A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:18 PM
bagal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
"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.



Hello Michael

I wonder if I may add a dash of realism to the topic you raised?

Earlier posters are quite correct. If you go digital you will need to think
about having a good computer and certainly if pro standard is your overall
aim pro standard equipment in not without cost, You will (may? should?)
consider some image processing software too.
computer - software - hardware is reasonable for any standard digital setup.

On the other hand goinf film based means darkroom equipment, chemicals,
dedicated space for it that is lightfree to a very strict standard. On top
of all the chemicals, incidentally some of which are closely linked to
dermatitis, waste disposal (effluent) problems you will still need a
computer - software - hardware (pro standard scanner)

Please do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

The wise choice IMHO is digital Why bother with a darkroom? Besides that,
a computer always comes in handy even if it is just for posting to
rec.photo.digital From an ecological point of view re-usable memory cards
are far more eco-friendly than rolls and rolls of film, paper, developres
fisers, fixatives, ...

The beauty of digital is that it so easily integrates with what one may
already have. There again, I amd a P&S amateur :-)

das B

ps - the way digitals work with flas is fantastic, well it is on my Fuji (no
burnouts :-)

d B


  #12  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:32 PM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

bagal wrote:


On the other hand goinf film based means darkroom equipment, chemicals,


They invented this thing called a lab.

dedicated space for it that is lightfree to a very strict standard. On top
of all the chemicals, incidentally some of which are closely linked to
dermatitis, waste disposal (effluent) problems you will still need a
computer - software - hardware (pro standard scanner)



That computer might give you some nasty health problems to.



The wise choice IMHO is digital Why bother with a darkroom? Besides that,


Quality?


a computer always comes in handy even if it is just for posting to
rec.photo.digital From an ecological point of view re-usable memory cards
are far more eco-friendly than rolls and rolls of film, paper, developres
fisers, fixatives, ...


Hardly. All those things create mountains of toxic waste. Worse how
many people just throw computer products into the trash? Ooops. BTW nothing
in some developers that you can't buy at the grocery store.


Nick
  #13  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:34 PM
William D. Tallman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mike Henley wrote:

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.


Welcome to a marvelous experience!!

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).


For the money, get yourself a really clean Nikon F2(AS?) and 50mm f/1.4.
Add a couple other pristine prime lenses as you go along. Entirely manual,
one of the finest mechanical bodies ever made, and a keeper whatever else
you get. It once was the flagship professional 35mm camera of choice, and
there's no way you will ever outgrow it.

snip

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.


Get yourself an old TLR squareshooter and discover what real image quality
is all about. Nothing digital under ten grand US will match what you get.
Many of those old cameras had extremely sharp lenses when stopped to f8 or
thereabouts.

And get a decent tripod. And use it!!

Etc, etc.

Bill Tallman

wtallman at olypen dot com

  #14  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:38 PM
Bob Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
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.

Get an obsolete Rollei and a case of obsolete HP-5/NPH.
That's it. End of story; no more "Now what you need is".
Bob Hickey


  #16  
Old June 3rd 04, 09:59 PM
bagal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?

das B

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
bagal wrote:


On the other hand goinf film based means darkroom equipment, chemicals,


They invented this thing called a lab.

dedicated space for it that is lightfree to a very strict standard. On

top
of all the chemicals, incidentally some of which are closely linked to
dermatitis, waste disposal (effluent) problems you will still need a
computer - software - hardware (pro standard scanner)



That computer might give you some nasty health problems to.



The wise choice IMHO is digital Why bother with a darkroom? Besides

that,

Quality?


a computer always comes in handy even if it is just for posting to
rec.photo.digital From an ecological point of view re-usable memory

cards
are far more eco-friendly than rolls and rolls of film, paper,

developres
fisers, fixatives, ...


Hardly. All those things create mountains of toxic waste. Worse how
many people just throw computer products into the trash? Ooops. BTW

nothing
in some developers that you can't buy at the grocery store.


Nick



  #17  
Old June 3rd 04, 10:58 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
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.


You...
won't...
know...
until...
you...
try...
them...
all!

I'm currently pretty happy with a 35mm p&s, a digital prosumer and a 6x6 SLR
kit- but if I had to lose one, it's be the digital. Purely for practical
reasons, though- I simply don't use the digital as often as the others.

Of course, I only know which cameras I need because I tried them first! I
looked up spec sheets, weighed opinions, made myself aware of everything's
shortcomings and how they related to the style of my shooting, and then I
tried out some cameras. Sometimes I made mistakes- I bought a Bronica ETRSi
kit on the assumption that the prism kit would be lighter and more compact
than a 6x6cm, and that i'd need TTL flash. In both cases, the opposite was
true, which led me to sell my Bronica and buy a 'Blad.

There is no Royal Road to learning; no-one gets it right first time (or
second or third) and everyone has regrets over things they bought or sold.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


  #18  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:11 PM
Keith Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

For quality and cost-effectiveness, buy a Mamiya C220 or C330 with the 55mm
lens set and possibly the 80mm and 135mm lens sets, or the 105 and 180mm
lens sets. (No longer in production, so will have to be second-hand - maybe
from KEH). Buy a heavy tripod (and use it). Then get a reasonable flat
bed scanner with film scanning facility built-in. You should get a
reasonable photo-editing package bundled with the scanner - if not, download
the Gimp from www.gimp.org. You will be getting quite large files - you
will need a reasonable amount of memory - preferably 512Mb of RAM, and
either a large hard drive or be prepared to burn a lot of CDROMs or DVDs.

This is a set-up I have, and negs I have scanned and manipulated myself I
can print (even using a consumer photo-printer) to a higher technical
quality than pro labs have managed with hand-prints in the past using
traditional printing methods. And when I get a professional print from a
pro lab using my digital file - Wow!

As another poster wrote, you could buy a 35mm SLR with 2 or 3 prime lenses
and a dedicated quality film scanner. The results would be almost as good,
unless you wanted to print above 10X8inches, and could be more convenient
with 1 hour processing, easy availability of film and so forth. However, if
you are seeking top quality you will have to accept a degree of
inconvenience - it seems to be an iron law. Many people reckon the
discipline of using a medium format camera on a tripod forces a more
perceptive, reflective way of working on you, resulting in a higher
proportion of keepers in your images. However, that's no use if you
photograph sports.

I've not put prices on these options, as I'm in the UK and I imagine they
will be different in the USA, but I would be surprised if you couldn't
follow the MF option within your budget.

HTH

Keith Patterson

--
"There is no way to happiness... Happiness is the way..."
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
(Mike Henley) wrote in message

. com...


Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium
format camera...


I'm sorry, i should've used the word "alternatively" rather than
"additionally", 'cos i only want to purchase *one* camera. By
additionally, i meant an additional option, in addition to the above
options, rather possibly implying that i wanted an additional camera,
in addition to a camera from the above ones.



  #19  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:12 PM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?



Find out the database is corrupt and none of the images can be saved. Find
out the image is in a format that isn't accceptable. Fact is it can't even
be read. Find out the image isn't high enough quality.

The OP asked about best quality for the $$. Not the most crap for the $$.

Nick
  #20  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:19 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article , "bagal"
wrote:

Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?


Uh - stock photos? Call an agent, or individual. Oh, I see, too spendy for
the publisher. Okay, let's continue with your fantasy.

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?


You don't need digital photography to have a database of image references.
Successful photographers have been doing that since the PC was invented (I
mean the so-called "IBM" microcomputer.)

And there are plenty of successful photographers who have images onfile,
managed by their agents, or themselves.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.