 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 200720 Mpix Canon vs film
I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new 20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits of the lens resolution. Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including deep shadows) with modern color negative film. It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...  SignatureRobert D Feinman - Landscapes, Panoramas, Photo Tips Web Site: http://robertdfeinman.com > I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new > 20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several > of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... Resolution wise, except for some specific cases, that's all she wrote. (and that's lppmm BTW). As to dynamic range v. negative, there is simply much less noise with digital compared to 'grain' so the subjective experience of digital is better ... even in cases where there is more discernible detail in a negative, the digital image is just easier to look at. If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2 FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the great ISO range on the D3... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new >> 20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2 Sorry ... 1 FF body... (D3). > FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they > are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the > great ISO range on the D3... > > Cheers, > Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. > Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several > of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... OK, I'll bite. Which cameras would those be? Sounds like you aren't gonna switch no matter what so keep telling yourself that your old film cameras are better. It'll be alright. The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern cellphone cam) can offer. > The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are > certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern > cellphone cam) can offer. Also, when I was there the water was level and not sloped. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/84376929 BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with Photomerge in CS3. > > The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are > > certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern > > cellphone cam) can offer. So, where are the "best that film can do"? > BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with > Photomerge in CS3. ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle. Something the 20d can't quite do... > ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle. You sure about that? Even if true, so what? My pic covers a much larger FOV. ------------------------ >Something the 20d can't quite do... He was comparing film to digital, not the 20D. There are digital cameras with FF sensors you know. ------------------------- >So, where are the "best that film can do"? Certainly not on his page. My point was the irony of some Luddite making BS statements about the superiority of film while illustrating his point with crappy images. Don't het me wrong. You can get some fine images from film as well, if you are willing to spend the time. Here's one I took with my last roll of slide film: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82040466 > Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems > about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. We'll have to wait and see. Maybe the Digic processor will be able to shorten light waves and rebuild them later on? I'm quite sure some marketeer will figure a way of fitting that one in somewhere. Just like the "digital lenses" and "digital filters"... > It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. > Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several > of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... Same here. I'm getting same quality with 35mm film at the moment than I get with my 10mp dslr. And that is with full access to true wide angles, not stitches. On the other hand, the DX sensor on the dslr is nice for making my 300 feel much longer. But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing compares. As simple as that. Not to say it won't happen, mind you. But I'm not losing any sleep over it. BTW: new Provia 400X is an AMAZING film. And I'm starting to like Kodak BW CN400 a lot. Where digital is going next is what is very attractive: the agenda seems to be on high ISOs and less noise. That is much better than the "I've got more MP than you" nonsense. > But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing > compares. As simple as that. Blanket statements are usually simple. And usually wrong. >> But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing >> compares. As simple as that. > > Blanket statements are usually simple. > And usually wrong. who cares > > But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing > > compares. As simple as that. > > Blanket statements are usually simple. > And usually wrong. Actually, blanket statements aqr ethe ones from dslr users who haven't got a clue about MF and what it does. >>> But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing >>> compares. As simple as that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from dslr users who haven't got a clue about > MF and what it does. It would seem that even the 5D compared quite well against 6x4.5 