Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras

 
 
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
Which groups might be inappropriate in your estimation?


**********


rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.pho to.equipment.medium-format,sci.med.dentistry



On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:08:24 GMT, "Ken Johnsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"Rafe B." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On 9 Aug 2003 02:09:04 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (The LoxFather)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What are the advantages of each format?
>> >
>> >With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>> >
>> >With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>> >
>> >With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>> >
>> >How do you think they compare?

>>
>>
>>
>> Cameras in the 10D, D100 and Fuji S2 classs are
>> now encroaching or even surpassing typcial 35mm
>> film quality.
>>
>> Cameras in the 1Ds and 14n class are now
>> encroaching on or even surpassing typical
>> MF film quality.
>>
>> With exceptional optics, slow reversal film,
>> tripod, and the latest film scanners, film still
>> holds its own, but just barely.
>>
>> One problem rarely metioned with dSLRs is
>> the issue of keeping the sensor clean.
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

>


--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
RE: The title!

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David A. Frantz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
You do realize that you hit a bunch of news groups that maybe this message
wasn't intended for! That being said I have the following to offer.

Actually I do not consider enlargements to be MF #1 potential. Its
number one potential is the control you have over the formation of the
image.

35 mm will be virtually dead in a couple of years. I do hope that people
do not cast off that statement out of hand. Being a resident of upstate
NY and only a few miles from Kodaks massive factories I know first hand
where 35 mm is going. The unfortunate thing is that friends and
neighbors use to work there and no longer will. Kodak is projecting a
%10 decrease ( or something close to that) in film sales year on year from
now on. Everything I've seen indicates that they have yet to come to
grips with digital, they may very well have issues surviving as a company.
I could easly see them loosing twenty five percent of the film market next
year to digital. Much of the professional market is moving very quickly
to digital so the issue reside across all segments of their markets.

Digital is interesting, I consider it to be at the same development point
as the model T was in the devlopment of the automobile. The model T was
a big improvement over previous vehicles but a great deal of refinement
came afterwards. Film will be like the horse and buggy, nothing more
than a toy for those that enjoy using them.

I'm not sure why you think that digital lacks quality. It doesn't have
the same features as film but then agains it doesn't have some of films
problems. When you can get, in the near future, a digital camera with
5MP of resolution in a $200 dollar camera the consumer market will have
little need for film. I suspect that such cameras are not far off at
all, pricing now seems to be more of a case of taking everything that the
manufacture and retailer can get. Even today though a 3 to 4 mega pixel
point and shoot has advantages over film. Sure you have to know and work
within digitals limitations.

From the professional end I think the massive switch to digital clearly
demonstrates where film is going. In many cases professionals are
dropping medium format equipment in favor of digital hardware. This in
its self indicates that digital can compete nicely with repsect to
quality. Yes some of the switch to digital is being guided by the
pressures to do more faster, but professionals will always use whatever is
required to please the customer. Digtial in many cases is the best
solution when all things are considered.

What is truely the most important consideration is where is digital going.
There is tremendous upside potential with respect to digital that simply
does not exist with film. That upside potential is very likely to be
realized sooner as there are many players in the field as opposed to two
in the film industry. Just look at all the recent releases form Nikon,
Cannon, Pentax, HP, Epson, contax and a whole host of others, each
developing or improving on image capture devices. That is productive
competition for the consumer. Do expect things like huge increases in
capture device resolution, speed or exposure range. You might see all of
these at once in new chips. Read up on Foevon's new chip and Nikon's new LBCAST to
see how differrently the approaches to image capture can be and how they
solve differrent problems.

It is absolutely silly not to be involved in digital in some form or
manner today. The only true issue I can see is that things are changing
quickly which means that your investments have a shorter life.

Thanks
Dave


On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:09:04 -0700, The LoxFather wrote:

> What are the advantages of each format?
>
> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>
> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>
> With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>
> How do you think they compare?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
The LoxFather writes:

> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.


Yes. MF gives you ultrahigh resolution and image quality.

> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.


And the widest selection of cameras and films available for any format,
by a wide margin. A good compromise between tiny formats and digital
with lesser image quality, and large formats with great image quality
but high cost, high inconvenience, and limited choices in film and
equipment.

> With digital, no need for film or processing...
> but lacking quality.


Right.

> How do you think they compare?


Well, I shoot digital only for images that will be used on my Web site
(and never anywhere else), and only when I need them quickly and
cheaply.

