Prev: Adams print sells for $722K
Next: Nikon D3 from space - Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station
From: David J. Littleboy on 24 Jun 2010 23:13

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.jllinois.edu> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a
>> good lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you
>> otherwise is an idiot.
>
> At what print size?

Almost any size. This is because the smaller the print, the closer people
will look. Nobody puts their nose on a 12x18, but hand them a stack of loose
A4 prints, and they come back with nose prints (if there's something there
to see).

> I own a Canon 30D and almost bought a 5DMkII for my recent vacation.
>
> But I kept looking at the 7x10.5 inch prints I usually make, and
> I don't see how the 5DMkII would be noticeably better. I'm
> assuming using my 100mm f/2.8 macro for both, which removes the lens as
> the limiting factor.

To my eye, for borderless A4, 12MP is worlds better than 6MP. With the 300D,
I only used digital for family snaps. My borderless A4s from scanned 645
looked way better. Once I got the 5D (it's been almost six years), I retired
my 645 equipment.

But 7 x 10.5 (which looks real nice with the borders on A 4 paper) from 8MP
might be OK. What's the dpi there?

> Now at 16x24 inches, things would be different.

At 12x18 (the largest I print at), 21MP is nicer than 12MP.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Me on 25 Jun 2010 02:24
On 25/06/2010 2:50 p.m., Michael Benveniste wrote:

>
>> 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters.
>> A lot.
>
> Again, I can't disagree. But nothing forces one to do so if cost
> is your driving concern. I suppose I ought to have factored in
> electricity and battery replacement costs as well which would add
> another fraction of a cent per shot to the cost of a dSLR.
>
I've shot quite a few events recently, mainly informal semi-candid
shots. My guess is that hit rate for acceptability (not brilliance) for
publication is about one in 5 (out of every 5, technical issues might
kill two, half-closed eyelids etc might kill another two. Fast chimping
on a good screen saves an awful lot of time and effort. The 5dII sucks
for this - Nikon's one-click active focus point centred 100% LCD zoom
makes a huge difference. Never used a 1d/s camera, maybe they have this
feature.
I don't think I could have done that with film - not for candids where
there was some pressure to get an acceptable shot of each subject. I'd
end up with 15 film frames per subject and not be sure I got one (or 15)
until it was too late.
From: Michael Benveniste on 25 Jun 2010 06:50
"Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:

> I don't think I could have done that with film - not for candids where
> there was some pressure to get an acceptable shot of each subject. I'd
> end up with 15 film frames per subject and not be sure I got one (or 15)
> until it was too late.

I'm not a pro, but over the years I've known a few event photographers
and a few (real) photojournalists. I don't know when the adage "film's
cheap" was first coined, but that was their attitude in such situations.

My own wedding was shot photojournalistic style on 35mm film, with
the formals done in medium format. I _think_ the 35mm stuff was done
with manual focus F3HP's, but I had other things to do than think
about photo gear that day :-). All told, the pro photographers used
18-20 rolls of 35mm film.

My apologies to the group. My purpose was to examine costs, rather
than examine the relative merits of film vs. digital.

--
Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

From: David Ruether on 25 Jun 2010 11:38

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:88if4oF54rU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>> Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very-
>> interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P
>> exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead
>> of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of
>> the delightful compact FG bodies...;-)

> Actually, the FG came first (1982) before the FG-20 (1984).

Ah...;-)

> It also didn't have shutter priority, just M, A, and P.

Ummm... I just looked at mine to be sure, and to my surprise, you
are correct! I rarely used the FG, and was likely thinking of the FA,
which does have all those options...

> While I consider the FG the most underrated of the Nikon film bodies, my favorite compact Nikon film SLR was the last one,
> the N/F75.

I bought the N/F80 for a trip and hated it, mainly for its dark mirror
prism and unviewable metering in sunlight. Too bad I also bought
the handle, since both remain packed away, unused by me. The FA
is FAR better (and it is easier to hand-hold steady for me, since it
has a soft shutter release). If I wanted a motor, the N2000 was
essentially an FG with built-in motor, and the AAA batteries lasted
"forever". ;-). 'Course, other favorites were the N8008 (not "s")
with its fill-adjustable TTL flash capability (but the battery life was
short), the F100 (a superb body that finally combined all the "goodies"
in a single fairly compact entity) and the F3 with or without motor,
with the standard prism for compactness, the HP one for greater
eye-relief, or the "sports-finder" for easy composition with that image
rectangle "floating" in a large field of black). Overall, the one that gets
used now is the FA. It (with folding handle), and four compact lenses
plus 30 rolls of film can go into a compact rectangular case that fits
under my seat on a plane. On my wish list, though, is a Nikon digital
FF body that can properly mate with my many AIS lenses, and that
is as compact (thicker is OK) as the F100 (and weighs about the same)
and costs less than $1500. Dream on, huh......? ;-) Maybe in 10 years
or so...;-)

> {Excellent summary of the series E lenses snipped).

>> I suspect that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-
>> priced market by offering generally high-quality optics at
>> good prices with compromises in finishings being made to cut
>> costs.

> Yes, but they also wanted to avoid cannibalizing sales to their current customers.

The original set of E-Series non-zoom lenses was SO ugly, that that
purpose was likely acomplished - but the later aesthetics may have been
improved to attract new customers to the low end of the Nikon line...

> It's also interesting to note that two of the Series E designs, the 28mm f/2.8 and the 70-210 f/4, evolved into AF-Nikkors. --
> Mike Benveniste

Yes - and I suspect that other than the coating, the 50mm f1.8 also
became an AF-Nikkor. Interestingly, the first Nikon digital SLR
body was shown with the 28mm f2.8 (42mm equivalent) AF as the
"standard" lens...;-) Then along came the "G" mount, first for cheap
lenses and bodies, but then for very expensive lenses (UGH - since
"G" lenses were not compatible with older AIS-only bodies. Annoying,
and something Nikon would not have done in the past! So, now I have
the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G that was intended for use on the
N80, but it can be used only on that (which I dislike) and the fairly
large F100 in my collection of bodies (with no possibility of using it
on my favored FA). Maybe it is time for a D90, but I'm more likely
to just wait...
--DR


From: Rich on 25 Jun 2010 23:15
On Jun 24, 10:50 pm, "Michael Benveniste" <m...(a)murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davi...(a)gol.com> wrote:
>
> > There are several problems with your above calculation.
>
> > 1. 35mm doesn't produce D3x quality images. 35mm film in real life is no
> > better than 8MP digital.
> > 2. The D3x produces image quality equivalent to 4000 ppi scanned 6x7 slide
> > film such as Provia or Velvia. Which cost US$1.00 per frame to shoot and
> > develop, and that's before scanning, which is seriously expensive.
>
> I'll let others wage the great megapixel debate.  I chose the
> D3x simply because I wanted to compare the highest-cost 35mm-based
> Nikon dSLR against the lowest-cost option for film.  I also didn't
> address the noise/grain/speed issues for the same reason.
>
That's good. Because a $250 used Nikon D70 will beat any film there
is now. 35 film has some interesting attributes, like nice grain, but
it is no match for any digital today when it comes to noise control
and resolution. Qualification? I can buy a dozen film bodies (used)
for the cost of one new, entry-level DSLR.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Adams print sells for $722K
Next: Nikon D3 from space - Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station