Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I was certainly not saying I couldn't get good results from my SLR!! I got excellent results. I have owned several SLRs (all Canon with Canon lenses...fixed focal length and zoom) over the years actually.
But I was amazed that my digital camera could do even better!! So the SLR was shown the door...for ever!!
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Sharpest lens.. no idea and couldn't care less.
Digital to match film now theres a subject. If you are looking at quality prints then why not use a digital back on a medium format camera.
I'm now getting really bored with looking at digital prints from 10D's and D1x's because they all look the same. Unsharp and with unrealistic colours. The only prints of any worth have come from a 1Ds. The answer, if you want to view your images on a PC buy a digital camera. If you want prints you can't beat film. The Canon 1Ds is the only match (not better) just a match. Apart from convenience you are paying a lot of money just to stand still. Anything less than a 1Ds and your paying for a quality drop.
Theres a big difference in a print from a film camera and a digital image.
35mm starts to drop when you enlarge over 8x10, 8x12 with a decent slide film. The 10D can't manage A4.
It depends on what you want the camera for and what your idea of quality is.
I think 35mm film is now a dead duck, even for pro use - who in the normal run of things enlarges beyond A4? Even for magazines you would rarely need that. The couple of mag photographers I have most recently been in contact with have both switched to digital. And this is for 'glossy mag' type work too!
Medium format has yet to be supplanted but with cams like the Canon 11-Mp and Kodak 14-Mp starting to come onto the market it will be goodbye to the dear old Hasselblad and Bronica soon methinks!!
In many, many years as a keen amatuer photographer I have seen so many photographs - taken using 35mm film - exhibiting all the minus points that some people accuse digital of. At the end of the day it's technique, lighting and just holding the damn camera still that counts for such a lot!!!!
I still love working with 35mm film! I think I will continue to work with it as long as I can! I have had some cracking results both on slide and print.
It really depends on your type of photography and what you want to do with the images.
Many pro photographers have gone digital over the last few years. The Nikon D1 was under 3 megapixel but was good enough for newspaper features. Most sports pros use the Canon 1D again good enough for news and magazines to A4 size.
There again for years we have all been looking at the same images taken on Canon EOS1's and Nikon F5's the photographs haven't got any better, it's just quicker and more convenient for newspapers.
Many magazines still insist on 35mm slide or indeed prefer medium format slides.
In our line of business we produce prints, and film in this case is still the best method of producing results.
Each to his own.
A camera is only a means to an end - it's the PHTOTOGRAPH that counts!
I'd like to add my two-pennies worth here.Who cares how the image was taken? If it suits the situation, nobody really cares?
As for those people who seem to have hard and fast rules regarding how big a printed image a particular make and model of digital camera is capable of producing, how about this for added 'tinder on the fire?'
I've been using a Canon Eos D30 with 3.25Mp (effective pixels of 2160x1440) for the last 18 months. Two months ago one of my images was used for the front cover of a Glossy UK travel and adventure magazine.
Now here's my point. The magazine's own submission guidelines state that they only accept original slides, 35mm ok, but prefer medium format. I was contacted 2 days before their publication deadline and asked to submit some images. I sent my files (9MB TIFF's) by email and was looking at a proof of the front cover the next day. To my knowledge, I think the editor still assumes that these digital images were scans from 35mm slides. I'm not aware that they've ever used 'original' digital files before
It just goes to show, that when needs must, all of the 'set in stone rules' go out of the window. The editor didn't care that the image wasn't a 35mm or medium format slide, he just wanted his magazine published on time with an image of a sufficient quallity for his front cover.
I was happy to see my photograph used on the front cover of a glossy magazine back at home, and last week I was paid for it.
Let's leave the arguing to one side shall we, and just get on with enjoying this fantastic hobby/profession of ours, regardless of how we go about capturing our images.
Now, to answer Wendy's original posting, I'm not sure what the 'sharpest' lense in the world is, but if you ask because you're about to buy one Wendy, you can't go far wrong with the Sigma EX range of lenses. Very sharp results at a more realistic price than from the likes of Canon and Nikon. I use the 17-35mm f2.8, 105mm f2.8 Macro and the 170-500mm f5.0 and would recommend them to anyone. Good luck in your search.
Nic Cleave Portfolio
I agree with Nic Cleave at the end of the day it doesnt matter what the kit is if it does the job its needed for. I know guys who own tens of thousands of pounds worth of the latest all singing all dancing kit and can't take a photograph to save their lives.