I shoot MF for images that must be of the highest quality I can afford,
typically images that I prepare for a while in advance (tripod, careful
metering, etc.). On rare occasions I use MF more casually.

I shoot 35mm for everything else.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. writes:

> Dentists are quite interested in this topic too
> as we are gradually converting to digital format
> for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.


And ordinary photographs of the inside of the mouth.

Although I've heard from my usual photo lab that they have a few
dentists who still shoot zillions of slides per month.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
HRosita writes:

> There are plenty of 35mm cameras that lack in quality.


In film photography, image quality is not a function of the camera body.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
David A. Frantz writes:

> 35 mm will be virtually dead in a couple of years.


I expect only slight changes in 35mm film over the next few years.

> I'm not sure why you think that digital lacks quality.


Objective examination of digital images proves it. Why would anyone
still be shooting film otherwise?

> From the professional end I think the massive switch
> to digital clearly demonstrates where film is going.


What massive switch? _Some_ professionals are switching or have
switched, such as photojournalists, but not all.

Additionally, professionals shoot pictures just to make money, so their
priorities are different. A photojournalist doesn't need top image
quality, he just needs speed.

> In many cases professionals are dropping medium format
> equipment in favor of digital hardware. This in
> its self indicates that digital can compete nicely
> with repsect to quality.


No, it indicates that the higher quality of MF was overkill for their
applications. It's not that digital is as good as MF (it's not), it's
just that their requirements were always very inferior to what MF
provided, so when digital came along, it did well enough to meet those
requirements.

> It is absolutely silly not to be involved in digital
> in some form or manner today.


Digital is not a religion, and I see no reason why any photographer
should worry about whether he is shooting film or digital. Instead, he
should just worry about taking pictures. The ones who race to digital
or cling to film are the gearheads who never produce any decent work,
anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:11:09 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>HRosita writes:
>
>> There are plenty of 35mm cameras that lack in quality.

>
>In film photography, image quality is not a function of the camera body.



What's your point?

The camera body serves the same purpose whether
the camera is film or digital: to hold the lens relative
to the imaging surface, and to do so accurately and
without light leaks.

Quite often one chooses a camera body based on
the range and quality of available lenses. If it is a
fixed-lens design (either film or digital) then there's
no choice in the matter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
Another enterprising market for would-be photographic entrepreneurs is
to photograph dental cosmetic cases in your dentist's office .......
perhaps as barter for your own dental needs ...... or for some serious
cash.

Yes there are clip services for this but to convince patients we need
our own work showcased!

COMING NEXT MONTH: Similar career tips for rec.woodworking ~~ wooden
teeth or something like that ~~ I am working on it.

For now, pass me a beer! (_)

If you agree or like the post, raise your own mug!


Joel




On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:10:13 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. writes:
>
>> Dentists are quite interested in this topic too
>> as we are gradually converting to digital format
>> for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.

>
>And ordinary photographs of the inside of the mouth.
>
>Although I've heard from my usual photo lab that they have a few
>dentists who still shoot zillions of slides per month.


--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stefan Patric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
On Saturday 09 August 2003 09:09 am, The LoxFather wrote:

> What are the advantages of each format?
>
> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.


More than that: MF optimizes image quality versus portability. You
can obtain better image quality, i.e. by going to a larger format --
4x5, 8x10, but you have to sacrifice portability to do it.

> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.


Not only that, but 35mm is VERY portable, and economical both in the
cost of the hardware as well as shots per unit area of film.

> With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.


No film and processing is digital's major advantage. Saving time is
another. When you shoot professionally, time is your most expensive
commodity.

Yes, the images lack "quality," technically, when compared to film,
even the full frame digitals, but if you're not going to make prints
bigger than 8x10 or your stuff is going only on the web or into
print, even a 3 or 4 megapixel camera is good enough. As long as you
can get about 200 pixels per inch in the final photo, regardless of
its size, the human eye will perceive it as "sharp," regardless of
the viewing distance.

> How do you think they compare?


A better way to think of cameras, and their related formats, is as
tools. Pick the tool(s) that best satisfies your requirements.
That's why professional photographers have so many different cameras
of various formats: They have to have the right tool to fit most
every situation.

--
Stefan Patric
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another question - How to convert medium format lens to equivalencyof a 50mm normal lens (35mm camera) in APS-C digital cameras aniramca@gmail.com Digital Photography 13 05-31-2009 10:02 PM
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 0 05-23-2004 08:14 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 4 05-23-2004 05:43 AM
Re: 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras HRosita Digital Photography 0 08-10-2003 01:15 AM



Advertisments