Boo on digital....
Feb 10, 2012 19:11:15 #
Digital is absolutely worthless for quality images. I use one for wedding's, but I am about to dump it and use it for test photos only. Nothing good comes from digital because there is little resolution. I recently bought a good digital, but after using film for over forty years I am certain the industry is making a mistake. This is just one example of big business making more and more money while spending less and less.. I have heard a digital camera of 6mpx will produce the resolution of only one tenth that of 35mm....I absolutely hate the quality, but the industry is trying as always to give us a snow job....The idea, is this, if you see something enough, you will start to believe it to be true.....because you want it to be true....
Maybe when the camera industry finally gets around to using the Sigma three layer chip, we make get a better quality image.
Lets hear your thoughts......................
Maybe when the camera industry finally gets around to using the Sigma three layer chip, we make get a better quality image.
Lets hear your thoughts......................
Feb 10, 2012 19:12:46 #
Feb 10, 2012 19:14:33 #
I don't see that at all. I get good quality shots. And the longer I use my camera the better they get. I am not a pro anymore. But do a lot of clicks on the camera. What are you shooting?
Erv
Erv
Feb 10, 2012 19:56:14 #
I have a D70s and I know that is a seven year old camera.....but I still am not at all satisfied.....Maybe the new technology would give me better quality.....I was just wondering how others felt. like I said, it works fine on small 4 x 6's at weddings....I was talking about blowing images up to at least 8 x 10......Example, I have a 35mm film image blown up to 16 x 20 and it is gorgeous.......I know the digital would not come close.....
Feb 10, 2012 20:03:09 #
Scubie wrote:
Digital is absolutely worthless for quality images... (show quote)
Disagree. There are some differences in the way an image is exposed for film and digital. Have you taken that into account?
While I will agree that there are some advantages to film over digital; there are also advantages of digital over film. The model you mention is also not "full frame", so in a sense, you've begun with an uneven playing field.
You also state that you used film for over forty years. I guarantee you that you've not spent the same number of years with digital!
Feb 10, 2012 20:18:03 #
The D70 is 250years old in digital equivalent. :-)
Film does indeed have some positives over digital, but to say it is worthless for quality images is........well...it is your opinion. If I had to go back to that old stuff I would quit. But that, of course, is my opinion.
I just delivered some 16x20's today and you can count the little striations in the person's iris.
Film does indeed have some positives over digital, but to say it is worthless for quality images is........well...it is your opinion. If I had to go back to that old stuff I would quit. But that, of course, is my opinion.
I just delivered some 16x20's today and you can count the little striations in the person's iris.
Feb 10, 2012 20:59:58 #
CaptainC wrote:
The D70 is 250years old in digital equivalent. :-)
Truly, 6MP is not great for quality images. But, if you have proper lighting, it shouldn't matter which format you are using. I'd move up to a current DSLR; just my opinion.
Feb 10, 2012 21:00:16 #
Some of us still prefer "stick shift cars" never trusted
the "automatic".. Just different strokes for different
folks.. I am a digital man myself, used film for 35 years, but time to move on now..
the "automatic".. Just different strokes for different
folks.. I am a digital man myself, used film for 35 years, but time to move on now..
Feb 10, 2012 21:09:11 #
I drive a stick shift HHR and shot with both a canon rebel film camera and a canon 40D (10.1 mega pixels), I'll take digital over film almost any day. I've taken shots done with my 40D and had them blown up to 24x30 with no issues at all and I'm pretty picky when it comes to what I print and what I even post on the web for people to see.
There is a slight difference when metering using film and metering for digital and it is a little of a learning curve but you are intitled to your view.
There is a slight difference when metering using film and metering for digital and it is a little of a learning curve but you are intitled to your view.
Feb 10, 2012 21:17:47 #
Part of your problem Scubie may be that you're viewing all of your photos on a computer monitor. Keep in mind that a monitor only generates so many pixels and cannot give you an accurate representation of what the true quality of an image is.
I hear you about your love of film, but with a good photo printer at your side, I believe you can create images that will rival 35mm.
Also, if you scan in a 35mm shot at a scanner's highest resolution it'll still look terrible on your monitor because of what I wrote above. It's only when you print an image on a high quality printer, that you actually see the quality of a digital image.
Hey people said the same about televsion, "it won't last", the "industry is fooling itself"... stuff like that. Look how that turned out. Digital photography is here to stay and because of it Kodak is in real trouble if you've followed the business pages lately.
I hear you about your love of film, but with a good photo printer at your side, I believe you can create images that will rival 35mm.
Also, if you scan in a 35mm shot at a scanner's highest resolution it'll still look terrible on your monitor because of what I wrote above. It's only when you print an image on a high quality printer, that you actually see the quality of a digital image.
Hey people said the same about televsion, "it won't last", the "industry is fooling itself"... stuff like that. Look how that turned out. Digital photography is here to stay and because of it Kodak is in real trouble if you've followed the business pages lately.
Feb 10, 2012 21:41:11 #
No one is making you to shoot digital. You can throw the technology away and become a cave man.
Feb 10, 2012 22:26:55 #
I use my d7000 as primary and d70 as second camera on numerous shoots to avoid having to fumble with lenses. I love both cameras. I may be wrong, but I don't think we'll be going back to film and dangerous chemicals. Love the electronic lab.
Feb 10, 2012 22:37:31 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
Well you made me curious so I got out a magnifying glass and took out an 8x10 that I had taken with my Minolta 35mm film camera and then I took out an 8x10 that I shot with my Nikon D90. After several minutes of peering through the magnifier at both images I could see no differences in image quality. I'm by no means a pro and maybe if I were the result would be different but I can't figure how. My money says film is to photography what horses are to farming, it's a very select few that still farm with horses and film is following that trend.
Feb 10, 2012 23:46:59 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
I am shooting A D200 which is probably 300 years old in digital time :lol:
Few weeks back looking at test prints for images in the 24x36 range on watercolor paper.......no problem.
Few weeks back looking at test prints for images in the 24x36 range on watercolor paper.......no problem.
Feb 11, 2012 00:14:15 #
"I am certain the [photo] industry is making a mistake" - Scubie
You're kidding...right?
You're kidding...right?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.