Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears

But Bob is very selective about waht he presents. He will also tell you that
several ****e lenses like Vivitar are very good substitutes for the best
Canon or Nikon glass. Instead of taking his opinion as factual, I suggest
you do your own tests, and find out why the world isn't worshipping Bob M.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...

Yes, but the argument is that the initial outlay of a DSLR will keep
students out of being able to start shooting.


It goes well beyond that. After reading Bob Monaghan's "Film vs. Digital"
page on his Super Site, it became immediately apparent that the quality of
images produced from digital cameras was not nearly up to par with film.
The dilemma is in deciding whether the apparent convenience of digital is
worth the tradeoff in image quality. Digital images are adequate for many
purposes, and the quality continues improving, making it easier than ever
before to justify going digital. But lenses designed for digital are
dumbed
down to prevent aliasing, and the wide range of film emulsions offers a
wealth of possibilities that digital just can't match.

The advantages of digital (and there are many) do come at some cost. The
consensus is that a 35mm frame would require about 24 MP digital sensor to
equal it.

So, to a beginning photographer, the question is: does he/she start with
conventional film gear, which can be acquired at lower cost and can yield
superior quality (albeit at the cost of not having digital's convenience)
or
does he/she start with digital right from the start, and maybe never get
around to working with film at all? Unless one is planning to photograph
for news organizations, where there is no time to wait for film processing
anymore, the photographer that starts with film may not have made such a
bad
choice after all.

To compare film with digital--which is in some ways like comparing apples
with oranges--and concluding that film is "dead," is inappropriate. I
believe that most of us will eventually use both systems, if we want to
have
our cake and eat it, too. To simply write off film is to throw away a
large
number of photographic possibilities.

Like everything photographic, it is yet another tradeoff.

In article . net,
says...
But maybe part of school these days is learning to make do with outdated
textbooks, information and equipment.
--

Do you believe that film is dead? Can digital tackle any and every photo
assignment and produce as high quality a result as can film?

Have you done any film work, or are your conclusions based strictly on
experience with digital?

Where do you think I made any conclusions?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article . net,
says...
But maybe part of school these days is learning to make do with outdated
textbooks, information and equipment.
--

Do you believe that film is dead? Can digital tackle any and every photo
assignment and produce as high quality a result as can film?

Have you done any film work, or are your conclusions based strictly on
experience with digital?

Where do you think I made any conclusions?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Well, if they do they're making a big mistake. Even with digital I
bracket my exposures as much as possible - you never know what the best
subjective exposure will be. Of course, there is no excuse NOT to
bracket either - I get the equivalent of 6 rolls of film on one 1 GB
flash card. I'm pretty sure I can afford to bracket a reasonable amount
- I'm not going to pay any more in developing.

What does one of those 1GB flash cards sell for?

Under $200. About $150-$175 if you shop smart.

With my current scanner (2400) dpi, I can only get 41 frames in 1GB of
space. If my math is correct, each one of your pictures are about
4.62MB. Just doesn't seem like a lot of information to print.

You're assuming a 1-to-1 relationship in quality of information and
ignoring data compression.

But in any case, my digital camera won't produce prints with the same
resolution of 35mm film. However, I can get decent prints up to about
12 x 18 - I'm not too concerned.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Well, if they do they're making a big mistake. Even with digital I
bracket my exposures as much as possible - you never know what the best
subjective exposure will be. Of course, there is no excuse NOT to
bracket either - I get the equivalent of 6 rolls of film on one 1 GB
flash card. I'm pretty sure I can afford to bracket a reasonable amount
- I'm not going to pay any more in developing.

What does one of those 1GB flash cards sell for?

Under $200. About $150-$175 if you shop smart.

With my current scanner (2400) dpi, I can only get 41 frames in 1GB of
space. If my math is correct, each one of your pictures are about
4.62MB. Just doesn't seem like a lot of information to print.

You're assuming a 1-to-1 relationship in quality of information and
ignoring data compression.

But in any case, my digital camera won't produce prints with the same
resolution of 35mm film. However, I can get decent prints up to about
12 x 18 - I'm not too concerned.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:50:28 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

I can get decent prints up to about
12 x 18

Curious what the ppi is with a 12x18 from a 4.5MB file?

RP©

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:50:28 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

I can get decent prints up to about
12 x 18

Curious what the ppi is with a 12x18 from a 4.5MB file?

RP©

In article ,=20
says...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:50:28 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:
=20
I can get decent prints up to about=20
12 x 18=20
=20
Curious what the ppi is with a 12x18 from a 4.5MB file?
=20
RP=A9

Again Rich, it isn't 4.5 megabytes in pixel dimensions. The final image=20
size is 3072 x 2048 x 16 bit (or 8 bit, depending on what I'm doing with=20
it). 12 x 18" is a stretch for that file (~170 PPI), but with a little=20
selective upsampling and sharpening you can get something that looks=20
decent.
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,=20
says...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:50:28 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:
=20
I can get decent prints up to about=20
12 x 18=20
=20
Curious what the ppi is with a 12x18 from a 4.5MB file?
=20
RP=A9

Again Rich, it isn't 4.5 megabytes in pixel dimensions. The final image=20
size is 3072 x 2048 x 16 bit (or 8 bit, depending on what I'm doing with=20
it). 12 x 18" is a stretch for that file (~170 PPI), but with a little=20
selective upsampling and sharpening you can get something that looks=20
decent.
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Tony Spadaro wrote:
That is about the dumbest thing youve ever said, Dallas. Anyone would be an
idiot to learn on film when the feedback is immediate from digital - it is
(like video tape) a much better learning tool. You are doing that old
pathetic game of claiming "Everyone must learn exactly the way I learned -
It is the only true path to enlightenment". This is complete bull****e - in
photography, in religion, and in life. Grow up and learn to see the way the
world actually operates, then take the time to think about what you say.
Otherwise you should be advocating Dagerreotype as the only way to learn
photography and mixing your own pigments from raw materials as the only way
to paint.
Your argument is about as rational as insisting everyone must learn how
to drive on a Ford Model T with a hand crank starter.


Andprecicelyis your excuse for still reading teh rpe35mm group?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++