Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

End of 35mm film - long live digital - or is it?

<< < (2/2)

koncool:
Actually, being an owner of lots of both film and digital camers, I strongly support film. In my possession I have:

Nikon Coolpix E950
Nikon Coolpix E990
Olympus Camedia C40
Olympus Camedia C7070UZ
Olympus Camedia C1400L
Canon EOS 300D

and some more, but none of them did impress me, even with really good lenses. Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974 with the output of digital ones and you'll immediately see what I mean. There can be no comparison, and probably never will be any. ;D And no, film is nowhere near death.

Carol Haynes:
Presumably if 35mm cameras start to disappear it won't be long before processing becomes difficult too
-Carol Haynes (May 26, 2006, 04:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
Peak are in Sheffield, I think, not a million miles from the CarolHaynes mansion?

It's not just the film, either.  Lenses and ancillaries aren't always available for digital cameras, and if they are, they're very expensive.  I've not yet seen a shift lens for digital advertised, for example; very wide lenses are rare or non-existent; no digital Hasselblad XPan yet (OK I know you can make panoramas digitally, but it's extra work).
-rjbull (May 26, 2006, 06:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

Actually one of the good things about Canon EOS cameras is they can use the same lenses as the film versions and with the advent of 35mm CCDs you get exactly the same expected 'use of the lens'.

Sheffield isn't that far away - but not close enough to pop in for film processing (like a 4 hour round trip at least).

Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974 with the output of digital ones and you'll immediately see what I mean.
--- End quote ---

This is the trouble with consumer level products (even the expensive ones). By the time you get to the Pro versions of Canon you are in a different league and the the quality is up there (which is why almost all professional photographers have moved over to the digital these days). Images from the 16.7 Mp Canons are now accepted by photo archives (the first digital cameras to acheive this) but you are talking the best part of £5,000 for the body !!!

As already pointed out though there is still the issue of transparencies. Can you actually do transparencies at all with digital? I have never seen anyone mention this and if you can would you have similar problems to trying to convert 35mm negatives?

koncool:
Yeah but don't you achieve the same (or better) results with, e.g. a Canon EOS 5 (which I love so much :-*) or an EOS 1? Why pay such a large amount of money?

Carol Haynes:
Don't know - I've never had the opportunity to play with the EOS 1 or 5, I have an EOS 300D and don't see the need to replace it anytime soon.

rjbull:
Actually one of the good things about Canon EOS cameras is they can use the same lenses as the film versions and with the advent of 35mm CCDs you get exactly the same expected 'use of the lens'.
-Carol Haynes (May 26, 2006, 06:54 AM)
--- End quote ---

I'd forgotten that, but I thought it was still in the realm of if you have to ask, you can't afford it...  you can get top quality and versatility from second-hand film gear costing a few hundred pounds (if that) that might be an order of magnitude more expensive with digital.

Sheffield isn't that far away - but not close enough to pop in for film processing (like a 4 hour round trip at least).

--- End quote ---

There's still Postman Pat and his black-and-white cat...

Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974

--- End quote ---

I rather wish I'd acquired a Leitz Minolta CLE, though I heard they're rather fragile.  The idea seemed to me great for a hiking / sightseeing camera.

As already pointed out though there is still the issue of transparencies. Can you actually do transparencies at all with digital?

--- End quote ---

I believe so, though I've not heard of it being done.  There are those big Fuji machines that scan transparencies using a laser and write out the results, also using a laser, onto normal "Crystal Archive" photographic paper.  Seems no reason why they couldn't write onto film like that from a digital file.  Most people will ask, why would you want to, when you can get digital projectors?  Albeit, they're another expensive item.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page