Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,516   Online: 854
      
Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 123456789101115 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 205

Thread: 35mm SLR - why?

  1. #41
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by alapin View Post
    So why 35mm SLR? I could give you many of the reasons others have given you, but mostly because my Olympus SLR , Yashica GSN 35 and Olympus XA rangefinders that I have used, for next to forever, still are great cameras that can provide great photos.
    Indeed. If something is good enough for X's criteria, it remains good by the same criteria, no matter what else is invented. The invention of new tools does not change the absolute qualities of the old ones, nor does it necessitate their obsolescence.

    It does tend to change X's criteria, however.

    The problem for we film users who are holding on is that people are brought up to believe that newer is better and normal, and that older is useless and weird. We are fighting an entire cultural change, not just a trend.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #42
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Leighgion, checked out your flickr page and was pleasantly suprised to see the 35mm f1.8G DX being used for film. There seems to be some vignetting in some of the photos and I was I wondering if this was caused by the lens or added, as the "Temple Reading" photo seems to have little or none.
    The vignette is from the lens, but it's not TOO severe, so if the corners of the image are dark anyway, it doesn't show as much. Only really stands out when the corners are light.

    In the case of my "Temple Reading" shot, there's no visible vignette because the image is cropped in. I was just a bit too far away when I took that.

    All in all, I'm pretty happy with how the 35mm 1.8G DX performs on film. I'm sure its softer at the edges in addition to the vignette, but that really isn't something of grave importance to me.

  3. #43
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    I guess I *have* been overlooking the obvious answer: it's still film. Bells and whistles aside, if you want it to look like film, you shoot film. How the camera feels and operates doesn't make it "almost digital". It just makes it modern.
    Yes, Tri-X is still Tri-X whether it's in an Argus C3 or an F100. But the F100 is going to handle much better if you need speed and flexibility.

    Does someone have the answer to the "bright viewfinder" question? Is there a technological reason that viewfinders are brighter in film SLRs than in dSLRs? Or is it just a quality issue? (high end film SLRs with bright viewfinders can be had for cheaper than the equivalent dSLR).
    As already has been noted, lower end DSLRs tend to have pentamirrors, which don't give you as nice and bright an image as pentaprisms. Higher end DSLRs have prisms.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post

    The EOS 1V, despite being packed to the rafters with technology, is nowhere near digital. Even further from that notion is my beloved workhorse, the EOS 1N. If they appear to you an almost digital experience, why do they "fall short"? And there is the question. If you do not use your Nikon N90S (BTW, is that the F90X otherwise?) then how is it a change of format (if any) will reignite the spark? I see you've already got multiple formats to play with. You really need to sit down and consider the objectives and what you want to do, to achieve, with whatever format you are looking at and not clutch at a fancy piece of expensive, auto-redundant machinery like it is a Chanel tote, which is the way so many digimons appear to be panhandled today: on purchase they are the flavour of the month; before you know it, the latest and greatest is yesterday's hero — now as popular as herpes on a honeymoon. You can take my word for it: you can go a long, long, long way in one format. I'm still going in it after 33 years.
    I am reading everyone's posts with much enthusiasm, and of course can't reply to them all. Gary has prompted a response to his though.

    First, yes the N90s is the same as the F90x.

    When I shoot film, I primarily shoot 35mm rangefinder or medium format SLR or TLR. I intentionally seek an experience and result that is different from when I shoot digitally for commercial purposes (fashion, portraits). I shoot these film formats because of the process, as much as the result. I simply enjoy it. I find the N90s to be not very satisfying to use, because it's "too much like going to work". A similar experience to my dSLRs, but without some of the benefits of digital. So I was failing to see the appeal of that type of camera.

    But I've been enlightened, for sure! I seem to have forgotten that even when it's shot full-auto, film has its uses. My bad.

