DSLR going away??
Dec 5, 2020 13:56:16 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Currently Canon, Nikon and Pentax make DSLR's in 35mm full frame and APS-C format. Leica and Hasselblad make DSLR in medium format. So they are still around but they could go away.
I think it's just a matter of time.
Dec 5, 2020 13:58:14 #
DWU2 wrote:
I think it's just a matter of time.
That’s what they said about film when digital came out.
Dec 5, 2020 13:58:32 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
SLR like a film body? Probably only 1 or 2 new one... (show quote)
I keep them in a bag along with some Sonys. That prevents the explosions. Keeps your friends close but keep your enemies even closer.
Dec 5, 2020 14:02:06 #
Dec 5, 2020 14:04:50 #
User ID wrote:
A 34.999mm camera
(I was going to say Minox, but I didn't remember the film size. 16mm?)
Dec 5, 2020 14:05:54 #
Mac wrote:
That’s what they said about film when digital came out.
Also what they said about monarchy when the guillotine came out.
Dec 5, 2020 14:08:37 #
Bobspez wrote:
I've been a member for 6 years. I have yet to see anyone post a great film photo taken with anything less than a 35mm film camera. Brownies with their fixed length half inch plastic lenses were for kids.
An amateur will tend to believe hard work is what brings good luck and success. Professional photographers know the secret is a full-frame camera.
Dec 5, 2020 14:19:30 #
Longshadow wrote:
What's less than a 35mm camera
You are right. I misspoke. Lots of top quality film cameras using 620 film, like the old Leica's. I really meant any cheap entry level fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed, film cameras or throw away cameras using film disks, etc. Didn't start to get good results until I switched to the Kodak Pony 35mm camera with controls for shutter speed and aperture. What's less than a 35mm camera Dec 5, 2020 14:41:22 #
Bobspez wrote:
I would say yes. The biggest difference I see is the size and weight. I thing a good analogy would be the portable phones of the 80's that looked like a brick with an antenna, vs. today's smartphones. Or console analog TVs of the 50's through 80's vs. the light weight backlit led lcd TVs of today. If you can get the same results in a light weight easy to carry package, I think it's a foregone conclusion that dslr's will eventually go the way of 4x5 film cameras.
Then there are those photographers who actually desire bigger and heavier, and will even add a battery grip primarily to add weight and size to their camera. (I'm definitely not one of them; I prefer compactness.)
Dec 5, 2020 14:48:57 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Then there are those photographers who actually desire bigger and heavier, and will even add a battery grip primarily to add weight and size to their camera. (I'm definitely not one of them; I prefer compactness.)
I prefer heavy camera, large ok but heavy is more important. I don't like grip. I wish they make cameras without grip again.
Dec 5, 2020 14:55:27 #
Bobspez wrote:
You are right. I misspoke. Lots of top quality film cameras using 620 film, like the old Leica's. I really meant any cheap entry level fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed, film cameras or throw away cameras using film disks, etc. Didn't start to get good results until I switched to the Kodak Pony 35mm camera with controls for shutter speed and aperture.
Ahh, like my ~1960 "Starbright" 127 roll film camera that only allowed me to select color or B&W film...
Dec 5, 2020 15:27:32 #
Bobspez wrote:
I've been a member for 6 years. I have yet to see anyone post a great film photo taken with anything less than a 35mm film camera. Brownies with their fixed length half inch plastic lenses were for kids.
Actually, not true. I remember back in the '40's nearly every family I knew had one or similar. Wealthier families had better ones. 35mm emerged into popularity in the late '40's and early '50's, but the older roll film cameras remained in heavy amateur use through the late '60's when I worked in a photo shop - still around half the processing business.
Dec 5, 2020 15:35:30 #
Longshadow wrote: What's less than a 35mm camera
What's less than a 35mm camera Instamatic film format was 13x17mm.
Half-frame 35mm film format was 24x18mm.
Minox film format was 8x11mm.
Dec 5, 2020 15:48:41 #
selmslie wrote:
Instamatic film format was 13x17mm.
Half-frame 35mm film format was 24x18mm.
Minox film format was 8x11mm.
Half-frame 35mm film format was 24x18mm.
Minox film format was 8x11mm.
It's not really "less than 35mm", but does anyone remember Kodak 828? I think I still have Dad's old "Bantam" around here, someplace (mmm...wonder if it still has film in it).
Dec 5, 2020 15:51:04 #
selmslie wrote:
Instamatic film format was 13x17mm.
Half-frame 35mm film format was 24x18mm.
Minox film format was 8x11mm.
Half-frame 35mm film format was 24x18mm.
Minox film format was 8x11mm.
All film sizes.
I would have thought "less than" would have been camera quality.
Wasn't sure what "less than" was.
Like my 1960 "Starbright" 127 roll-film camera.
127 was larger than 35mm, but the camera had a fixed lens and one shutter speed each for color and B&W.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.