- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
Not only that, but Nikon right now has a good new and cheap lineup of full-frames lenses. The new 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 primes and couple of zooms, too.
What? You mean the compact, full-frame Sony camera?
Full-frame digital photography for the masses
- Thread starter 35mm
- 63 comments
- 3,458 views
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
What do you mean? You don't get a more "standard" focal length than 35mm. OK, maybe 50mm, but you can do more with a 35mm.
And why do you mention "backup"? We're talking about a compact camera with good quality, to carry on your pocket.
Why do you think the Olympus mju series sold nearly 40 million units?
And why do you mention "backup"? We're talking about a compact camera with good quality, to carry on your pocket.
Why do you think the Olympus mju series sold nearly 40 million units?
- 746
- dukie827
Enthusiasts probably wouldn't fork out the money for a $2000 camera that easily. Only a select few would.Pros, on the other hand, can. Carrying two or more full-frame cameras that weigh a ton can get tiring and a D7000-like camera that's full-frame would be a protog's dream.
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
- 905
- United States
- Bye_Ya
So... $2K for a 35mm prime, essentially? No way.
Even 'enthusiasts' are wacky to pay that much, if it is indeed perma-fixed to 35mm. For $2K I need to be able to do some stuff. A 35 isn't always wide enough for landcapes, and it's useless for bird shooting or any other tele situation. As a walkaround lens it's okay'ish, but I use my 50mm far more for that.
- 23,800
- Philippines
That's the thing. Pro-sumers and amateur enthusiasts will want someing very flexible for at much money. 2k for a prime and nothing but a prime only makes sense if you're a pro earning some 5k per job who needs a compact backup to their full frame when taking at events.
As such, it has a very, very limited market. Maybe some amateur enthusiasts would buy one as a toy. Granted, 35mm is a useful length outdoors for family shots and events, but it's very, very limiting if this is your only camera.
As such, it has a very, very limited market. Maybe some amateur enthusiasts would buy one as a toy. Granted, 35mm is a useful length outdoors for family shots and events, but it's very, very limiting if this is your only camera.
Fujifilm X100 is quite popular as a personal (i.e. not work) camera for $1200 with an APS-C sensor and an equivalent lens of 35 mm.
I'm sure that Sony could fit that space as well for those that doesn't want to sacrifice on sensor size, but want something smaller than a DSLR that is easier to carry around.
I'm sure that Sony could fit that space as well for those that doesn't want to sacrifice on sensor size, but want something smaller than a DSLR that is easier to carry around.
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
The camera (Sony RX1) is damn expensive, no doubt about that. But I almost look at this RX1 as a prototype and just have to hope that other brands will release equivalent models (with interchangeable lens, too) and that with time this will be affordable.
I think it is about time full-frame gets to be the standard and that it can be found on different systems.
You see, I don't think of full-frame as something of a privilege on digital photography.
Some might see it as a special, rare and very expensive thing, but it is just where digital photography starts to get level with traditional 35mm film photography... (apart from the quickness and convenience of digital, of course).
I think it is about time full-frame gets to be the standard and that it can be found on different systems.
You see, I don't think of full-frame as something of a privilege on digital photography.
Some might see it as a special, rare and very expensive thing, but it is just where digital photography starts to get level with traditional 35mm film photography... (apart from the quickness and convenience of digital, of course).
- 17,865
- 509
Noise handling on crop-sensors and their image quality beats film in quite a few cases. And I don't think you'd find too much usable film that is ISO 12800 that you'd make 8x10 prints from.
Unless this is what you meant by quickness.
Film isn't automatically better than digital at all these days. Perhaps in very, very limited situations, but then digital comes out on top in at least as many situations. Even when it is a crop sensor.
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
I knew film speed would be brought into the equation.
And yes, that's one thing digital has surpassed film, no doubt. Even with APS-C sensors - although it must be said that film's grain was always more "pleasant" than chroma noise.
But looking at the other factors (equivalent resolution, dynamic range, colour reproduction, the physical size of the sensor and the price), and since digital photography is here for almost 15 years, I think it isn't absurd to say it's getting level only nowadays.