    No, the spark hasn't gone. If anything, the film spark is brighter than ever in me. I've explored almost all the formats and major categories of cameras, and I know what works for me and what doesn't. My question was not subtitled "how can I find a new love for my N90s". It was a curiosity about how other people use and favor high end 35mm SLRs.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    Also, I think I was asking from a hypothetical film-newbie's perspective. If someone wanted to make the leap from digital to film, why would he/she choose a high-end 35mm SLR?

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    5
    All 35mm SLRs are full frame. All 35mm cameras have the same quality of recording medium. Film is more fun. I can scan my 35mm negatives and they look like they were taken with a D3, every time. Yet somehow, my N65 didn't cost me 5000 dollars. And I would have to put a hell of a lot of film through it to make it cost that much.

  7. #47
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamie420 View Post
    All 35mm SLRs are full frame. All 35mm cameras have the same quality of recording medium. Film is more fun. I can scan my 35mm negatives and they look like they were taken with a D3, every time. Yet somehow, my N65 didn't cost me 5000 dollars. And I would have to put a hell of a lot of film through it to make it cost that much.
    A 50 Megapixel Hasselblad back costs costs $50,000.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  8. #48
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    But I've been enlightened, for sure! I seem to have forgotten that even when it's shot full-auto, film has its uses. My bad.
    Of course. The film doesn't care if you shot it full auto or agonized over Sunny 16. Exposure is exposure, regardless of how you got there and focus is no less valid if a phase detect system and motor found it rather than your own hand and eye on a split prism.

    It's fine to enjoy more process, but you have to remember that no matter what sentiments are popular on message board threads, camera automation isn't some kind of plebeian crutch. It was invented and refined for very practical reasons to help the photographer take photographs quickly when they've not the time or inclination to fiddle faddle for every frame.

    If I'm trying to shoot my niece's soccer team and want to use Tri-X for that classic PJ look, I don't need an experience that's different from my workhorse DSLR; in fact, what I need is an experience very much like it if I hope to leave with any photos, which for my gear chest means the F100. The team is going to move at the same speed regardless of what gear I choose, so I'd best choose gear that's going to keep up.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    ...I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?

    -Matt
    (Bronica EC, Bronica ETR-s, Yashica Electro 35 GSN, Yashicaflex, Nikon N90s, Super Ricohflex, Toyo-View C etc etc etc)

    Speaking personally:

    You're a little weird and like to be different, and proud of it?

    You get full-frame cheaply (all your cameras can be full-frame with 50 mp sensors).

    No sensor cleaning required?

    Your'e not in the rat-race and can concentrate on photography instead?

    Your equipment won't date (dated already)?

    You may be living in the digital age, but your mind is still in the steam age (and you like it that way)?

    Your equipment is unlikely to get stolen and, if it should be, its cheap enough to replace (save on insurance)?

    The technology is "mature", therefore stable and unchanging (not having to master new stuff all the time)?

    Anyone can take pictures with digital (even nursery-school kids): film is more challenging and easier to screw up?:rolleyes:

    You just "like old stuff" (made of leather, metal, and glass, with springs and gears, often made by people "who cared", and lasts "forever")

    You can get more of it for the money?

    You don't need to own or know anything about computers, IT, etc/

    What's VR/SR? Who cares?

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,232
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by rippo View Post
    Also, I think I was asking from a hypothetical film-newbie's perspective. If someone wanted to make the leap from digital to film, why would he/she choose a high-end 35mm SLR?
    Depends on what they want to do, I suppose. I can think of a number of good reasons, ranging from "I expect to shoot a lot of sports/kids/wildlife" (or other subjects in which automation makes it easier to get time-critical shots) through "the bells and whistles are cheap enough that why not" to "I just like the way this particular camera feels". There are also some reasons that I'd say are, um, not as well thought out ("I gotta have the BEST of everything!").

    But for most people, I think a basic slightly-automated SLR would have all the same virtues in practice---anything with autofocus and that's capable of doing at least aperture-priority and full-manual. Not that those are necessary features for photography, of course, but most people coming from digital will be used to quite a bit of automation.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin