"Bigger is better," she said.
Jan 9, 2015 17:13:52 #
For many years I was a videographer doing mostly weddings. All the photographers I worked with were using cameras that were 2 1/4-3 1/4 in negative size or larger. Never did I see a pro using 35mm. However, today a full frame sensor is equal to 35mm. Does that mean that the most expensive full frame cameras of today are producing pictures similar to the lowly 35mm of yesteryear?
Jan 9, 2015 17:27:07 #
Jan 9, 2015 18:42:55 #
teacherrich70 wrote:
... All the photographers I worked with were using cameras that were 2 1/4-3 1/4 in negative size or larger. Never did I see a pro using 35mm. ... Does that mean that the most expensive full frame cameras of today are producing pictures similar to the lowly 35mm of yesteryear?
with the current PP programs, SOOC 35mm shots are usually adequate images to build on.
Jan 9, 2015 18:57:37 #
Having worked in a processing and printing lab in the 1990's, the only pros I recall using 35mm film format were sports photographers, newspaper photographers and the paparazzi, who often relied on shooting countless frames to ensure capturing a few magic moments. Essentially all studio work was shot on medium and large format.
Jan 10, 2015 09:10:15 #
OldEarl
Loc: Northeast Kansas
teacherrich70 wrote:
For many years I was a videographer doing mostly weddings. All the photographers I worked with were using cameras that were 2 1/4-3 1/4 in negative size or larger. Never did I see a pro using 35mm. However, today a full frame sensor is equal to 35mm. Does that mean that the most expensive full frame cameras of today are producing pictures similar to the lowly 35mm of yesteryear?
In 1976 I paid less for a house than the price I just saw for a digital Hasselblad.
Jan 10, 2015 10:30:38 #
Bigger of coarse is better, but there are not many of us who can touch anything larger than full frame slrs. But the final product is the print and if memory serves me correctly, considering grain, I could not enlarge a 35mm film negative very far without seeing a lot of grain. On the other hand, with a full frame sensor like on my Canon d6, I can go pretty large (16x20 or more) and still have a nice sharp image. In my mind, full frame is better than 35 M&M film.
Ps: You can get yourself into a film view camera for next to nothing if you are really looking for "better".
Ps: You can get yourself into a film view camera for next to nothing if you are really looking for "better".
Jan 10, 2015 11:01:58 #
Jan 10, 2015 11:15:23 #
teacherrich70 wrote:
For many years I was a videographer doing mostly weddings. All the photographers I worked with were using cameras that were 2 1/4-3 1/4 in negative size or larger. Never did I see a pro using 35mm. However, today a full frame sensor is equal to 35mm. Does that mean that the most expensive full frame cameras of today are producing pictures similar to the lowly 35mm of yesteryear?
No, today most pros are still not using 35 mm, but the semi-pros or prosumers are using the 35 mm/full frame format.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.