And yes, that's one thing digital has surpassed film, no doubt. Even with APS-C sensors - although it must be said that film's grain was always more "pleasant" than chroma noise.
But looking at the other factors (equivalent resolution, dynamic range, colour reproduction, the physical size of the sensor and the price), and since digital photography is here for almost 15 years, I think it isn't absurd to say it's getting level only nowadays.
- 17,865
- 509
Chroma noised can be handled in post processing without much trouble these days. Color reproduction is very rarely an issue unless you are dealing with extreme dynamic ranges, and even then optics is a bigger factor I feel than film or the sensor. Honestly, most color issues are from people not accounting for the loss of Blues found in typical CMYK printing methods from digital files.
As for resolution, you can make 20 inch prints from a 18mp camera with no upscaling. And if you need to scale up, it means you'll be displaying from more than a foot away, so scaling isn't going to be obvious and modern fractal based systems are quite good at this as well. If you want to get into the most number crunching, arbitrary of tests, then you will find a bit more ultra-fine detail in film, but in the real world this is mute.
For cost, I find it is only worth shooting film if you have a full dark room and develop your own film. Otherwise, you have very little control over the final product. Not to mention the cost of film and paper, along with, again, chemicals and a space to work with development and printing. And if you are going to argue for scanning negatives in for larger files, I feel that just defeats the point of working in film anyhow.
There is a reason why most professionals, at all levels with all budgets, have switched to fully digital. Even fine art photographers shoot digital a majority of the time because of the much greater control in post and the fact most audiences are going to see digital versions in the end.
Oh, and if I had been shooting 35mm film for the past year, I'd be out about $2000 in film cost alone, never mind development costs and buying a film scanner. That is more than what I paid my full-frame Canon. Not to mention I've sold work that I've shot at ISO 6400, which wouldn't have turned out as well on film.
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
Quite right, one of my favourite things about shooting film is that I can have a pocketable full frame camera. The first compact full frame digital is a huge step in the right direction.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Let me google Noise Ninja. Yes, low light.
I shoot at 12mp. I used to use an EP1, but now shoot with an EPL1. decent enough for family occassions and daytime auto-shoots, and the resolution is more than enough for web or moderate-sized magazine prints (just not two page stretched spreads or cover shots). The nice thing, though, is the lens selection is fine. The stock 14-42mm works fine for anything but sports photography, I have one telephoto (that I can't, for the life of me, recall the range on) and a Lumix 20mm pancake for detail shots.
Please don't look at my car reviews for the quality of the photography. I swear... it's the shooter who's at fault, there.
I shoot at 12mp. I used to use an EP1, but now shoot with an EPL1. decent enough for family occassions and daytime auto-shoots, and the resolution is more than enough for web or moderate-sized magazine prints (just not two page stretched spreads or cover shots). The nice thing, though, is the lens selection is fine. The stock 14-42mm works fine for anything but sports photography, I have one telephoto (that I can't, for the life of me, recall the range on) and a Lumix 20mm pancake for detail shots.
Please don't look at my car reviews for the quality of the photography. I swear... it's the shooter who's at fault, there.
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
Cody:
Obviously, nowadays, a professional would be crazy to shoot film. And digital brought a lot of new features and advantages with it. That's unquestionable.
But then, you just mentioned "18MP", "nowadays", "full-frame", etc. And that's just what I was saying: it's something that it is just recent. Relatively recent, if you prefer.
Not here to begin a digital vs film war, nor do I want to get too technical, but my point is just this: 10+ years ago, you could buy very cheap film cameras, in which "full-frame" (for which you have to pay premium in digital) was a given and everything worked in a simple way. And in that context, digital was a huge step backwards.
Let's not forget this discution started because of the anouncement a new digital, compact, fixed lens full-frame camera that costs $3000.
Obviously, nowadays, a professional would be crazy to shoot film. And digital brought a lot of new features and advantages with it. That's unquestionable.
But then, you just mentioned "18MP", "nowadays", "full-frame", etc. And that's just what I was saying: it's something that it is just recent. Relatively recent, if you prefer.
