jjyiii

There is a difference from sharpness and softness. There are timmes for both, but here too, it is each individuals choie...but in the case of fire works, the strings hanging from the bang are a distraction and the luster is gone...but thats my opinion.

pendennis

We're talking "apples and oranges". While the digital era has brought the logic of the computer to photography, film is still a great analog medium. Because of the logic computers use, and this is the most basic of digital computing, everything has a logical systemic means of happening. Pixels are uniformly distributed on sensors. Film, on the other hand, even considering technology like Kodak T-Max, is more, or less random. Grains are distributed in the emulsion rather randomly, compared to pixel distribution. Film grain has a lot of latitude in size, 1-3 uM. Pixels are uniform within the sensor, and sized accordingly; the pixels are smaller for a 24MP crop sensor, vs. a 24MP full-size sensor. In film, the ISO of the film drives the granular density to a great extent.

And yes, lenses and their resolution have an enormous effect on the quality of the image, whether digital or analog. Most folks wouldn't consider a screw-mount lens of the 60's, to be superior to a modern computer-designed lens with modern coatings. However, lenses from the 70's are in great demand for the 4/3 crowd. I use my 20mm f2.8 AI-s Nikkor on my D750, and get great results, although the newer 20mm models are probably a bit better.

Does well-preserved Kodachrome stack up against digital? That's in the eye of the beholder. However, I certainly wouldn't use a projector screen to determine the quality of a film image vs. a scanned image, especially at lower resolutions. Someone here has probably done the math to learn what DPI scan would make a Kodachrome 25 slide scan the equal to a similar digital image.

The upshot here, is that there are enough grains and pixels to please everyone. C'est la vie!

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

So true. And there are so many new tools with digital to do all sorts of photography, including distribution. Light, composition, and subjects still demand study and practice, but low costs and the freedom from the darkroom, or the choice to keep one going, allow more people to try the art than just a couple of decades ago. More people doing it means more great images and more we can learn about the world. Sounds obvious and corny, but it's not trivial, at least to those who love to see what others do with it. It really is a great time for photography and those who love it.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

my first thought was "you've gotta be kidding"! however, let us be a bit more rational. the f5 body is an excellent, durable platform for your lenses. it is film, which is superior to digital imaging, as regard the paper print results. also, more and more manufactures are offering different films to the consumer market. so, i would keep your camera and lenses and use what seems to be an excellent outfit.
good luck!

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

I read this whole topic posted here. I barely understand it. I'm not stupid. I am forced to use my DH Canon EOS 620; I can't buy a new camera. The cost to develop is cheaper than any money that I could save up for a digital mirrorless camera. Maybe the digital mirrorless cameras will come down in price after Christmas so that is my goal to buy one then. With the Apple iPhone X as competition, I don't know what the camera companies are going to do. I'll decide after Christmas.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Waiting is not a bad thing, and you are certainly not alone. I still don't have a true mirrorless or the kind of DSLR I would like, but I still learn a lot from those who share. It doesn't keep us from practicing with "lesser" cameras (in my case a Fujifilm X-S1 and Coolpix P7800). The neat part about digital products is their capabilities keep going up and the prices come down. You may well be wise to wait a bit, try different cameras with friends and in stores. One will eventually bite and not let go.

HarryBinNC Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA

However, once the film is developed, it is a major dust magnet! On the other hand, I can go for years without cleaning sensors because I am careful when changing/removing lenses.

HarryB

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you are careful handling and storing film, there is no dust problem.

I keep mine in archival Print File archival preservers (sleeves) in a file cabinet. It keeps the dust off for decades.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

You got ripped off big time! I only pay about a third of that.

pendennis

Technical jargon almost inevitably comes into the discussions of digital cameras. No, you're not stupid, and lots of folks get lost with the technical pieces. That's a sideshow to the art. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, comparisons are more apples-to-oranges, than inherent weaknesses in either format.

A mirrorless camera is not the only choice when it comes to digital. You have one of the finer film SLR's in the EOS 620. I'd seriously think about finding a compatible used Canon DSLR which will use your current EOS lenses. You'd get the best of both worlds. There are boatloads of used Canons out there with low shutter counts which would probably do a great job, and they're all the scions of the EOS 650 and 620 platforms of the late 1980's.

Good luck and good shooting!

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Thank you for being nice. My only lens is a Canon zoom 100-300mm 1:5.6, and it is very heavy. I just don't know if that means that I can make close-ups with it, or just zoom from 100 ft - 300 ft?? I have read the manual twice, and I went to the Stanley Ringer Park this morning in Brighton, MA, I pressed the blue button, turned the dial to delay, pressed the shutter... Then I ran in front of it, 15 feet away, and watched it time-out and take the picture. Did it focus on me? Does it focus after the timer is done before it snaps the picture? I don't know. I just don't know.

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

I did it. I asked my DH for an iPhone X. (bottom of the line = $999.00) he yelled, "NO."

pendennis

The focal length of the 100-300 f5.6 lens just means that its magnification is from 2x-6x based on a 50mm standard lens, with a constant f5.6 maximum aperture. The minimum focus is 1 meter or 2 meters, so @ 15 feet you should have been in focus. I'm going to guess that the focus locks just before the shutter releases, so it probably did focus on you.

Yes the 100-300mm lens is heavy, but it's a good piece of glass. However, for a lot of photography, you'd probably do better with a lens in the 28-80mm range; wide angle to short telephoto.

If you want to combine your resources into a single device (phone, camera, web, etc.), the smart phones are great. You just have to decide on what your photographic needs are.

In Massachusetts, you may want to contact Hunt Camera. I've done business with them in the past, and they're very knowledgeable about the equipment, and helping you with your needs.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

it all depends on how you store your negatives. leaving them on the coffee table is not a good idea.

BebuLamar

If my wife ask me I would say yes. And yet I don't own a smartphone myself. Now I assume that you already have a smartphone, what if you ask him $999.00 for a mirrorless camera?