If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
I have a budding collection of reasonably inexpensive but good retro
compact film cameras and I'm considering purchasing a more serious "photographer's" one to start using soon, as i safely know now that I do like this hobby. I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99. I care most about *image quality*, as this will be the only reason I'd want to step up from my film compacts. By image quality I mean both in its original form (film/digital) or transferred to other media (printed/scanned). The choices i have are either... - A quality film SLR (very easy to get within budget, heck, even $200 is enough for the pentax zx/mz-m). - A digital SLR (canon or nikon; new or like new from ebay). - an all-in-one 8mp digital, such as the canon or olympus. How do these compare? (on the eventual *image quality* criterium only, across media, regardless of eventual use of the image. I don't care much about other features. Also, regardless of running costs, as I have all I'd need to run a digital camera, from computer and peripherals including memory chips, and film isn't expensive to run after all when all things considered, it'd cost me ~$5 per 35mm film total, purchased and developed, which isn't a lot considering it cost me a few times that in day expenses when i went to a scenic spot nearby to take pictures.) Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium format camera, such as a 645 rangefinder (on *image quality* criterium only. Film isn't much more expensive than 35mm, and weight and size no issue as none of above will fit in a belt-pouch anyway). How would it compare to the above, especially to digital SLR? Even more, how would it compare to state-of-the-art digital such as that $8000 canon, or the 14mp new Kodak, because if it is favorably comparable it may mean it'll be better for me than affordable digital for some many years to come. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Mike Henley" wrote: Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium format camera, such as a 645 rangefinder (on *image quality* criterium only. Film isn't much more expensive than 35mm, and weight and size no issue as none of above will fit in a belt-pouch anyway). How would it compare to the above, especially to digital SLR? For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on, say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better. If you prefer the 50mm equiv. focal length, the GS645 is a belows folder that will fit in a belt pouch. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
David J. Littleboy wrote:
For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on, say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better. How good IS the Epson 4870? I assume you have one. With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner? Thanks! Chris |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... David J. Littleboy wrote: For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on, say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better. How good IS the Epson 4870? http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html I assume you have one. No. I had the 2450. That one was a dog compared to the Nikon 8000. The 4870 looks a lot closer. With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner? I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
David J. Littleboy wrote: I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan David, What is your take on the newly announced F-3200? It seems to me like an HP S20 on steroids. I wonder if it will exceed the 4870 "real" resolution. Cheers, Jeff Tokayer. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Jeff" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870. David, What is your take on the newly announced F-3200? It seems to me like an HP S20 on steroids. I wonder if it will exceed the 4870 "real" resolution. I've not heard of the F-3200. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om... I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99. What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital but not for film. I care most about *image quality*, as this will be the only reason I'd want to step up from my film compacts. By image quality I mean both in its original form (film/digital) or transferred to other media (printed/scanned). I know what I mean by "image quality," but the term has different meanings for different people. To me, the single most important factor in image quality is to properly adjust the nut behind the finder. But if you're more concerned about technical issues such as sharpness, given a one-time $1000 budget for equipment, of the choices you mention a medium format camera is today's winner. New, you can purchase a Mamiya 645E Pro Value pack with an 80mm f/2.8 lens for $775 at Adorama. Add a lens hood ($31), cable release ($23), and something like a Manfrotto 3001N tripod and 3030 head ($144) and you can start shooting. You can do even better with used manual-focus medium-format (MFMF?) gear. Recently, I purchased a Pentax 645 with a 120 insert, a 75mm lens and a 135mm lens for about $500. OTOH, if your definition of "image quality" includes digital editing, with your budget you may be better off starting digital. If it includes very selective focus or the ability to tailor apparent perspective by choice of focal length, you may be better off with 35mm. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In article , "Michael Benveniste"
wrote: "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99. What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital but not for film. I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279 at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs for her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable (pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping. That was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300. Extra ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup. Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life for digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more than I can friggin stand. But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them and now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for web space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again. Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of digital! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Sabineellen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | June 15th 04 07:13 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |