 |
|
|
|
Next: You know what's even better than people using fla..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 28, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:27 pm
Post subject: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
TIA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 664
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <vd6ai3pl0i5hvg7msqk686nc7f8e5kh7jd.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Jim McDonald
<jim21.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
they have surpassed film slrs for quite some time.
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
for a new camera, about $500 or so for a nikon d40 or a pentax k100d
(which has built-in image stabilization), including a kit lens. for
slightly less money, the pentax k110d might still be available (i think
it was discontinued), but it lacks the stabilization. and don't rule
out used cameras -- there's plenty of good deals there too.
of course, you can certainly spend more money than that, depending on
what features you want. don't forget that although the price of a
digital slr may be initially higher than a film slr, there is no
ongoing cost for film and processing, and in the long term, it is
actually much cheaper for digital. you may also find that you will
shoot substantially more photos than you did with film because it costs
nothing to take a picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2006
Posts: 845
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:27:17 +0000, Jim McDonald wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA.
I'm not going to even touch that question, but I will tell you that MPs
are greatly overrated. I've seen some 1mp pictures printed to 8x10 that
were excellent - YMMV, and it's kind of up to you to see what you need.
You might want to try some of the excellent high zoom EVFs before you
decide to go DSLR - for one thing you get a lot of zoom for the money. I
have several requirements centering on portability which prohibit an slr
for much of my shooting and I'm quite fond of the Kodak P850 I picked up
last fall - around $250 with printer dock from the Kodak online store
(refurb). The P series has been discontinued now, but you'll still see
some there from time to time. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 54
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:03 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Jim McDonald" <jim21.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vd6ai3pl0i5hvg7msqk686nc7f8e5kh7jd@4ax.com...
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
Answers will range all over the place, and there is no direct comparison.
However, based on your description and the results you expect, any good
entry level DSLR, like the Nikon D40x or Canon Rebel XTi will produce the
results you want, or better. They work differently, and you'll likely
experience a learning curve, so be patient.
Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 10, 2006
Posts: 37
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:58 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:27:17 +0000, Jim McDonald wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA.
Here we go, again. You've just opened a mighty can of worms with those
questions. And you'll get no definitive answers to any of them.
Digital is an entirely different beast from film. The best option is to
consider a digital camera as just another tool in your camera bag, and
not as a replacement for your film cameras. Each has its own unique
qualities, both advantageous and disadvantageous, to the creative
process. Let your own unique shooting requirements be your guide as to
which digital camera is best suited to your situation. Keep your
Cosina. I still use my old Nikon manuals as well as several DSLRs (2
Canons and one Nikon) depending on the requirements of the job.
Stef >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 604
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:54 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Stefan Patric wrote:
[]
> Here we go, again. You've just opened a mighty can of worms with
> those questions. And you'll get no definitive answers to any of them.
>
> Digital is an entirely different beast from film. The best option is
> to consider a digital camera as just another tool in your camera bag,
> and not as a replacement for your film cameras. Each has its own
> unique qualities, both advantageous and disadvantageous, to the
> creative process. Let your own unique shooting requirements be your
> guide as to which digital camera is best suited to your situation.
> Keep your Cosina. I still use my old Nikon manuals as well as
> several DSLRs (2 Canons and one Nikon) depending on the requirements
> of the job.
>
> Stef
After getting digital ten years ago (a Nikon Coolpix 900), I realised I
hadn't touched my Nikon film SLR for a year or two, and fortunately I
remembered to take the batteries out of the camera and accessories.
Several years later, still not having touched the film camera, I sold the
lot (cameras, lenses etc.). Even more recently I bought a DSLR, and
today's lenses are so much lighter, more versatile, and better performing
that I don't regret selling the old stuff.
Cheers,
David >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
|
External
Since: Jun 02, 2007
Posts: 109
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:49 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 28, 5:27 pm, Jim McDonald <ji....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA.
This depends on what and how you shoot with your film camera. Mainly
it is a question of the film and developer you use. Do you shoot
mainly Pan X (monochrome) and do your own dilute high accutance
developing? Or do you shoot color print films of high speed variety.
The difference in resolution between these extremes is very great.
Digital has better dynamic range than printing paper, so the dynamic
range of the resulting print is the same whether shot on film or
digital. Color accuracy is better on digital than with some films.
Resolution is a big factor. But again unless you shoot fine grain
monochrome, you are likely to find any digital with more than about
5MP will give you good results. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 40
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:29 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:i5fVi.38786$c_1.19832@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Stefan Patric wrote:
> []
>> Here we go, again. You've just opened a mighty can of worms with
>> those questions. And you'll get no definitive answers to any of them.
>>
>
> After getting digital ten years ago (a Nikon Coolpix 900), I realised I
> hadn't touched my Nikon film SLR for a year or two, and fortunately I
> remembered to take the batteries out of the camera and accessories.
> Several years later, still not having touched the film camera, I sold the
> lot (cameras, lenses etc.). Even more recently I bought a DSLR, and
> today's lenses are so much lighter, more versatile, and better performing
> that I don't regret selling the old stuff.
>
Low cost digital cameras have improved to the point where it's getting
harder and harder for film enthusiasts to be enthusiastic. I still think
that convenience drives most people to dump film in favor of digital and
that image quality is a secondary consideration unless you are doing
enlargements like the OP.
SW >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 07, 2006
Posts: 291
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:30 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Kinon O'Cann <fuged.DeleteThis@bout.it> wrote:
>
> Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
> camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
> cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:34 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Summer Wind" <summer-wind DeleteThis @theworld.net> wrote in message
news:3flVi.1839$nN3.674@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote in message news:i5fVi.38786$c_1.19832@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> []
>>> Here we go, again. You've just opened a mighty can of worms with
>>> those questions. And you'll get no definitive answers to any of them.
>>>
>>
>> After getting digital ten years ago (a Nikon Coolpix 900), I realised I
>> hadn't touched my Nikon film SLR for a year or two, and fortunately I
>> remembered to take the batteries out of the camera and accessories.
>> Several years later, still not having touched the film camera, I sold the
>> lot (cameras, lenses etc.). Even more recently I bought a DSLR, and
>> today's lenses are so much lighter, more versatile, and better performing
>> that I don't regret selling the old stuff.
>>
>
> Low cost digital cameras have improved to the point where it's getting
> harder and harder for film enthusiasts to be enthusiastic. I still think
> that convenience drives most people to dump film in favor of digital and
> that image quality is a secondary consideration unless you are doing
> enlargements like the OP.
>
>
I'll second that.
Being a former long time 35mm SLR enthusiast (several decades!), I finally
took the plunge into digital a few years ago, and bought a Canon Powershot.
Now having got so used to the convenience of always having a compact camera
available wherever I go, I wouldn't contemplate going back to the "good old
days" of lugging all that camera gear around again. Admittedly I'm not
getting the same absolute quality as my old SLRs, I have a couple of high
end prosumer cameras for that event, I'm finding it so liberating always
having a camera on hand, plus it's also so much more discrete than a large
SLR. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 40
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:56 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Fred" <fredapain.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4725ebdd$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "Summer Wind" <summer-wind.RemoveThis@theworld.net> wrote in message
> news:3flVi.1839$nN3.674@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> Low cost digital cameras have improved to the point where it's getting
>> harder and harder for film enthusiasts to be enthusiastic. I still think
>> that convenience drives most people to dump film in favor of digital and
>> that image quality is a secondary consideration unless you are doing
>> enlargements like the OP.
>>
>>
> I'll second that.
>
> Being a former long time 35mm SLR enthusiast (several decades!), I finally
> took the plunge into digital a few years ago, and bought a Canon
> Powershot. Now having got so used to the convenience of always having a
> compact camera available wherever I go, I wouldn't contemplate going back
> to the "good old days" of lugging all that camera gear around again.