Not here to begin a digital vs film war, nor do I want to get too technical, but my point is just this: 10+ years ago, you could buy very cheap film cameras, in which "full-frame" (for which you have to pay premium in digital) was a given and everything worked in a simple way. And in that context, digital was a huge step backwards.
Let's not forget this discution started because of the anouncement a new digital, compact, fixed lens full-frame camera that costs $3000.
- 905
- United States
- Bye_Ya
The way that I am understanding your reasoning is that you think that just because things changed, they took a huge step backwards. Change itself doesn't automatically assume a degradation of the circumstances, imo. I think you're just old fashioned.
I can't be convinced that just because they introduced a +/- EV button (etc.) that things took a turn for the worse. Sure, that's a change to the way things worked, but it's like saying that we're worse off now because of the invention of the horse and buggy - walking was so much simpler. Insert whatever you want into that equation. I see your point in a way, I just think that "huge step backwards" is strong words. Huge change, definitely, but the industrial revolution wasn't a huge step backwards, etc.
Also, cropped sensors just became a different standard. There was one standard, film. The new standard takes some DOF away, but adds many other things. Not a big deal.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Don't see how it's any worse today. Back in the old days, you could get some excellent pictures... but you either needed to be very good or have a very expensive high end system with very good glass.
Nowadays, you've got consumer-level cameras targetted at the masses delivering what wpuld have been pro-level picture quality back in the old days. So maybe some of e character has been lost... I prefer the more "natural" grain of film noise, too... But the sheer accessibility of photography nowadays is a great thing.
Nowadays, you've got consumer-level cameras targetted at the masses delivering what wpuld have been pro-level picture quality back in the old days. So maybe some of e character has been lost... I prefer the more "natural" grain of film noise, too... But the sheer accessibility of photography nowadays is a great thing.
Ibonibo
Premium
- 5,440
- Luxemburg
- Already paying my Isp 4 Access
On the Sony cam:
I think there is a market for it, but I also love Sony for going to push high tech products that sadly not sell so well. But at least they try to push the bounderies.
I know plenty of pro's that had point and shoot, now system cameras, and this will surely be on the wanna list for xmas.
Though the logical evolution will be a ff system camera.
Canon should have gone ff on the M.
On film:
I think the decay of film is also due to the non business behavior of a lot of photoshops.
I wanted to support local shops, but when I see the prices, the bad service and some time the lack of knowledge, it's hard to feel pity for them.
I bought films for an insane amount of money (don't know the sum) but for the silver oxide battery for the Canon Ae1 I paid ... hold tight... 20€, and they go for 2-4€ on Amazon.
developping films is the same, around 20€ for 32 pics.
The shop then sends it off as they sold all their machines, so it takes a few days.
And they all send it to the same company, which also does it for consumers on the internet for a wholly +-5€/film.
So with that attitude they contribuated to the fall of film (not alone, but played a part).
On the film vs digital : You discussed this all, so I have not a lot to add. Film still has a special feel as the emulation is quite different of the pixel render. But you would need to zoom in quite a bit which is never the case anymore.
And as Nicky said: Digital consumers and prosumers cameras offer a quality to shots that in the time of analogue would have cost the 10-100fold and took a lot of experience to achieve.
Thus why a lot of people that learn photography in analogue were/are pissed as they think digital watered it down. BS.
I think there is a market for it, but I also love Sony for going to push high tech products that sadly not sell so well. But at least they try to push the bounderies.
I know plenty of pro's that had point and shoot, now system cameras, and this will surely be on the wanna list for xmas.
Though the logical evolution will be a ff system camera.
Canon should have gone ff on the M.
On film:
I think the decay of film is also due to the non business behavior of a lot of photoshops.
I wanted to support local shops, but when I see the prices, the bad service and some time the lack of knowledge, it's hard to feel pity for them.
I bought films for an insane amount of money (don't know the sum) but for the silver oxide battery for the Canon Ae1 I paid ... hold tight... 20€, and they go for 2-4€ on Amazon.
developping films is the same, around 20€ for 32 pics.
The shop then sends it off as they sold all their machines, so it takes a few days.
And they all send it to the same company, which also does it for consumers on the internet for a wholly +-5€/film.
So with that attitude they contribuated to the fall of film (not alone, but played a part).
On the film vs digital : You discussed this all, so I have not a lot to add. Film still has a special feel as the emulation is quite different of the pixel render. But you would need to zoom in quite a bit which is never the case anymore.
And as Nicky said: Digital consumers and prosumers cameras offer a quality to shots that in the time of analogue would have cost the 10-100fold and took a lot of experience to achieve.
Thus why a lot of people that learn photography in analogue were/are pissed as they think digital watered it down. BS.
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
The way that I am understanding your reasoning is that you think that just because things changed, they took a huge step backwards. Change itself doesn't automatically assume a degradation of the circumstances, imo. I think you're just old fashioned.
I can't be convinced that just because they introduced a +/- EV button (etc.) that things took a turn for the worse. Sure, that's a change to the way things worked, but it's like saying that we're worse off now because of the invention of the horse and buggy - walking was so much simpler. Insert whatever you want into that equation. I see your point in a way, I just think that "huge step backwards" is strong words. Huge change, definitely, but the industrial revolution wasn't a huge step backwards, etc.
Also, cropped sensors just became a different standard. There was one standard, film. The new standard takes some DOF away, but adds many other things. Not a big deal.
Camera design has taken a step backwards though, only recently camera manufacturers such as Fuji and Sony have started to re-introduce certain methods of adjusting things like aperture and shutter speed in an intuitive way. A solid feeling shutter dial or aperture ring with clearly defined stop clicks and hard start/end points will always trump those rubber dials that keep on spinning. It's nigh impossible to set the exposure without looking at the LCD/VF on a modern DSLR, but you can on a traditional film set up - very useful when you'e keeping an eye on a scene that's on the cusp of being photographic. There's a point in the 90's where camera design took a huge step backwards into menu hell.
Just to dip my toe into the film vs digital debate, it's clear that film is superior in every single way.
Nothing beats a well exposed Tri-X negative developed in Diafine/XTOL/D76, a portrait shot on Portra, and a landscape in Velvia. The tonality and smoothness of transitions can't really be replicated (at least until something better than Bayer interpolation becomes standard), and neither can the way that film can compress the highlights (not the same as dynamic range, I believe that digital now has better DR, but it's emphasised in a different way to film). It's evident even with scanned film. I'm happy to wait an extra day or two to see my slides (medium/large format ones are awesome), or maybe a few extra hours for B&W (since I dev my own) if the results always make me smile. That's no different even today, really. I agree that the point of entry for good image quality is a lot lower today though, which is never a bad thing.
- 5,071
- Panama City, FL
Control comparison brings up my recent acquisition of a Nikon F4 film camera for under 200 bucks on eBay. Not a damn thing wrong with it, either!!! Except having to shoot (and pay for) film. 8fps burst, but then a roll only lasts 3 seconds if you don't stop.
The F4 uses all my current Nikon equipment, although for some reason it won't autofocus my 18-55 kit lens. No big deal, it's a DX lens, anyway. It worked the 55-200, though, and does well with my 70-300. Its autofocus is slower than my D5000 was, and WAY slower than the D7000 I just got.
But the ergonomics absolutely RULE!!!!! Every feature on the camera has its own dial, button, or switch, and you can reach just about all of them without leaving the viewfinder. And that viewfinder! It's HUGE!!!!!
And complete. Mode, frame count, exposure, focus, all there.
The F4 makes my digital cameras feel clumsy. Admittedly, there's a difference between "consumer" and "pro" setups in Nikon's line, and a lot of the stuff you go to the menus for is irrelevant to film, but being able to change priority mode, metering mode, EV adjustment, AF lock, AE lock, AF mode, drive speed, all without putting the camera down to look at it, is just marvelous. If you've never experienced it then I could describe it all day and you'd never understand, like trying to describe "red" and "green" to a blind person.
