Old Film Cameras > Digital Camera Quality?
I had thought that ancient film cameras, particularly the Pentax K1000 (I reckon this should be pretty renown) wouldnt be able to compare to digital cameras of nowadays (Take Nikon D70 for example).
But I’m having second thoughts.
If someone may maybe clarify briefly (or any length 
I’m trying to get into photography you see 
Answer by Duane L
I know your Pentax WAS a very excellent camera, but there are so many digital cameras and they will be the camera of the future for all Photography.
Answer by FieldMouse
Well, I have to say that the Pentax K1000 is a workhorse of cameras. Probably the sturdiest one ever built.
I’ve been a photo/journalist for a newspaper for 20 years and started out shooting film and processing it. I really didn’t want to make the jump to digital but now I’m hooked.
It’s cheaper than having film developed. Of course, there are persons purists who will never use digital and I know that as well.
Resolution is getting better and cameras cheaper. The lenses are the business that will always add to the expense.
I was told that after about 17 million pixels, your eye won’t be able to distinguish from 35 mm film. It’s like watts on a speaker. It’s a waste of money to buy more watts because your ear can only hear up to so many.
I’d try the Nikon D70 or a List. I’ve used the professional Nikon and List both and they are awesome. I despise to admit this but I’ll never go back to film.
P.S. On my digital cameras I still shoot manual most of the time. It’s not point and shoot like public reckon. It can be for the amateur but you can get better digital pics shooting manual with certain lighting, etc.
Excellent luck.
Answer by bernz
First, go to the library and get a excellent book on photography basics. You need to learn how ISO (timing) works, depth-of-field, focus, and so on in order to really take excellent photos.
Next, make sure you get an SLR camera. Most ancient (mechanical) cameras are SLR, and the digital SLRs tend to be more pricey, but it’s worth it. What is SLR? It earnings that the viewfinder shows you what the lens itself sees, so the “preview” through the viewfinder is assess. Non-SLR use a separate viewfinder, which skews the angle of the image, yielding subtle crapiness (but crappiness nonetheless) because even small changes in lighting (and shadows) may maybe make the shot less spectacular.
Excellent photography is 3 things: lighting, operator know-how, camera quality.
Finally, if you’re talking about quality, the key business is how far you’re going to “blow up” the final pics. If you keep them printed-photo-album size (e.g. 5×7″), then even a 3 megapixel camera will do, but if you’re going to make poster-sized prints, you’ll probably want something more like 6 MP. Above 6 MP, the law of losing ground returns starts to take effect, and it becomes a “cock-fight”. Check this out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
(if you search, you’ll find additional independent sites that concur).
D70 is a excellent choice. My mom has a Pentax that still works excellently, so she’s got excellent value from it, and she beyond doubt knows her stuff, but even she has “gone digital”.
Consider buying used. The ‘quip-whores (persons who buy cutting edge gear just to brag about it) will pay top dollar when the item comes to market, and it usually doesn’t take more than 6 months for the value to drop — then they sell their “ancient” stuff, and you can save a bundle. (They usually take excellent care of their gear, too… but question to inspect it carefully and test out the functions first). Look in your community classified (online and off). A used D70 will be pretty inexpensive by now.
One more tip: I know some camera afficionados who buy lenses on the huge auction site, and have had excellent/safe transactions. The lenses are what’s gonna cost the most, but they’re highly interchangeable — make sure your camera body features a common/well loved lens mount system.
Answer by just plain jim
I concur, I will never go back to film. I like the instant feedback, the zero cost to see the results and the amount of shots is only limited by the memory.
With that out of the way, digital is not reasonably there.
The whites have a trend to get blown out, so exposure can be pretty tough to get persons subtle values in whites.
I disagree about needing an SLR. I use a point and shoot List A640, a 10mp wonder that is simple to use, and takes wonderful digital photo’s. The draw back, I can’t exchange the lens. But, the upside, when I was shooting pro film, 99% of my shots were done with a moderately wide to a mild telephoto. So I don’t feel limited, I feel liberated that I don’t have to lug around a standard format camera anymore and can shoot just about forever without having to thread through another roll of film. Plus I like the small compact stylishness of my current camera. The additional disadvantages, if I want to shoot manual, all the settings are handled through the menue. Makes changing settings a bit time consuming. Plus, there is no flash connector, so I am limited to using the built in flash. But, since I don’t like flash photography, it really doesn’t matter.
I do have a Fuji S2 that pretty much gathers dust, a wonderful digital SLR that can do it all. But its huge and obtrusive. Sure it looks cool and makes me look like a pro. Then public clam up, give pun smiles, and it makes a terrible racket with the mirror slaps up. Like saying, “hey, I just took your photo!!”
What you have with digital is the best learning tool in the world. In the film days it took hours, even days weeks to see the results. Now you have instant feedback. Therefore, your learning curve to get past the basics is considerably shorter then what I went through.
Your largest hurtle after that is learning how to process your shots. You’re going to have to learn the software which can be simple with the software that comes with most digital cameras that is always very weak, or use pro quality software where you are going to have to spend time learning it.
The premier photo software for years is Adobe Photoshop. But it is very pricey. If you want something that is powerful, you can go with Photoshop Elements from Adobe for about $ 100 or go too: http://www.gimp.org and download, for free, their version of Photoshop. It is very powerful, but again, you will need to learn how to use it.
I hope this helps
Source:
50 years of photo experience. Been there and done it all. Now I don’t give a rats behind what it was shot with, or how much photoshopping was done to it, but rather the final results.
===============
Life is so simple, but we insist on making it intricate
Confucius
551 – 479 BC
===============
Peace
Jim
http://www.ChinaBlix.com
.
Answer by John T
Rather than spending a few thousand dollars for a top level DSLR and lenses I use my film cameras and lenses (I have List A-1 and Pentax 645 cameras and lenses). It costs me $ 25 to buy a roll of film, have it developed, and scanned to disc at maximum resolution. I have a excellent photo printer and use it for most of my enlargements, but I also take the negatives back to my processor to make some of the more vital enlargements. Replacing my gear would cost me thousands of dollars. For the cost of the best available List DSLR and 1 lens I can shoot more than 300 rolls of film–all with better quality. I just doesn’t make sense for me, especially since I seldom shoot more than 50 or 60 rolls of film a year any more. 1 DSLR (with it’s limited longevity) versus the multiple 35mm and standard format bodies I currently own–1 lens versus the 20 or so I already own–I did the math and for me it said keep shooting film.
Having said this, I’m in my mid-50s, , you’re likely much younger so digital photography is probably inevitable for you. So, if you choose to go with film don’t buy the Pentax. It’s a fantastic camera, but if you buy a Nikon film camera and lenses they are compatible with current Nikon digital gear. That way, to go digital your only investment will be for the body–kind of a best of both worlds situation.
Give your answer to this question below!
I used to browse the sights but I dont remember where they are now. Thanks.
Answer by Johnie
well it is a dutch site but you can check www.kieskeurig.nl
Answer by Alicia O
Search for a consumer reports site.
http://acehighprint.com/
Answer by white pearl
For digital cameras, particularly, dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/) is a excellent go-to for thorough reviews and comparisons
Answer by Jess
This site is fantastic – very user friendly
Give your answer to this question below!
HDE Hard Case for Kodak EasyShare Digital Cameras
- Protects your camera against scratches, dust and hurts; Ultra water-resistant material
- 2 way zip for simple access; Comes with detachable mountain hook and neck strap
- Internal soft layer protects LCD screen from scratches and bumps; Lightweight, durable, convenient to carry
- External size: 4.4″ x 3.2″ x 1.6″; Internal size: 3.7″ x 2.6″ x 1.3″
- Please note: while this case fits many models we cannot guarantee it will fit ALL models. To ensure compatibility and avoid a restore please compare the specified internal camera case dimensions to your own camera model.
100% Groundbreaking new high quality camera case – Fits Kodak EasyShare Camera models Mini , C140 and many more…
Please note: while this case fits many models we cannot guarantee it will fit ALL models. To ensure compatibility and avoid a restore please compare the specified internal camera case dimensions to your own camera model.
List Price: $ 14.99
Price: $ 5.94
www.artoftheimage.com – Comparing the Nikon D7000 vs the Nikon D300s, and Why I Recommend the Nikon D7000 over the Nikon D300s.
Record Rating: 4 / 5
No comments:
Post a Comment