Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 27, 2004, 1:35 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default The simple answer...

Quote:
well i was wondering.....is the 1ds all that it is hyped up to be? i mean there cramming 11MP into a CCD(or CMOS?) that isn't much bigger(if at all bigger) than the 10D's ......just wondering if that is bad....lol
The above, of course, is not correct. The 1DS has a sensor which is the same size as a 35mm film frame. And yes, it's indeed all it's hyped up to be and more.

As for when "digital" will surpass 35mm film - the answer is that this happened many years ago for the majority of purposes.

Six megapixel professional level 35mm platform digital arrived with the Kodak series built on Nikon and Canon pro bodies back in 1995. Even before that time, there have been digital scanning systems which far exceed 35mm film capabilities.

Today there are digital systems which surpass 4x5 large format film, and some which many believe surpass 8x10 format film. Whether these cameras work for your type photography is yet another question, but be assured that the Canon EOS-1DS and the new Canon EOS-1D Mark II are far beyond 35mm film capabilities in any conceivable way unless one simply likes the "film look" for aesthetic or artistic purposes.

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 3:22 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Exactly as Lin stated ... most of the appeal left for 35mm film based cameras is now the comfort level people have with the technology. The way glasses are favored to contact lenses it boils down to both get the same results, the difference being which type are more comfortable for you in function and asthetics. The technology has been around for some time it is just finally the price point that makes it more available to consumers these days. I remember using a drum scanner for slides and film in the early 90's on a HP Vectra proprietary dedicated machine that produced outstanding results but back then few people let alone shops had 150K to purchase the equipment.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 5:28 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 74
Default

When digital costs the same or cheaper than 35mm. Right now film SLRs are way cheaper than digital SLRs, and until a digital SLR that produces the SAME quality as a film SLR for the same price, film still has an advantage. I love digital, but $9000 for a full frame digital SLR is pretty outrageous. Someday digital will pass film though.
SpeedyManiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 5:40 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyManiac
When digital costs the same or cheaper than 35mm. Right now film SLRs are way cheaper than digital SLRs, and until a digital SLR that produces the SAME quality as a film SLR for the same price, film still has an advantage. I love digital, but $9000 for a full frame digital SLR is pretty outrageous. Someday digital will pass film though.
Digital is more upfront but in the long run will save you money if you use it regularly. If your going to shoot film then factor in the cost for a quality negative/slide scanner and tell me how you end up in the savings dept. And I dont mean a lexmark flatbed scanner w/slide adapter. Add costs of film like Velvia and large format prints w/custom color correction tailored to your liking digital is the way to go .. everytime no questions asked.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2004, 8:12 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

And don't forget that both have their own picture storage problems. Digital has extra hard disks, CD's that have a shelf life even if stored correctly, format wars with DVD (and eventually CD rom drives will be hard to buy.)

Film has physical size, a fungus that eats at the media, light damage (which CDs have too), humidity problems.

I've heard someone say that digital was easier to back up than film... I don't think they've really had to manage 1,000's of pictures and really backed them up before.

I know someone with 350,000 slides in their bacement. As he put it "my wife is talking about moving... I'm having a hard time imagining it."

mrkryz, your contact/glasses analogy isn't perfect. I know someone who can't wear contacts. They have an eye problem (don't know what).

But it's still a good analogy. They both produce the same result (improved vision) in a similar fashion.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:37 AM.