A good photographer can use a pinhole camera and compose and expose the image properly and produce a great image. A bad photographer cant do either no matter how good the kit is.
I dont think the digital verses conventional argument even exists anymore. You only have to go to something like Focus to see it. With the latest large format printers, you can print upto 42" prints at any length you like from a digital image file. I've done it on numerous occasions from fine jpegs from a Nikon D100, and the quality is there.
Everyone seems to be so preocuppied with the kit and not the content of the images produced.
you can have a lens with high resolution and sod all contrast -and it'll look like a bad lens-on the other hand you can have a limited resolution and sparkling contrast within limits-and you'll think it marvellous.The old apochromatic process lenses used in the print industry were like the former-the new digital lenses like the latter. As ever it's horses for courses!
My aunt came back from Spain and she was showing everyone the pictures she took; it wouldnt have been the same standing around the PC double-clicking and waiting for 200 photos to appear. My own two cents for film/digital debat.
Not entirely sure what you are on about, thenewguy! I get nearly all my digital pics printed (and very inexpensively too!). I was a user of top-marque 35mm SLRs (with manuafacturer's own lenses) for many, many years but have sold my SLR in favour of digital on quality grounds alone...never mind convenience and flexibility!
The lens on my Minolta digital is of similar construction ('GT' lens) to their 35mm SLRs.
I agree with simongreen's and nicanddi's points.
35mm a dead Duck? (Carabosse)
If film was on it's way out, then why are manufacturers still producing new and better films and cameras?
Film has a tried and tested life of at least 100 years, we don't know the life of CD's despite all the hype, and anyway they will be out of date soon probably, as the new storage media are developed and become cheaper to produce.
Also in 100 years or even less probably, all the computer equipment we are using now, will be obsolete as new technologies take over.
Then which will be the dead duck?
Film has the advantage that you do not need a roomful of expensive equipment to process it, just a tank and a few dishes.
We will always be able to print from film with just a simple lamp/lens set-up no matter what advances are made in digital imaging.
I am not anti-digital, but I feel that the Emperors new clothes are not all that they are hyped up to be.
Let me put this another way. 35mm v. digital can be likened to the vinyl v. CD 'competition' in the audio/hi-fi world.
20 years ago CD was just getting a foothold and vinyl (plus cassette) ruled the roost.
There are still specialist manufacturers who bring out new product for vinyl and it is unlikely to ever fade away completely. However CD now outsells vinyl by about 200 to 1 ....who rules the roost 20 years on?
Digital photography has left infancy but is still in adolescence. The advantage is that it is transferable technology. It will not matter in the slightest if CDs become obselete...the digital data can easily be transferred to solid state crystals or whatever comes next.
Roomful of equipment????? With my laptop computer and a good printer I can produce professional results...I have done side by side comparisons on this!!
5 years from now the idea of taking pictures on film will seem a little quaint. There will always be photographers of the older generation who are more comfortable with film but there will be a whole new generation who know nothing but digital.
Just like the CD generation!!
Lets add fuel to the fire!!!
The idea that taking pictures on film in 5 years time will be a little quaint is a bit of an exageration. Film will be around for many many more years. As macroman said, why would manufacturers still be piling money into developing better film emulsions and better film cameras.
My main gripe about digital is not a question of quality, but about the technology behind it. For example, take a pentax K1000, or a Zenit E. These cameras, and many more like them, are still being used decades after they were first introduced. How many Canon D30's or D60's will be around in twenty years time? Not many I'll wager. The trouble with all this digital technology is that it's based on 'Bill Gates thinking', which means that it has the longevity of a pint of milk. Within a few years the technology will change, be incompatible with the old and so on and so forth.
As for film vs digital being compared to vinyl vs cd. How about video vs super 8mm. When video came out, people proclaimed the demise of super 8mm, but it was kept alive by a faithfull few, now more student film makers choose to cut their teeth on super 8mm than video and it thrives among it's own niche. I personally think that film and digital will co-exist for at least another ten years, but it'll never die out. It'll end up being an enthusiasts' niche, but there are many enthusiasts out there.
Long live film.
Nobody is saying anything will die out completely. There will always be diehards in every field!!
Vinyl has not died out and nor will film. But so for as film goes, I predict that in say 5 years as little as 5% of photography will be film based.
As I say digital is tranferable technology. If I wished to do so I could transfer(say) my entire collection of 400 music CDs to any other digital medium that comes along in the future.
The future is bright - the future is digital (and transferable). That should be seen as positive. So let's lose the Luddite attitudes and be happy about it!!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar