35mm, Digital or Phone?

[great lover]

whilst rummaging in my loft / attic today i found my old 35mm camera, its nor seen the light of day for over 20 years.

I got it down with the associated kit - flash, lenses, filters etc. i only needed to replace the internal battery for its light meter, and its good to go!!

bought some film - admittedly got my arse spanked on price, but its a test run, see if the camera body leaks light, lenses work etc. taking it out tomorrow.

i then got to thinking, having had a Sony digital thing which 'recorded' onto floppy discs, and various digital things as an early digital camera.

Then going through numerous phones, nokia, Samsung etc and having stuff on various sizes of SD card etc.

why did decent camera photography fall out of use? (cost and weight of equip aside)

theres something about adjusting ASA/ISO speeds, fiddling with focus, F stops etc and then the click of the shutter.

anyone support digital over film?

Why are we not writing letters any more?



oh, there's email. That's why.

 

[great lover]

The reason real photo equipment is needed is because phones suck if you actually wish to print the images. Case in point, print something 20x30 from a phone, then the same image taken on say, a Nikon D850 at 46mp. Which is going to look sharper, with more detail? The Nikon every single time. Phone cameras are toys.

So sharp, it can capture the blur.

 

[Caroline1961]

I've been using Nikon DSLR's no for three years after using Canon F1n's for years. I didn't stay with Canon because Nikon is more conventional with easy to grab buttons, dials, and switches to get me where I want to be. There's a place for film, and there always will be, I kept an F1n just for those occasions, but My Nikon D4s and D700 coupled with Affinity Photo is amazing and will do so much more than a film camera or a camera phone, (for now anyway).

As for morrorless, I feel they're still in their infancy and could benefit from more development before I take the plunge. By then, I may be too old to care.

 

[ag2507]

Hmmm...

Just thinking here, I have used all three in my life. From my Cannon A1, to my Sony 35mm digital camera, to a phone or tablet.

Film has always given a sharper image until the digital cameras, phone included, go up into the 15 mega pixel range. Post shooting manipulation of the image on 35mm film is done via the developing process and is... tedious.

Digital images have always been easier to manipulate post image capture. With new software always being developed to do more and more manipulation.

I did enjoy my 35mm film camera(s) very much, yet the digital ones are much faster and easier to use, even in a phone or tablet. Plus developing film is a messy process. I can also see the digital image immediately right there on the camera or digital device. I can decide to keep it or get rid of it.

Nowadays, digital is probably the way to go with the market of software available to you to make the image look the way you wanted it too.

You triggered an interesting thought, with 35mm film you get random rounded pixelation based on the crystallization of the film's surface, modern digital cameras give you a gridded image with rectangular pixels which suggests you need much higher pixel density to get the same effect. BTW, I enjoy trying to guess who's film stock was used for many of the vintage images we see in this forum, Kodachrome, Ectachrome, agfa, fuji... etc. It is all in the greens, lol

 

[oggbashan]

never really thought of using a long lens as a assault weapon though

Only use a Russian long lens for that. Like Zenith cameras, they are built like tanks. Those with M42 screw fittings can be adapted to use with a modern DSLR at a fraction of the cost. I have 200mm. 300mm, 400 mm, 500mm and 35-200mm zooms. The 500mm preset is unwieldy and is better with a second tripod (or a wall) to avoid camera shake.

One of my friends has been a photography enthusiast for decades. He has an expensive DSLR and bought an M42 adopter for about £8 and used one of my 300mm lenses. If he had bought a 300mm lens for his DSLR the cost would have been about £600. My 300mm is available on eBay for £20- £30.

 

[rockcasbah]

There’s nothing better than a stack of dirty Polaroids!

 

[oggbashan]

There’s nothing better than a stack of dirty Polaroids!

There is: a stack of dirty Viewmaster personal stereo pics. Or French dirty stereo pics from the 1880s to 1920s. What the French photographed and sold was amazing.

 

[rockcasbah]

There is: a stack of dirty Viewmaster personal stereo pics. Or French dirty stereo pics from the 1880s to 1920s. What the French photographed and sold was amazing.

My Viewmaster reels were all Disney stuff???