ago
Voightlander Super wides are pretty cheap. I paid something like $130 or so for my 25mm new in box off ebay. Only their 12mm lens breaks the $400 barrier new. There are bodies that will mount them out there as well for around $100.

cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
Groups Beta