rockyridgefarm
Elite Member
[image]http://www.tractorbynet.com/forumfiles/340940-viewcam.bmp[/image]
What digital camera do you have/want?
- Thread starter _RaT_
- Start date
- Views: 5840
OP
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
You'll enjoy it Mike, the professionals on it have said adios to film and understandable so. Sure there are a few that still shoot film, but it is unbelieveable how in the last year, so many are switching. There are many compelling reasons why digital is far superior now to film. Immediate feedback being one major one. Check the Canon DVD, it has a great comparison between the two. Digital wins hands down. The photos are nothing short of stunning. Seth Resnick a hard core 35mm film guy who said adamatly he would never go digital not only has, but is even promoting it now. He mentions he could never have been so wrong and the results are far superior to that of film. I agree, it's the future, plastic, titanium or not. Let me know what second lens you get. Many of those using Canon have opted for the incredible and costly 70-200mm f2.8L. I tried one and the focus is instananeous and dead on. The control over DOF is fantastic. There is a far cheaper alternatice, the 70-200mm f4 L that only gives up a little bit of speed while retaining the superb resolution. Rat...
OP
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
Your post talking about the Nikon 50mm f1.2 caught my attention. I'm pretty familiar with it. My opinion pretty closely follows what most folks here mention.
Opinions from users of Nikons 50mm f1.2's
Opinions from users of Nikons 50mm f1.2's
TresCrows
Elite Member
"Your post talking about the Nikon 50mm f1.2 caught my attention. I'm pretty familiar with it. My opinion pretty closely follows what most folks here mention. "
Yeah, I am familiar also with such discussions and find them ESOTERIC. You claim you cannot see the difference between 5MP and film, (lots of different films to make a blanket statement) and yet you buy into an esoteric argument about edge softness of the Nikon F1.2 at F stop 1.2. It is like this, arguments comparing the Nikon F1.2 (I also have the 1.4 and 1.8 and a bunch more of various sorts) to other similar lenses from Nikon or Canon or Minolta is like comparing Ferrais and Porches and Lamborginis to a VW beetle. Yeah, a beetle engine kinda looks like a Porche engine but it ain't. At it's worse the aforementioned lens is still one of the best and is far superior to any high end point and shoot as I stated so I will stay with the rock I stand on.
Also, I think the new Canon SLR digicam would be fun to play with, go get one /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif, I just might talk myself into it also and Canon makes some very fine lenses as well. I imagine it too would be far superior to the high end point and shoots as well.
I have an entertainment type set up in my lower level, home theator type arrangement in progress. Where the "plasma tv" will maybe someday go there is a pull down slide screen. My projector is hidden in the opposing wall. Most of my film is shot as slide film, color positive, and is then projected for viewing at about 4X6 feet--not 4X6 inches. I can see the difference dudes, trust me. However, film scanned to a digital medium OR digital photos from a digital camera shown on a large screen TV--yeah, I doubt there would be a visiable difference and digital might be even superior in that venue becasue of the limitations of various elements in such a system, the end result can only be as great as allowed by the weakest link in that sytem. So, to some extent it all depends upon how the "image' will be used and in what medium it will be viewed.
Again, anyone with junky Nikon (Canon or Olympus as well) equipment they want to sell at a garage sale CHEAP, I will save you the trouble, please send it to me. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif J
Yeah, I am familiar also with such discussions and find them ESOTERIC. You claim you cannot see the difference between 5MP and film, (lots of different films to make a blanket statement) and yet you buy into an esoteric argument about edge softness of the Nikon F1.2 at F stop 1.2. It is like this, arguments comparing the Nikon F1.2 (I also have the 1.4 and 1.8 and a bunch more of various sorts) to other similar lenses from Nikon or Canon or Minolta is like comparing Ferrais and Porches and Lamborginis to a VW beetle. Yeah, a beetle engine kinda looks like a Porche engine but it ain't. At it's worse the aforementioned lens is still one of the best and is far superior to any high end point and shoot as I stated so I will stay with the rock I stand on.
