Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FILM CAMERA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by b777
    Originally posted by jwenting
    Greg, I'm specifically stating that you'll need to spend big bucks to get the same quality from a DSLR as you get from a real one.
    So D-SLRs are not real cameras?!! Most people here are not pros, they don't need slide quality images. Secondly, the images from a midrange D-SLR (10D, D100, S2 Pro) is good enough even for some pros.

    Since I went digital, I hadn't had to spend a penny more to process or store my images (off the memory card).
    Not talking purely image quality but mechanical quality, viewfinder size (I've used a D100, viewfinder is downright claustrophobic if you're used to an F100 and most DSLRs have a smaller one), metering and AF performance, etc. etc.

    I've used a D100 and found it lacking on all those points, not image quality (though there too improvement wouldn't hurt. Especially saturation is too low).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Airbus_A320
      Also the 300D produces the same quality as the 10D.... and with the hack it has/is getting all the features of the 10D .

      Except still being a cheaply built piece of plastic, having a tiny 86% viewfinder instead of 92% (which is also tiny), poorer metering and autofocus, less weather proofing, etc. etc. etc.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Airbus_A320
        Also the 300D produces the same quality as the 10D.... and with the hack it has/is getting all the features of the 10D .

        I think we get the point.

        You have posted about the 300D hack at least 15 times now.
        Will F.
        Photos: JetPhotos.Net | Airliners.net | General Photography

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jwenting
          Not talking purely image quality but mechanical quality, viewfinder size (I've used a D100, viewfinder is downright claustrophobic if you're used to an F100 and most DSLRs have a smaller one), metering and AF performance, etc. etc.

          I've used a D100 and found it lacking on all those points, not image quality (though there too improvement wouldn't hurt. Especially saturation is too low).
          Well, it is the image that counts isn't it Most people don't nitpick so much over their equipment as long as it gets the job done. I am sure you can find faults with the F100 also if you examine it under a nanoscope
          Click Here for my aviation photographs.
          No Frontiers

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by b777
            Originally posted by jwenting
            Not talking purely image quality but mechanical quality, viewfinder size (I've used a D100, viewfinder is downright claustrophobic if you're used to an F100 and most DSLRs have a smaller one), metering and AF performance, etc. etc.

            I've used a D100 and found it lacking on all those points, not image quality (though there too improvement wouldn't hurt. Especially saturation is too low).
            Well, it is the image that counts isn't it Most people don't nitpick so much over their equipment as long as it gets the job done. I am sure you can find faults with the F100 also if you examine it under a nanoscope
            I don't think demanding a large viewfinder and high performance AF and metering are "nitpicking".

            I used a D100, I used a D2h, I used a 300d for a short while that a colleague has.
            Only the D2h comes close to what I expect.
            And that includes image quality.

            All digicams produce output that is bland. Washed out colours, lacking fine detail, lack of sharpness, are typical.
            So typical in fact that some of the screeners here are now considering rich colours a bad thing, and critically sharp images are seen as oversharpened.

            Comment


            • #21
              jwenting, your mathematics are a bit false. Most of us have a computer already using it for more than just digital photos. Many pay it off or get it as a benefit from work, or just leech it off their parents.

              You dont have to replace your camera every 2 years. There are D30s and D100s going very strong still, D60s also, and when you want to upgrade, there is a second hand value to those cameras, not to mention lenses.

              About the colors and all that, its just a matter of you not knowing how to process digital, I can get Velviastyle images out of my D70 or S2 easily, + they are cleaner and enlarge well, especially at 400ISO+

              The viewfinder I agree on, however its something I got used to quickly, and its a good tradeoff for making my tele reach 1.5x longer.

              The D70 is a consumer camera yet has better metering and better flashsystem than the F100 and the F5.

              The D2h 4mpix is a tad to small, but a D2X is on the horizon.

              I like film (Fuji slidefilm, kodachrome sux a$$ and has been for years, compared to the fuji produce), but digital has made photography so much more fun, especially being able to truly dial in the exposure and really splurge without worry of film drain when that magic light or whatever shows up.

              Comment


              • #22
                The D70 is a consumer camera yet has better metering and better flashsystem than the F100 and the F5.

                That's the most obvious falsehood I ever read I think (except the people thinking the 300d is the same as the 10d except the price).
                It's simply not true that the D70 has a superior metering system.
                Maybe it has a larger number of sensors, but that doesn't mean anything really. It's just to make it look good in the catalogue...

                The D2h 4mpix is a tad to small, but a D2X is on the horizon.
                You've obviously never used a D2h or you'd know that megapixel count is useless comparing cameras with sensors based on a different architecture.

                The 4.3MP sensor of the D2h will produce images that are of higher quality than those produced by the 6.2MP of the D100, D70 or 10d.