http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ 6x7 should out resolve the 1Ds Mark III, but then you are left with a film image, how much this bothers you is somewhat a personal thing, for me I would much rather have an image from the 1Ds Mark III, assuming a very good lens, then a 6x7 MF camera. Scott > It would seem that even the 5D compared quite well against 6x4.5http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ It does and there is no reason why it shouldn't. However, I have a tremendous problem with all these tests where someone just plonks an unprocessed scanned image, source and quality unknown, as the medium format example then proceeds to compare it with a heavily processed 5D or 1dsm2 image, with all the trimmings added. No wonder it looks so good! Has anyone put a heavily processed mf scanned image against one from a 5D for example? No, of course not: why should we compare apples with apples? > 6x7 should out resolve the 1Ds Mark III, but then you are left > with a film image, how much this bothers you is somewhat a personal > thing, for me I would much rather have an image from the 1Ds Mark III, > assuming a very good lens, then a 6x7 MF camera. Well, this is where I doubt any 35mm lens can produce better results than a 6x7 good lens. And the 1dsm3 must use 35mm lenses. There is such a thing as lpmm and their relation to negative size and it ain't changing just because someone dials up the Mps... But we'll see plenty of "examples" soon, no doubt, where a 22MP image will be shown to be - pick one or more: . "better" . "sharper" . "cleaner" than a 50MP unprocessed image. :-) >>>> But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing >>>> compares. As simple as that. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott A 35 mm negative scanned at 4000 ppi gives approximately a 24 Mpix image, so a 20 Mpix digital has almost the resolution of 35 mm film. A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi scan resolution. >>>>> But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing >>>>> compares. As simple as that. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi > scan resolution. A 35mm negative scanned at 4000 ppi gives 21,427,243 pixels, if you can scan the full 36mmx24mm area ,but oh how soft the pixels are at 4000 ppi. A film scanner at 8000 ppi would be a joke. Scott > A film scanner at 8000 ppi would be a joke. Perhaps. But they do exist and are working today... >>>>> But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing >>>>> compares. As simple as that. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi > scan resolution. You're supposing that a 35mm negative - or transparency - has detail at 4000 ppi. You *might* get that sort of detail if you: use a tripod have a top-of-the-line lens have dead accurate focus use a very slow fine-grain film Faster film, camera shake, mis-focus, and you can kiss goodbye to detail even at 2000 ppi. As for 200 ISO or faster film, forget it. Even a 6-megapixel camera will blow away any film faster than 100 ISO. Why is it that those who compare film to digital seem to presuppose that film is always grainless and dead sharp? Ordinary film with ordinary processing can't hold a candle to a good digital camera, let alone at 800 or 1600 ISO. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > You're supposing that a 35mm negative - or transparency - has detail at > 4000 ppi. You *might* get that sort of detail if you: > > use a tripod > have a top-of-the-line lens > have dead accurate focus true up to here. > use a very slow fine-grain film not quite, you're just recycling old wisdom. modern film rns rings around the ones on which that is based. > Faster film, camera shake, mis-focus, and you can kiss goodbye to detail > even at 2000 ppi. I must be a very steady handed person then... > As for 200 ISO or faster film, forget it. Even a 6-megapixel camera > will blow away any film faster than 100 ISO. Total rubbish. Modern 400 asa film will give a 6mp camera a good run for its money. Once again, you are basing that on info gathered with Y2K film status. Try redoing all those evaluations for example with modern superia 400. Or fujichrome 400x. > Why is it that those who compare film to digital seem to presuppose that > film is always grainless and dead sharp? did you actually read what was said? >Ordinary film with ordinary > processing can't hold a candle to a good digital camera, let alone at > 800 or 1600 ISO. Like heck it can't. > A 35 mm negative scanned at 4000 ppi gives approximately a 24 Mpix > image, so a 20 Mpix digital has almost the resolution of 35 mm film. Dunno, wasn't Scot talking about MF? > A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I > expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi > scan resolution. I'd love that but I doubt it will happen. Not at a price point that amateurs can afford anyway: you can get them now, for a LOT more than a coolscan... > A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I > expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi > scan resolution Imacon says hi. While 8000dpi scanners have existed for many years, I can tell you from experience that even my 5400dpi Minolta is overkill. You just don't get more detail by scanning at such higher settings. You just get a larger file. So the "resolution" as it relates to pixel size will be greater with a higher dpi scan, but it won't give you any more true resolution in terms of