Also, I think the new Canon SLR digicam would be fun to play with, go get one /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif, I just might talk myself into it also and Canon makes some very fine lenses as well. I imagine it too would be far superior to the high end point and shoots as well.
I have an entertainment type set up in my lower level, home theator type arrangement in progress. Where the "plasma tv" will maybe someday go there is a pull down slide screen. My projector is hidden in the opposing wall. Most of my film is shot as slide film, color positive, and is then projected for viewing at about 4X6 feet--not 4X6 inches. I can see the difference dudes, trust me. However, film scanned to a digital medium OR digital photos from a digital camera shown on a large screen TV--yeah, I doubt there would be a visiable difference and digital might be even superior in that venue becasue of the limitations of various elements in such a system, the end result can only be as great as allowed by the weakest link in that sytem. So, to some extent it all depends upon how the "image' will be used and in what medium it will be viewed.
Again, anyone with junky Nikon (Canon or Olympus as well) equipment they want to sell at a garage sale CHEAP, I will save you the trouble, please send it to me. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif J
TresCrows
Elite Member
It has been a goof off day. I thought to take a pic of a couple of my favorite Nikons ready for travel. I am supposed to shoot some friends racing bikes Sunday but I think the weather may be to cold for me, not the Nikons. Nikons photographed by a digicam /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif. Hey, this is fun. J
Attachments
TresCrows
Elite Member
Oh well, back to my other expensive pass time. This digital pic is off the aft fuselage of my Vans RV7A, one of the major sub-assemblies currently taking shape. Well, time to go--at last. Oh, I held one of those new Digital Canon SLRs in my hand today, very, very nice. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Y'all be good. J
Attachments
OP
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
I have read so much about pixels and resolution and its ability to reproduce vs films resolve. The discussion is far to deep for this, but there are things one does better then others. A 35 mm negative or slide scanned at 4000 dpi will quickly reveal the limitations of film. Such a file is about 25 MB. Scanning at that resolution with a film scanner will actually get in between the grain and make a worse scan then had it been done at a lower scan rate. For really detailed pictures, I still opt for 6X6 or 6X7. I find 4X5 to cumbersome and quite costly. There are so many great articles by so many people, many of whom I suspect had very similar attitudes about digital resolve as you. Shadow details that film cannot touch. ISO variable on every shot, EXIF data. The list is huge and the end result is truly superb. If you have a speedy internet connection, check out Canons website. The sample pictures for the EOS 1DS and 10D are really quite good. A RAW file on a EOS 1DS is about 32 MB. That camera however is also very costly. The 10 D will produce 12 MB files or so in RAW and the 11X17 enlargement it produces is stunning. Check out the print output on a Noritsu printer outsourced at Costco of all places for about $2. I must say, it is very, very spectacular
My personnal experience with the Nikon 50 mm f1.2 and the Canon f1.0 (yes thats 1.0) the fastest lens ever made was just mediocore. The MTF chart surely indicates this as well.
Personal favorite film is Fuji Velvia shot at ISO 40. When I do negative, I use a wide variety of film both Fuji and Kodak. I tend to shoot either ISO 100 or ISO 400.
My personnal experience with the Nikon 50 mm f1.2 and the Canon f1.0 (yes thats 1.0) the fastest lens ever made was just mediocore. The MTF chart surely indicates this as well.
Personal favorite film is Fuji Velvia shot at ISO 40. When I do negative, I use a wide variety of film both Fuji and Kodak. I tend to shoot either ISO 100 or ISO 400.
TresCrows
Elite Member
I think the shadow detail is an advantage of digital and it makes sense. Costco?
I held the Canon S50 and the SLR Rebel Digital in my hand, I picked up the brochures but apparently lost them, I was going to scan them to this discussion, some very intersting things, mostly good. They do both appear to have real time shutters.
