digital vs 35mm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Denman, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. Denman

    Denman Guest

    Hi.

    Can someone tell me what the digital equivalent is to my 35mm
    equipment? I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon 70-200 f4 L series
    zoom lens.

    Thanks.
     
    Denman, Aug 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Denman

    TCS Guest

    On 4 Aug 2003 08:32:15 -0700, Denman <> wrote:
    > Hi.
    >
    > Can someone tell me what the digital equivalent is to my 35mm
    > equipment? I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon 70-200 f4 L series
    > zoom lens.


    This has been discussed to death. Go to google and search for things
    like "digital vs. film resolution"
     
    TCS, Aug 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Denman

    Jacob Guest

    "TCS" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 4 Aug 2003 08:32:15 -0700, Denman <> wrote:
    > > Hi.
    > >
    > > Can someone tell me what the digital equivalent is to my 35mm
    > > equipment? I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon 70-200 f4 L series
    > > zoom lens.

    >
    > This has been discussed to death. Go to google and search for things
    > like "digital vs. film resolution"


    Not the same discussion. Denman had a specific question about a specific
    camera. That is not the same old "film vs. digital" that we are all so bored
    off.
     
    Jacob, Aug 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Denman

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Denman wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > Can someone tell me what the digital equivalent is to my 35mm
    > equipment? I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon 70-200 f4 L series
    > zoom lens.
    >
    > Thanks.



    The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n are the closest things to 35mm frame SLR cameras.
    Their sensors are the same size as a frame of 35mm film and they are SLR
    bodies.

    Your Canon lenses will produce exactly the same results on the 1Ds..
     
    Jim Townsend, Aug 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Denman

    JK Guest

    At what cost? When will somrthing like this or better be under $1,000?
    Under $500?

    Jim Townsend wrote:

    > Denman wrote:
    >
    > > Hi.
    > >
    > > Can someone tell me what the digital equivalent is to my 35mm
    > > equipment? I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon 70-200 f4 L series
    > > zoom lens.
    > >
    > > Thanks.

    >
    > The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n are the closest things to 35mm frame SLR cameras.
    > Their sensors are the same size as a frame of 35mm film and they are SLR
    > bodies.
    >
    > Your Canon lenses will produce exactly the same results on the 1Ds..
     
    JK, Aug 4, 2003
    #5
  6. JK <> wrote in news::

    > At what cost? When will somrthing like this or better be under $1,000?
    > Under $500?


    Now - I think that we shall reread the original question.
    It asked about an equivalent to a rebel and a 70-200 zoom.
    No wide angle - no lots of exotic fantastic lenses - nothing
    special at all.

    But we must ask the oroginal poster what his demand on
    picture quality is. If making small pictures of rather
    normal quality - then the world is full of alternatives.



    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 4, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <Xns93CDE1BC84399rolandkarlssonchello@130.133.1.4>,
    Roland Karlsson <> wrote:

    > JK <> wrote in news::
    >
    > > At what cost? When will somrthing like this or better be under $1,000?
    > > Under $500?

    >
    > Now - I think that we shall reread the original question.
    > It asked about an equivalent to a rebel and a 70-200 zoom.
    > No wide angle - no lots of exotic fantastic lenses - nothing
    > special at all.
    >
    > But we must ask the oroginal poster what his demand on
    > picture quality is. If making small pictures of rather
    > normal quality - then the world is full of alternatives.


    You seem to be implying that the original poster's quality demands are
    not high because of his choice of equipment, but I'm not convinced --
    the 70-200/4 is an L zoom, capable of creating very high quality images.
    Of course the Rebel is not Canon's most expensive camera but that has
    nothing to do with its image quality.

    Also, with 200mm@F4, it will create a fair amount of background blur,
    which will be hard to achieve with a non-DSLR digital.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
     
    David Eppstein, Aug 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Denman

    Denman Guest

    Thanks everybody for responding to my question.

    Let me first say that I am merely an amateur photographer that was
    trying to learn the many details to picture taking – hence my Rebel
    2000. My friend advised me on my equipment, about 2 yrs ago, and said
    it was better to spend the extra money on the lens and not the camera.

    My Canon takes awesome pictures however I was spending over $200 on
    film development after returning from trips, etc. I though I would
    look into a digital SLR. Not until yesterday did I realize I could use
    my EF zoom lens on a new digital camera – sweet.

    I do want high quality, however, I don't see myself creating anything
    bigger than 8x10. If I need bigger, I guess I would have someone do
    that for me.

    Right now I have a HP multi-task printer, but it's probably not want
    you want to print out many digital photos. What does everyone use to
    print their photos.

    It looks like the Canon EOS-1D or 10D would be nice. I also have a
    speedlite 420ex flash to use.

    Digital still's is completely new to me, so be gentle.

    D

    David Eppstein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <Xns93CDE1BC84399rolandkarlssonchello@130.133.1.4>,
    > Roland Karlsson <> wrote:
    >
    > > JK <> wrote in news::
    > >
    > > > At what cost? When will somrthing like this or better be under $1,000?
    > > > Under $500?

    > >
    > > Now - I think that we shall reread the original question.
    > > It asked about an equivalent to a rebel and a 70-200 zoom.
    > > No wide angle - no lots of exotic fantastic lenses - nothing
    > > special at all.
    > >
    > > But we must ask the oroginal poster what his demand on
    > > picture quality is. If making small pictures of rather
    > > normal quality - then the world is full of alternatives.

    >
    > You seem to be implying that the original poster's quality demands are
    > not high because of his choice of equipment, but I'm not convinced --
    > the 70-200/4 is an L zoom, capable of creating very high quality images.
    > Of course the Rebel is not Canon's most expensive camera but that has
    > nothing to do with its image quality.
    >
    > Also, with 200mm@F4, it will create a fair amount of background blur,
    > which will be hard to achieve with a non-DSLR digital.
     
    Denman, Aug 5, 2003
    #8
  9. > I do want high quality, however, I don't see myself creating anything
    > bigger than 8x10. If I need bigger, I guess I would have someone do
    > that for me.
    >
    > Right now I have a HP multi-task printer, but it's probably not want
    > you want to print out many digital photos. What does everyone use to
    > print their photos.


    All I have is an HP myself. I figure I will get a better camera now, and not worry about the printer at all yet. My
    theory is I can use all of the money on the camera now, and can store all the picture files on CDs, drives, etc, and in
    a few years I can get a better printer and can print those pictures out better then at any time in the future. If I
    get a better printer now, and a lesser quality camera, then the pictures I take now will be at that quality for the rest
    of time.

    In the meantime, I just print out what I take on the lower quality printer, and if there is something I really like, I
    can take it to the camera shop and have them print it out on their top of the line equipment.

    One day I will get a better printer, and all the pictures I take in the meantime will be stored in high quality files
    ready for it.

    I view most of my photos on the computer or on a DVD player anyway and rarely print any out, so I may never invest in a
    good printer at all, because they will always get outdated and the camera shop will always keep up and have the best
    stuff for me to access when ever I need to make a print anyway. The fee I have to pay them pays for them making sure
    to keep investing in the top of the line stuff so it is there when I need it.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 5, 2003
    #9
  10. See:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    and more details at:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

    The digital versus film is a function of film resolution
    versus digital resolution. Different films have
    different resolution, so in the film versus digital
    debate there are many answers. The graph on the
    first link above summarizes many films.
    Approximately, 100 speed 35mm film shows similar
    detail to a 6 megapixel digital camera. Slow speed
    film (with finer grain and more resolution) does better
    than the 6 megapixel camera. Higher speed film is
    worse.

    Roger Clark
    http://www.clarkvision.com

    Denman wrote:

    > Thanks everybody for responding to my question.
    >
    > Let me first say that I am merely an amateur photographer that was
    > trying to learn the many details to picture taking – hence my Rebel
    > 2000. My friend advised me on my equipment, about 2 yrs ago, and said
    > it was better to spend the extra money on the lens and not the camera.
    >
    > My Canon takes awesome pictures however I was spending over $200 on
    > film development after returning from trips, etc. I though I would
    > look into a digital SLR. Not until yesterday did I realize I could use
    > my EF zoom lens on a new digital camera – sweet.
    >
    > I do want high quality, however, I don't see myself creating anything
    > bigger than 8x10. If I need bigger, I guess I would have someone do
    > that for me.
    >
    > Right now I have a HP multi-task printer, but it's probably not want
    > you want to print out many digital photos. What does everyone use to
    > print their photos.
    >
    > It looks like the Canon EOS-1D or 10D would be nice. I also have a
    > speedlite 420ex flash to use.
    >
    > Digital still's is completely new to me, so be gentle.
    >
    > D
    >
    > David Eppstein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > In article <Xns93CDE1BC84399rolandkarlssonchello@130.133.1.4>,
    > > Roland Karlsson <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > JK <> wrote in news::
    > > >
    > > > > At what cost? When will somrthing like this or better be under $1,000?
    > > > > Under $500?
    > > >
    > > > Now - I think that we shall reread the original question.
    > > > It asked about an equivalent to a rebel and a 70-200 zoom.
    > > > No wide angle - no lots of exotic fantastic lenses - nothing
    > > > special at all.
    > > >
    > > > But we must ask the oroginal poster what his demand on
    > > > picture quality is. If making small pictures of rather
    > > > normal quality - then the world is full of alternatives.

    > >
    > > You seem to be implying that the original poster's quality demands are
    > > not high because of his choice of equipment, but I'm not convinced --
    > > the 70-200/4 is an L zoom, capable of creating very high quality images.
    > > Of course the Rebel is not Canon's most expensive camera but that has
    > > nothing to do with its image quality.
    > >
    > > Also, with 200mm@F4, it will create a fair amount of background blur,
    > > which will be hard to achieve with a non-DSLR digital.
     
    Roger N. Clark, Aug 6, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. you suck

    35mm negs to digital

    you suck, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    616
    Computer Guy
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. o r b s c u r e DDJ

    Help - digital transfer of 35mm film

    o r b s c u r e DDJ, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,093
    o r b s c u r e DDJ
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Wayne

    Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

    Wayne, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    3,452
    Philip Homburg
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. ColdCanuck

    digital back on MF vs digital 35mm?

    ColdCanuck, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    457
    Crownfield
    Jan 14, 2005
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    708
Loading...

Share This Page