detail. > > A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I > > expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > will be greater with a higher dpi scan, but it won't give you any more > true resolution in terms of detail. I think 3000 is about right for 90% of the work on film. 4000 is needed for really outstanding work. higher is cool to have for antialiasing but GEM does exactly the same and faster. this: http://gi.leica-geosystems.com/LGISub1x4x0.aspx would be an unattainable ideal... >> Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems >> about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing > compares. As simple as that. My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide. In theory the 6x6 should hold more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so it looks not nice when scanned and printed. If you use film you should work analog all the way and maybe use Ilfochrome paper which looks very good. But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good prints from e.g. a 12MP SLR? Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR. Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.). Macro/Tele/flash......SLR much faster and the chance that you get the perfect image is much higher using a DSLR than e.g. a 500CM Hasselblad (had one myself.....). You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how many details you could have got? There is no technical reason to stay on MF film. It can only be a subjective feeling that you like the film look better and that is OK. BW film can look very good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base paper. I also use film from time to time to have the "retro look".....it is fun to use some of the old cameras (30-40-50 years old). I have just scanned one of my Velvia slides (24x36) and cut it to square and printed it to fill as much as possible on a A3 paper. It looks very nice.....a bit dark shadows but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at least my experience. > Not to say it won't happen, mind you. But I'm not losing > any sleep over it. BTW: new Provia 400X is an AMAZING [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is much better than the "I've got more MP > than you" nonsense. > My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks > better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide. My experience is exactly the opposite of that. > In theory the 6x6 should hold > more information but the fine details in film is hidden in grain/noise so it > looks not nice when scanned and printed. Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap. So, if you can apply post-processing to a RAW file to make it look good at A3, why can't you do the same to film? Anything stopping you? I can guarantee you nothing is stopping me. The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed is so wrong it defies description... > If you use film you should work > analog all the way No way! > But why have all the troubles with film when you can make such good prints > from e.g. a 12MP SLR? Because I can't afford to retool for a 12MP dslr. And retool again every two years or so, which is the market life of that sort of gear. And my mf gear does a brilliant job of taking excellent images. And my scanner and post-processing do an even better job than I ever did with an enlarger. > Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR. That "cleaner" bit is such a piece of crap... There is no such thing as "cleaner", that's subliminal marketing from the dslr brigade, for chrissakes! > Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR > is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.). If I was after "grabbing images", I'd be using my Zeiss rangefinder. Or my 35mm film slr. Not my mf gear. Although with the Fuji 645s r/f, I might give you a workout... > You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how > many details you could have got? Like I said: I'm not after "getting the images" when I'm using my mf equipment. Wrong gear for that purpose. Always has been. Nothing new there. > There is no technical reason to stay on MF film. Disagree completely. >BW film can look > very > good if you do it analog all the way......and use a good fiber base paper. And even better if you use a sensible scanning workflow. Instead of just slapping it on a scanner and hoping for the best. > but ok.....good shadow details is also an advantage of a DSLR......at least > my experience. You can also get good shadow details on film, you just have to use the adequate film and post-processing workflow. In fact, one of the things that I hate with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images unless I start messing around with raw. > Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a > RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap. That would be quite a trick since a RAW file is just RAW data that must be converted first. > The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed > is so wrong it defies description... I'm with you here. I believe any capture, whether from film or digital, can be improved with post-processing. So since you are going to be working in the digital medium anyway, it makes since to start in it at capture time. Otherwise, you are handicapping yourself with the disadvantages of film. I think most film purists would disagree with you (and me) on this point. They would say that the superiority of film will only be noticed in an analog workflow, printing large prints from the negative. With smaller prints, you won't see much difference anyway except for the lower noise benefits of digital. Theoretically, at some print size the digital capture will run out of resolution compared to a print from a large format negative or transparency. And this advantage shrinks each year with the larger digital sensors and higher pixel counts. Who knows? Someday we may have 8x10 digital sensors. Zero noise. ISOs in the millions. Yeah, that'll be cool. > > Of course not. Have you ever treied to directly print a > > RAW file as well? No? Try it. It looks like crap. > > That would be quite a trick since a RAW file is just RAW data that > must be converted first. Exactly. That conversion in itself is already a form of post-processing. Look at ufraw for example, and the plethora of interpolation mechanisms it has. > > The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed > > is so wrong it defies description... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > start in it at capture time. Otherwise, you are handicapping yourself > with the disadvantages of film. That's where we disagree. It doesn't make sense to me to start in capture mode in digital just because I'm going to use digital processing at some stage. I just take best advantage of what I got, be it digital or analogue, whenever it can be pushed into use. Right now for image capture I still haven't found anything better than film, for MF. For 35mm size, the jury is still out - but I'm starting to like the d80 a lot. However, the other cameras still get as much attention from me. Mostly because the d80 uses that awful DX sensor crop size: I just can't relate to that in terms of "which lens to use for a given expectation". But once I can get my hands on a D3 or similar, things might well change. Then again, a fuji f31 is always in my pocket nowadays... > I think most film purists would disagree with you (and me) on this > point. > They would say that the superiority of film will only be noticed in an > analog workflow, printing large prints from the negative. Ah well, I don't much care for "purisms" anyway. I use whatever makes sense to me and the "purists" -both camps - can go jump in the lake, quite frankly. > lower noise benefits of digital. Theoretically, at some print size the > digital capture will run out of resolution compared to a print from a > large format negative or transparency. And this advantage shrinks each > year with the larger digital sensors and higher pixel counts. Yeah, I agree entirely with that. > Who knows? Someday we may have 8x10 digital sensors. Zero noise. > ISOs in the millions. Yeah, that'll be cool. NOW you're tawkin! :-) Seriously: it will happen. The current trend to FF sensors is just a symptom of that. Sensor making will evolve like everything else in electronics and the sensors will get bigger and cheaper. >> My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks >> better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The notion that scanned film shouldn't be post-processed > is so wrong it defies description... I always post process my scanned film.....some can be done in the scanner software and then again in Photoshop. But it was much more time consuming as more post processing was necessary to have great results. >> If you use film you should work >> analog all the way [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And retool again every two years or so, which is the > market life of that sort of gear. OK.....my 12 MP DSLR (D2x) is not 1.5 years old. I am not going for the D3 as I am happy so far on how the D2x works. I expect 2 more years for the D2x. And then maybe a D400. I wanted the D200 but was impossible to get at the time I wanted it. But still some money each 3-4 years....... > And my mf gear does a brilliant job of taking excellent > images. And my scanner and post-processing > do an even better job than I ever did with an enlarger. I agree scanning and printing can be very good. But I compare with the Ilfochrome prints I made from Velvia and Provia a couple of years back from 6x6 slides (using contrast masking). It was very time consuming and expensive......and the chemicals was not very good smelling..... >> Colors are much more precise also.....and cleaner from a DSLR. > > That "cleaner" bit is such a piece of crap... > There is no such thing as "cleaner", that's > subliminal marketing from the dslr brigade, > for chrissakes! The test i have seen made using a color chart......the digital colors was much closer to the color chart than the film colors. >> Often you don't get the "image" when using MF because a modern SLR >> is so much faster to use (AF, VR etc.). > > If I was after "grabbing images", I'd be using my Zeiss > rangefinder. Or my 35mm film slr. Not my mf gear. > Although with the Fuji 645s r/f, I might give you a workout... What I like using digital is that I just shot.....don't have to think about frame counts etc. On a 4GB CF I have have about 200 RAW images. I like VR on the teles for hand holding. I like the auto white balance also......... >> You can go LF (8x10") but if you don't get the "image" then who cares how >> many details you could have got? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Disagree completely. OK! :-) >>BW film can look >> very [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images > unless I start messing around with raw. OK! .....I used mostly Velvia and Provia.....and I exosed for the highlights....and the the shadows got a bit heavy. Even the Coolscan 9000 can't get all the details out of the shadows. I see more details in the shadows if I project the slides. > I always post process my scanned film.....some can be done in the > scanner software and then again in Photoshop. But it was much more > time consuming as more post processing was necessary to have great > results. I use the scanner software, Neat Image and Focus Magic as well as Gimp or Irfanview. At various stages. And with mostly full automation. That is to say: I batch scan and then I use batch processes to go through the lot with NI, FM and Irfan. Only the odd nutcase gets individual attention. It's just a matter of getting the workflow organised. Time consuming? No way: it takes me considerably longer to massage the RAW stuff from the d80. Mostly because I'm new at it and still haven't got a workflow sorted out. But film post-processing being more time consuming once setup? Not likely. > OK.....my 12 MP DSLR (D2x) is not 1.5 years old. I am not going for > the D3 as I am happy so far on how the D2x works. I expect 2 more years > for the D2x. And then maybe a D400. I wanted the D200 but was impossible to > get at the time I wanted it. But still some money each 3-4 years....... Well yes, that is a major problem. But it's getting better now. dslr prices have become a lot more sensible. My d80 didn't cost much more than it would have cost me for a 2nd-hand F5 and less than an F6 for sure. And it is miles better than anything else dslr I ever tried. By the time the D4 and D400 are out, it'll be a lot better yet. > I agree scanning and printing can be very good. But I compare with > the Ilfochrome prints I made from Velvia and Provia a couple of years > back from 6x6 slides (using contrast masking). It was very time consuming > and expensive......and the chemicals was not very good smelling..... Yeah, that is a problem. That is why all my printing now is electronic. I still develop at home - mostly - but the next steps are scanner and digital. > The test i have seen made using a color chart......the digital colors was > much closer to the color chart than the film colors. that happens for sure. All I can say is that with adequate film and care with the exposure, I don't get that much difference. If any. I use the colour and grey cards in the old Kodak Pro Photo Guide. > What I like using digital is that I just shot.....don't have to think about > frame counts etc. > On a 4GB CF I have have about 200 RAW images. I like VR on the teles for > hand holding. > I like the auto white balance also......... Yeah, that is indeed an advantage. And MF doesn't have VR that I know of. > >> There is no technical reason to stay on MF film. > > > Disagree completely. > > OK! :-) There! :-) > OK! .....I used mostly Velvia and Provia.....and I exosed for the > highlights....and the > the shadows got a bit heavy. Even the Coolscan 9000 can't get all the > details out of the > shadows. I see more details in the shadows if I project the slides. I use mostly Fuji Pro 160s and other colour negative films, as well as Astia and new Velvia. Plus various B&W. But I don't much care about exposing for highlights. If one or two slip by and go 255X3, that's not a problem: the zone system clearly defines that zone as valid and usable. Although of course one doesn't want the ENTIRE image in that zone! :-) But with digital I'm finding that highlights are critical, much more than with film. By and large, I'm still adapting to the dslr world. One thing was interesting: last night we had a lunar eclipse here. Used the d80 - matrix meter - as well as the film camera. As usual, I started with the 1/4sec@f4 setting. Nothing could be more wrong: moon was a total washout! So I went up on the speed. Eventually settled on 1/125@f11: gave me the best detail at ISO100. Then I transposed that to the film cameras. The only meter that worked fine was the F2AS one, which is fairly "spotty" . It gave me f11 and 1/60. The others were all out. I did bracket a few shots and am curious as to how well things will come out. One thing more about the retooling.......don't think you need to retool every 2 years. Let's say every 4-5 years? ......what is your film budget over a 4-5 years period? (including processing). You still have the expense on paper and ink (and PC hardware?) as you scan and print on you own inkjet? >> My experience is that my prints from a 12MP SLR (A3+ size) looks >> better than a perfect scanned 6x6 slide. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > with my dslr is precisely the lack of strong contrasty images > unless I start messing around with raw. > One thing more about the retooling.......don't think you need to retool > every 2 years. > Let's say every 4-5 years? ......what is your film budget over a 4-5 > years period? > (including processing). Not much really. Film is quite cheap in places like ebay. And the processing cost is not a worry. The thing to remember here is that the approaches are vastly different: with a dslr I don't think twice about shooting away and then dropping shots I don't like. With film I don't do that at all, particularly with MF. Now, if one counts the cost of retooling for digital MF every 2-4 years... ;-) > You still have the expense on paper and ink (and PC hardware?) as you scan > and print on > you own inkjet? Yeah, but I don't count that. Its also used for the digital cameras as well as a lot of other things. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.