Victory Road  

Go Back   Victory Road > General > Technology

Notices

 
 
  #1  
Old May 7, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default For some reason I have an interest on film SLRs

Yep, you're reading it right - film SLR cameras, not the digital equivalent.

After all... I can always get one on the cheap when looking for used bodies and I can always pair it with a lens.

Do you think something like that is still worth it today?
  #2  
Old May 7, 2013, 01:28:00 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Honestly, not really. A single roll of 24 exposures is about $10 from purchase to development, and you cannot erase exposures, see how your pictures came out (except in a few select cameras), or do anything with your pictures prior to development. Unless you're the kind of person who already has invested a lot of money in a film camera, this is little reason to continue using film.

Also, for reference, film has been approximated at 32 megapixels of resolution, but that relevance is moot when it's not even double (both horizontal and vertical) current SLRs. (Megapixels mean very little on point-and-shoot models due to the low quality sensors often employed.)
  #3  
Old May 8, 2013, 10:35:29 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

Hmm...

I wonder whether it's normal to want to have a real film camera after actually using a disposable film camera. I guess I'm quite the person for old tech that are still working. To be honest... I think I'm spoiled by digital, but I could be wrong.

Makes me think very hard about whether to just stick to digital or try dabbling to film. For some reason, I still have an affinity to photos produced from film cameras and I'd like to have used a proper film camera at least once in a lifetime. Sometimes I feel like limiting myself.

I guess I'm that crazy turtle.
  #4  
Old May 9, 2013, 10:23:40 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

After sending the disposable camera for processing, I'm out another $10 to get it processed and digitized, and it'll be a week.

Now that makes me reconsider getting a film SLR. So many $10s will rack up eventually, even if the system and lens are cheap enough. Maybe, instead of getting a film SLR, I can save up and get just a vintage lens and a suitable adapter for my camera (Minolta AF lenses can be used with full support with the LA-EA2 adapter with my camera, which adds... well, a mirror, AF sensors, and motors.)

At least I'll be outside tomorrow because I'm planning on getting shots that I've missed during the last outing if the weather permits. I hope that it'll be sunny enough, but I don't have high hopes with weather here.
  #5  
Old May 9, 2013, 10:53:20 AM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Another idea is to pick up or borrow a film SLR off someone who has recently upgraded to a digital SLR. Then you can at least have some nostalgic try-outs, but don't let those film costs rack up.

Last edited by Cat333Pokémon; May 9, 2013 at 10:53:42 AM.
  #6  
Old May 9, 2013, 11:40:00 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
Another idea is to pick up or borrow a film SLR off someone who has recently upgraded to a digital SLR. Then you can at least have some nostalgic try-outs, but don't let those film costs rack up.
Hmm...

That makes me wonder about eBay and other online listings. I've seen a lot of deals, both local and international, and...

Well, I'm stumped. (I do have to remember that since I'm looking at autofocus film SLRs only, almost all lenses that pair with them can be used on a digital SLR from the same system. That might come in very handy when I eventually get a real DSLR.)

Last edited by Twiggy; May 9, 2013 at 11:40:27 AM.
  #7  
Old May 11, 2013, 04:41:28 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Ah, quite a coincidence. I got hold of a Nikon N60 film SLR that we weren't able to sell at our own garage sale. We were going to donate it, and I remembered you, so if you want it cheaply, let me know. Make an offer.

No lenses.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Nikon camera.jpg
Views:	122
Size:	115.9 KB
ID:	4843  

Last edited by Cat333Pokémon; May 11, 2013 at 04:43:56 PM.
  #8  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:01:38 PM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

That N60 certainly looks nice, and yet I think I have a stronger interest in Minolta AF SLRs these days. It probably has something to do with the fact that I'm in the Sony Alpha system in a way right now

Gotta love how you can easily confuse the model number for the Nikon for a Nokia phone, too.

That said, have you ever used a film SLR, Scotty?
  #9  
Old May 16, 2013, 11:25:18 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Yep, I've used my dad's Nikon some back in the day when he actually was huge on photography (and literally spent five 24-exposure rolls of film on a single iguana ). It was definitely something to have to manually focus and take multiple pictures of the object to know whether or not it came out. (Of course, I know some people who rely too much on the screen of a digital camera and think 320x240 pixels is enough to verify a picture isn't blurry.) Oh, and you had to learn all about the aperture settings as well as the shutter speed well enough that you knew how the picture would look. My dad's SLR did give you a hint for what settings you should use, but if you're photographing something dark next to something bright, it doesn't always work right. It was definitely an experience.