> Admittedly I'm not getting the same absolute quality as my old SLRs, I
> have a couple of high end prosumer cameras for that event, I'm finding it
> so liberating always having a camera on hand, plus it's also so much more
> discrete than a large SLR.
I have a Canon S3 IS that I bought primarily for its megazoom capabilities,
and I quickly became enamored of digital's instant gratification and freedom
from film & processing costs. At the moment, I don't have a great deal of
time to shoot anything, film or digital. When I have more leisure time,
I'll no doubt get a DSLR. In the meantime, my Elan 7N does just fine for
the limited amount of shooting I'm doing.
SW >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2007
Posts: 59
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:12 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jim McDonald wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA.
A digital SLR with a good lens and at least a 12 MP sensor
will match the resolution of 35 mm film. As others have
pointed out, the digicam is better in some other ways. For
one thing, you have better control of the color than with film.
But you should think of digicams as a new medium, not an
exact replacement for film photography. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:07 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I have always used Nikon SLRs with my favourite films Agfa 100 and Fuji
800 ASA
in its many incarnations. Pretty well had figured out digital had to hit
32MP before
being as good, but... after my wife gave me a Casio 6MP P&S and saw what
that did,
I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon D70s.
Hate to say it, but there really is no going back, other than for very
special occasions...
Jim McDonald wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:08 pm
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I have always used Nikon SLRs with my favourite films Agfa 100 and Fuji
800 ASA
in its many incarnations. Pretty well had figured out digital had to hit
32MP before
being as good, but... after my wife gave me a Casio 6MP P&S and saw what
that did,
I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon D70s.
Hate to say it, but there really is no going back, other than for very
special occasions...
Jim McDonald wrote:
> I've had a COSINA 35mm SLR for about ten years and IMHO it takes great
> pics. I regularly enlarge to A3 and this cam cuts it exceedingly well.
>
> So what would I have to spend to get the same quality from a digital
> SLR? Are digital SLRs as good as 35mm SLRs? Or is that some way off?
>
> If not - any examples of DSLR camera models that would be compatible
> quality with your average 35mm SLR, like my COSINA?
>
> TIA. >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
|
External
Since: Jun 02, 2007
Posts: 109
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:05 am
Post subject: Re: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 29, 6:54 pm, Bill Tuthill <ccree....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> dj_nme <dj_....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
> >>>camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
> >>>cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
>
> >> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
> >> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5.
>
> > Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
> > that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.
>
> That only provides one extra stop of dynamic range according to
> dpreview.com, <IRONY> a noted authority.</IRONY>
>
> Despite aforementioned noted authority saying DSLRs have 8 stops range,
> most real photographers feel they have about the same as slide film,
> 5 stops. Negative film has about 10 stops, sometimes more.
Depends a LOT on the particular film. density range and the shape of
the characteristic curve was one of the big differences from one film
to another.
Remember, too, prints only have about a 50:1 range  >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | DSLR optimum ISO question - Hello A friend of mine told me that Canon DSLR sensors were optimised at ISO200 and there is no noise difference between ISO100 ans ISO200 - I've Googled about for technical references on this but failed to find any. Anyone got a reference? Thanks ...
35mm SLR lenses on digital - Hi, I've owned a Nikon F401s for many years and always enjoyed using it, but with the onset of digital cameras my SLR was assigned to the cupboard in favour of a couple of super zoom digital cameras. Anyway I now feel the need to change away from these...
DSLR - I have a Canon 350D and would like to improve the qualities etc of my pictures. Is there a critical analysis group available Thank you
RE- DSLR's that take AA batteries - I myself try to buy electrical goods/gadgets that use either AA batteries, or can be charged from a USB port. I have two adaptors that allow USB charging from 12v auto (i.e. cigar lighter) in my car or the same USB lead from mains electricity. Less..
DSLR: What lens should I get? - I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6 (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step up to a DSLR. What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get? It should be/have: * lightweight * wide.... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