I have no "older" lenses for the F4, so I don't get the satisfaction of the focus ring stopping when it should, or the aperture ring..... wait a minute. What's an aperture ring, anyway?
As for the thread topic, I have no use personally for the D600. It's twice as much as my D7000 for about the same functionality. FF would mean giving up the reach I get with the crop sensor on my 70-300, so my bugs and my birds would miss me. And without Kodachrome I have almost zero motivation to shoot film. (Although i keep swearing I'm going to try some of the "modern" still-available transparency films.....)
The F4 uses all my current Nikon equipment, although for some reason it won't autofocus my 18-55 kit lens. No big deal, it's a DX lens, anyway. It worked the 55-200, though, and does well with my 70-300. Its autofocus is slower than my D5000 was, and WAY slower than the D7000 I just got.
But the ergonomics absolutely RULE!!!!! Every feature on the camera has its own dial, button, or switch, and you can reach just about all of them without leaving the viewfinder. And that viewfinder! It's HUGE!!!!!
And complete. Mode, frame count, exposure, focus, all there.The F4 makes my digital cameras feel clumsy. Admittedly, there's a difference between "consumer" and "pro" setups in Nikon's line, and a lot of the stuff you go to the menus for is irrelevant to film, but being able to change priority mode, metering mode, EV adjustment, AF lock, AE lock, AF mode, drive speed, all without putting the camera down to look at it, is just marvelous. If you've never experienced it then I could describe it all day and you'd never understand, like trying to describe "red" and "green" to a blind person.
I have no "older" lenses for the F4, so I don't get the satisfaction of the focus ring stopping when it should, or the aperture ring..... wait a minute. What's an aperture ring, anyway?
As for the thread topic, I have no use personally for the D600. It's twice as much as my D7000 for about the same functionality. FF would mean giving up the reach I get with the crop sensor on my 70-300, so my bugs and my birds would miss me. And without Kodachrome I have almost zero motivation to shoot film. (Although i keep swearing I'm going to try some of the "modern" still-available transparency films.....)
Last edited:
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
You are missing my point. I'll try this with an example:The way that I am understanding your reasoning is that you think that just because things changed, they took a huge step backwards. Change itself doesn't automatically assume a degradation of the circumstances, imo. I think you're just old fashioned.
I own a Nikon F80 (I bought it a year ago, for 80). This camera, which cost $500 new in 2000, has a bigger and brighter viewfinder than the Nikon D300s (you know, the $1700 camera from 2009). This difference, incidentally, is enough for me to able to nail the focus manually most of the time on the F80 and missing most of them on a D300s.
If this isn't taking a step backwards, I don't know what it is.
And please don't tell me "yeah, but the D300s makes awesome HD videos as well". Screw that.
The standard will always be the 35mm format. You'll never be able to explain a focal distance to anyone without always refering to the "35mm equivalent". In fact, now that digital brought a lot of different sensor sizes, who'll need it more than ever.
And they don't "add" anything. It's just a crop.
- 5,071
- Panama City, FL
I have the same focus issue comparing the F4 to the D5000 or D7000. However the F4 has the advantage of interchangeable screens, so I could put in a screen with the prisms and split-image if I want, rather than the "smooth" screen that auto-focus cameras come with nowadays.
- 905
- United States
- Bye_Ya
You are missing my point. I'll try this with an example:
I own a Nikon F80 (I bought it a year ago, for 80€
If this isn't taking a step backwards, I don't know what it is.
And please don't tell me "yeah, but the D300s makes awesome HD videos as well". Screw that.
Sure, the viewfinder is a step backwards. That doesn't encompass everything related to the switch from film to digital though.
The standard will always be the 35mm format. You'll never be able to explain a focal distance to anyone without always refering to the "35mm equivalent". In fact, now that digital brought a lot of different sensor sizes, who'll need it more than ever.
And they don't "add" anything. It's just a crop.
Exactly, just a crop. I agree, and I'm saying that it's not a big enough deal to say that it's really a step backwards in the overall scheme of film and digital.
Similar threads