The other comment is that SLRs (both digital and film) with quality lenses are far superior in picture quality compared to cameras with miniscule lenses, such as those on popular point-and-shoot cameras and mobile phone cameras. (And if you think they're getting better, they're just running more complex filters with software to make up for the terrible lenses.)
  #10  
Old May 17, 2013, 05:37:09 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
Yep, I've used my dad's Nikon some back in the day when he actually was huge on photography (and literally spent five 24-exposure rolls of film on a single iguana ). It was definitely something to have to manually focus and take multiple pictures of the object to know whether or not it came out. (Of course, I know some people who rely too much on the screen of a digital camera and think 320x240 pixels is enough to verify a picture isn't blurry.) Oh, and you had to learn all about the aperture settings as well as the shutter speed well enough that you knew how the picture would look. My dad's SLR did give you a hint for what settings you should use, but if you're photographing something dark next to something bright, it doesn't always work right. It was definitely an experience.

The other comment is that SLRs (both digital and film) with quality lenses are far superior in picture quality compared to cameras with miniscule lenses, such as those on popular point-and-shoot cameras and mobile phone cameras. (And if you think they're getting better, they're just running more complex filters with software to make up for the terrible lenses.)
I guess I'm spoiled by my NEX-5R. Then again, the screen is pretty high resolution (WVGA?) with a standard pixel layout for monitors (each pixel is a pixel in a whole), and focus magnification and peaking helps a lot in MF.

I wouldn't bother with camera without any auto-exposure or AF options in case I need to give the camera away to someone for some shots or when I'm pressed for time, to be honest, so I'm looking at true AF SLRs with their own systems (which means anything from the Maxxum 7000).

And lenses are just part of the equation, too. Sensor size and generation helps a lot, in addition to the lenses, as well as processing. I'd say that mobile phone sensors are about 10 years behind in terms of image quality compared to what you'd get with a 36x24 (full-frame/FX). Personally, I think for decent image quality the sensor needs to be about at least 1"-ish (or CX format), which, while not really large (it's smaller than Four Thirds), is more than enough under most circumstances. After APS-C sized sensors, we'll start to approach diminishing returns.

Most mobile phones having sensors 1/3" or smaller hurts a lot in the image quality, and the plastic lenses in use in almost every phone only serves to drive the point home.

I'm actually quite impressed by how much quality the Nikon 1 cameras pack - they're small in lenses and sensor, and yet they punch well above their weight in terms of actual quality. And due to their crop factor, you get either VERY small lenses that are Nikon-quality... or equivalent focal lengths that are measured in metres if using adapted Nikon lenses! They just need better controls.

Have I mentioned that these Nikons are ridiculously fast?

Seems like these days it's like this:
Smartphones: Convenience and social access
Regular compacts: Don't bother
Rugged compacts: Places where you wouldn't want to put your real camera (like underwater)
Superzooms: Feeling lazy?
Large-sensor compacts and smartphones (Sony Cyber-shot RX100 (1"), Nokia 808 (1/1.2"), Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C), etc.): Great image quality in most situations while staying pocket-able
Nikon 1: Interchangeable lens fun, blazing fast AF, pocket-able with the right lenses, low ISO cap (not performance!)
Micro Four Thirds: Lots of lens choices, video
APS-C Sony SLT: No flipping mirror makes for the same operation speed, whether viewfinder or LCD. Almost the same quality as the below two (some light loss = slightly higher ISO to reach same brightness)
APS-C mirrorless (Sony NEX, etc.): Image quality without killing your budget, semi-pocket-able
APS-C DSLR: Excellent image quality, lots of control, tons of lenses in established systems, slow
FF DSLR: You have the money to burn

I'll not talk about medium and large format equipment as they're super-expensive.

Oh, and as an aside, you know the sensor and lens are a huge deal when ISO 25600 on my camera looks better than ISO freaking 800 on my phone.

Last edited by Twiggy; May 17, 2013 at 10:00:18 AM.
 
Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Victory Road ©2006 - 2018, Scott Cat333Pokémon Cheney
Theme by A'bom and Cat333Pokémon