Scanning in between the grains at 4000dpi?, at that setting a pixel would appear as big as a truck /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif and the digital pattern would be diffucult to surpress. It appears also that the CCD chip is smaller than a 35MM negative which is why the "apparent" focal length of lenses change when going from a digital body to a film body--is this correct?, I may not have said it exactly right. In any case, let's see, the CCD is smaller than a negative, has fewer light sensitive points and therefore logicaly cannot have the same resolution as film negatives. Now, is it better in some areas---quite possibly and more than that the instant manipulation and instant access an exciting advantage. To use a word I already used once in this thread--esoteric, this has become esoteric.
At this point, if I were getting another digicam, I like the Cannon S50 (about 400 dollars), that pseudo weather proof Olympus with the 10X zoom and the Digital Cannon Rebel priced under 1,000 dollars. Those would be my choices. Like guns, trucks and tractors, there is no end to this and it will be discussed years and years from now. It has been my observation that photographers by their nature are geeky pseudo nerds (nerds rule) and anything new and shiney surely will capture their fancy, is it better or not reamains to be seen. J
I held the Canon S50 and the SLR Rebel Digital in my hand, I picked up the brochures but apparently lost them, I was going to scan them to this discussion, some very intersting things, mostly good. They do both appear to have real time shutters.
Scanning in between the grains at 4000dpi?, at that setting a pixel would appear as big as a truck /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif and the digital pattern would be diffucult to surpress. It appears also that the CCD chip is smaller than a 35MM negative which is why the "apparent" focal length of lenses change when going from a digital body to a film body--is this correct?, I may not have said it exactly right. In any case, let's see, the CCD is smaller than a negative, has fewer light sensitive points and therefore logicaly cannot have the same resolution as film negatives. Now, is it better in some areas---quite possibly and more than that the instant manipulation and instant access an exciting advantage. To use a word I already used once in this thread--esoteric, this has become esoteric.
At this point, if I were getting another digicam, I like the Cannon S50 (about 400 dollars), that pseudo weather proof Olympus with the 10X zoom and the Digital Cannon Rebel priced under 1,000 dollars. Those would be my choices. Like guns, trucks and tractors, there is no end to this and it will be discussed years and years from now. It has been my observation that photographers by their nature are geeky pseudo nerds (nerds rule) and anything new and shiney surely will capture their fancy, is it better or not reamains to be seen. J
bebster
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 527
- Location
- Cape Cod, MA
- Tractor
- JD 4410 eHydro & 430FEL w/ 4N1 bucket & pallet forks
Good article in today's NYTimes about digital cameras.
Here's a link: More Megapixels for the Money
Here's a link: More Megapixels for the Money
OP
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
To really get as much information as a low grain film on a digital camera, a very expensive camera like the EOS 1DS, a 11 megapixel camera is needed. The body cost alone is about $8000. There is a website that helps folks better understand the advantages of either medium. Digital vs Film The digital has its share of problems, as you mentioned, the 1.6 crop factor on a DSLR is an issue for many. The EOS 1DS has a full size sensor and has a 1:1 ratio identical to 35mm film. This is where if you want digital but can wait we should see improvement. The problem is on the wide angle end, my favorite. Take a 24mm lens, multiply by 1.6 and thats the 35mm equivalent. Thats tough. The good thing is on the telephoto end. The other bonus is that you are only using the premium part of the image circle. Edge to edge sharpness is typically better because it is the edge of the image circle that typically is the least sharp. If you are really desire a DSLR and not a point and shoot, waiting has its benefits. They should be out in a year or two with full 35mm (24mmX36MM) sensors. I'm not in any hurry and may well settle for a P&S until the SLR's with full size sensors or a full line of new lenses for the smaller sensor (about the same size as the APS cameras) becomes a much cheaper option. I have nolenses anymore so I'm flexible. If your invested in good Nikon or Canon lenses, then the choice is there, its just whether you want a 1.6 crop or the pricey alternative of a full frame sensor with truly incredible results.