                About the colors and all that, its just a matter of you not knowing how to process digital, I can get Velviastyle images out of my D70 or S2 easily, + they are cleaner and enlarge well, especially at 400ISO+

                I do know how to process digital images, but it should not be needed.
                Unless and until the sensor can produce output that does not need post processing the sensor is basically flawed.

                You dont have to replace your camera every 2 years. There are D30s and D100s going very strong still, D60s also, and when you want to upgrade, there is a second hand value to those cameras, not to mention lenses.

                Never said anything about replacing lenses...
                Second hand value of digicams is next to nothing so you can safely ignore it in any equation (inflation will cover for it).
                You WILL replace the camera every 2-3 years, seeing as everyone is pulled along in the spiral of the latest and greatest.
                I know several people who started with a D30, then D60, 10d, 300d and one of them then got a 1d, 1ds and now a 1d Mk2.
                As soon as a new model is announced the one you have now is not any good anymore, after all...
                You see it here all the time.

                or just leech it off their parents.
                Yes, that's why the kids here have the most expensive gear...
                I have to work for it, and pay the rent and all other expenses as well... That's one reason I don't have an 80-400VR and a D1x... The other being that I feel digicams are not worth the investment unless you get paid for using them and spending 2500 on a lens is also too much of a good thing (it's cheaper now, that was the price at the time).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Digitals are definitely worth the investment.
                  I shot about 8000 pictures in one year. This is the equivalent of 222 rolls of film. If one roll of film, including processing and framing costs about 9 Euros (estimate), it would add up to +/- 2000 Euros a year. All I spent on my cam after purchase is 30 Euros on CD-R's and some sensor swabs. My digicam by no means needs replacement yet, I can shoot with it for at least another 2 years and save another 3000+ Euros (rounded down). Buying a new cam every 2-3 years is still cheaper than all the processing. And as for the 'slide-collection' bit, of course a projected slide looks awsome, heck, I occasionally take slides too, but how often do you set up your projector & screen (in comparison to how often you switch on your computer)? Besides that, digital prints (20x30cm) are cheaper and better quality than having a print made of a slide.
                  More plusses than minusses if you ask me...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jwenting
                    The D70 is a consumer camera yet has better metering and better flashsystem than the F100 and the F5.

                    That's the most obvious falsehood I ever read I think (except the people thinking the 300d is the same as the 10d except the price).
                    It's simply not true that the D70 has a superior metering system.
                    Maybe it has a larger number of sensors, but that doesn't mean anything really. It's just to make it look good in the catalogue...

                    The D2h 4mpix is a tad to small, but a D2X is on the horizon.
                    You've obviously never used a D2h or you'd know that megapixel count is useless comparing cameras with sensors based on a different architecture.

                    The 4.3MP sensor of the D2h will produce images that are of higher

                    quality than those produced by the 6.2MP of the D100, D70 or 10d.

                    About the colors and all that, its just a matter of you not knowing how to process digital, I can get Velviastyle images out of my D70 or S2 easily, + they are cleaner and enlarge well, especially at 400ISO+

                    I do know how to process digital images, but it should not be needed.
                    Unless and until the sensor can produce output that does not need post processing the sensor is basically flawed.

                    You dont have to replace your camera every 2 years. There are D30s and D100s going very strong still, D60s also, and when you want to upgrade, there is a second hand value to those cameras, not to mention lenses.

                    Never said anything about replacing lenses...
                    Second hand value of digicams is next to nothing so you can safely ignore it in any equation (inflation will cover for it).
                    You WILL replace the camera every 2-3 years, seeing as everyone is pulled along in the spiral of the latest and greatest.
                    I know several people who started with a D30, then D60, 10d, 300d and one of them then got a 1d, 1ds and now a 1d Mk2.
                    As soon as a new model is announced the one you have now is not any good anymore, after all...
                    You see it here all the time.

                    or just leech it off their parents.
                    Yes, that's why the kids here have the most expensive gear...
                    I have to work for it, and pay the rent and all other expenses as well... That's one reason I don't have an 80-400VR and a D1x... The other being that I feel digicams are not worth the investment unless you get paid for using them and spending 2500 on a lens is also too much of a good thing (it's cheaper now, that was the price at the time).

                    Wow, you are the Don quijote of film cameras.

                    Firstly, anyone who can read knows that the D70 has the same RGB-metering system as the F5, it should also be improved considering how old the F5 is. The F100 does not have the RGB-metering, I have an F100, I know the D70 is better in that sense. Also I have something you obviously dont, hands on experience from the D70. It never fails. .

                    You were at least smart enough realize that 1/500 flashsync and i-TTL is better than the F's system (albeit they are still very good).

                    I do know how to process digital images, but it should not be needed.
                    Unless and until the sensor can produce output that does not need post processing the sensor is basically flawed.
                    I cant even begin to adress how stupid this is... The whole point of larger dynamic range and the choice of parameters in the camera is to get the most out of the images. I guess negfilm has been flawed all these years cause, it doesnt come out as perfect prints directly out of camera! All BW-shooters and their darkrooms have flawed minds for actually altering the image to their liking after exposure.


                    I think this comes down to you being bitter about not being able to afford going digital

                    The 4.3MP sensor of the D2h will produce images that are of higher quality than those produced by the 6.2MP of the D100, D70 or 10d.
                    Better pixel by pixel yes. But shoot planes with tail and engine logos in rawformat, do the usual horizon leveling and centering, and then compare what image looks the best. More res helps in AV-photography, no doubt. I have used the D2h, lovely house, all it lacks is a little more resolution, alas, D2X.


                    Second hand value of digicams is next to nothing so you can safely ignore it in any equation (inflation will cover for it).

                    Tell that to those who sell their D100s with MBs at 1000 and D60s in good condition at 800. Do some research and dont talk out of your a$$.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Chris_SE
                      Originally posted by jwenting
                      The D70 is a consumer camera yet has better metering and better flashsystem than the F100 and the F5.

                      That's the most obvious falsehood I ever read I think (except the people thinking the 300d is the same as the 10d except the price).
                      It's simply not true that the D70 has a superior metering system.
                      Maybe it has a larger number of sensors, but that doesn't mean anything really. It's just to make it look good in the catalogue...

                      The D2h 4mpix is a tad to small, but a D2X is on the horizon.
                      You've obviously never used a D2h or you'd know that megapixel count is useless comparing cameras with sensors based on a different architecture.

                      The 4.3MP sensor of the D2h will produce images that are of higher

                      quality than those produced by the 6.2MP of the D100, D70 or 10d.

                      About the colors and all that, its just a matter of you not knowing how to process digital, I can get Velviastyle images out of my D70 or S2 easily, + they are cleaner and enlarge well, especially at 400ISO+

                      I do know how to process digital images, but it should not be needed.
                      Unless and until the sensor can produce output that does not need post processing the sensor is basically flawed.

                      You dont have to replace your camera every 2 years. There are D30s and D100s going very strong still, D60s also, and when you want to upgrade, there is a second hand value to those cameras, not to mention lenses.

                      Never said anything about replacing lenses...
                      Second hand value of digicams is next to nothing so you can safely ignore it in any equation (inflation will cover for it).
                      You WILL replace the camera every 2-3 years, seeing as everyone is pulled along in the spiral of the latest and greatest.
                      I know several people who started with a D30, then D60, 10d, 300d and one of them then got a 1d, 1ds and now a 1d Mk2.
                      As soon as a new model is announced the one you have now is not any good anymore, after all...
                      You see it here all the time.

                      or just leech it off their parents.
                      Yes, that's why the kids here have the most expensive gear...
                      I have to work for it, and pay the rent and all other expenses as well... That's one reason I don't have an 80-400VR and a D1x... The other being that I feel digicams are not worth the investment unless you get paid for using them and spending 2500 on a lens is also too much of a good thing (it's cheaper now, that was the price at the time).

                      Wow, you are the Don quijote of film cameras.

                      Firstly, anyone who can read knows that the D70 has the same RGB-metering system as the F5, it should also be improved considering how old the F5 is. The F100 does not have the RGB-metering, I have an F100, I know the D70 is better in that sense. Also I have something you obviously dont, hands on experience from the D70. It never fails. .

                      You were at least smart enough realize that 1/500 flashsync and i-TTL is better than the F's system (albeit they are still very good).

                      I do know how to process digital images, but it should not be needed.
                      Unless and until the sensor can produce output that does not need post processing the sensor is basically flawed.
                      I cant even begin to adress how stupid this is... The whole point of larger dynamic range and the choice of parameters in the camera is to get the most out of the images. I guess negfilm has been flawed all these years cause, it doesnt come out as perfect prints directly out of camera! All BW-shooters and their darkrooms have flawed minds for actually altering the image to their liking after exposure.


                      I think this comes down to you being bitter about not being able to afford going digital

                      The 4.3MP sensor of the D2h will produce images that are of higher quality than those produced by the 6.2MP of the D100, D70 or 10d.
                      Better pixel by pixel yes. But shoot planes with tail and engine logos in rawformat, do the usual horizon leveling and centering, and then compare what image looks the best. More res helps in AV-photography, no doubt. I have used the D2h, lovely house, all it lacks is a little more resolution, alas, D2X.


                      Second hand value of digicams is next to nothing so you can safely ignore it in any equation (inflation will cover for it).

                      Tell that to those who sell their D100s with MBs at 1000 and D60s in good condition at 800. Do some research and dont talk out of your a$$.
                      Owned!!
                      Click Here for my aviation photographs.
                      No Frontiers

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X