Natureimmortal

Natureimmortal

Joined on Oct 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2
In reply to:

King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

The only argument for film is the look it gives you, the Dr and whatever else, if you like it fine. Price is not an argument. My example was simply an example. Some people take less and i certainly take far more. Once you figure in the costs of scanner, developer, chemicals, film.... the 2k for a digital is really not much.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

The argument for films is ludicrous. If I still used film it would have cost me the 2k plus about 4k to take the pictures I do in a year. Lets say on a sunday morning I take 100 shots of boar or deer. That would be 3 films worth in a couple of hours.
2k to buy the film and 4k to get it all processed in a year. For that I can buy a 1Dx. 2k for a FF camera is almost give away.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 10:31 UTC
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2