Quote:
Originally Posted by ast /img/forum/go_quote.gif
calm down, no need to get emotional here. You are not the owner Kodak film.
Most of regular films have about 12M pixels equivalent resolution, that's what I read. Some high end film may have more. But same applies to high end Digital as well. My pre-ordered 5D mkII has over 21M pixel and it is not even labeled "Professional". Several medium format ones have over 40M or so.
So shooting film is "cheaper"! gimme a break. I don't even want to argue. You can happily shooting films to save money.
ciao
|
645 medium format film starts at about 90mp and goes up to 300mp if you use 6x17. And yes, shooting film is cheaper for me. The amount of money I spend per year on processing and buying film is less than the cost of a full frame digital camera. And the 4x5" camera I plan on getting probably has about a gigapixel worth in one image, I don't care to do the exact math right this second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In terms of image quality, I would say digital has already surpassed film. I think a good quality DSLR will take better images than a 35mm camera under all but rigged-to-favor-film conditions. There is no technological point to film; a DSLR is equivalent to a film camera that lets you instantly change your film speed, shoot hundreds of images without reloading, instantly view your images after taking them, without incurring any development costs or delays.
It can never be film though, by definition. It doesn't matter how digital performs, it is not film, for better, or for worse.
|
How has digital surpassed film? Tech Pan has more resolution than any 35mm digital camera I know of, and I use it all of the time. I can change my film speed instantly by sticking in a new roll of film, or I can push or pull my film, too. Shooting hundreds of images? And how many of those will be keepers? Instantly viewing them? I don't really care, that is not important to me. Development costs? As I said earlier, my lab and film bills cost less than a full-frame body, and allow me much more latitude in regards with what I can do. With a D700 or 5D Mk. II I'm stuck with how their sensors look. With film, I can use a multitude of emulsions that offer different looks, pros, and cons. With the 5D you're sacrificing low-light sensitivity for resolution, and with the D700 it is the opposite. A pro film body is about $300 (used F5), how much is a D3? 1Ds Mk. III? Etc.? And delays, again not important for me but once I start processing my own film I'll have to wait x amount of minutes for the time to develop, plus...it's fun!
Digital and film are just different. For me, film is cheaper and gives me more options. If you pointed a gun to my head though, I would say film is better. Speed and convienience don't really matter to me...I'm not a sport shooter. I do street photography and landscapes. I'm going to spend more than the cost of a full-frame DSLR on a large format outfit, and those cameras are even slower...yet they offer me movements and a larger negative.
Why so hostile, though? It is almost as if you're trying to justify your own purchase because you bought based on advertising.
If I had all the money in the world, I'd probably get a 5D Mk. II, an Ebony 45SU2, a medium format Arca-Swiss, and a Phase-One digital back. So don't think I hate digital...I'd love to use it, but it just costs so much.
