Anyone out there still use film? Camera suggestions?

[IwasatWDWforamonth]

I will be sad when the day comes and I cant have 35mm film,
I love getting my pictures developed months after my trip. I usually do 2 roles a week for about 3 months after my trips.
I like my digital, I think its fun , and im really glad my dad bought it for me ,but the pictures never seem to come out right.
but when the time comes and my slr dies I wont replace it and will buy digital.

 

[fitzperry]

very true. For the average person, get a Nikon 50D ro Canon RebelXT and be happy. Seriously.

I'm pretty average I suppose and quite happy with my D70 for now , but I'd still like to understand this full-frame discussion. I thought full-frame cameras had a digital sensor the same size as 35 mm film. Does that change the way lenses for 35 mm cameras work on them? What does that have to do with the viewfinder (other than seeing what the lens sees)? Am I just hopelessly confused?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

APS-C (non full-frame) sensor have a crop factor (1.5 with Nikon, 1.6 with Canon). Imagine taking a picture with 28mm lens with full-frame sensor (35mm sized), then you'll get the entire field of view. Once you use a smaller-frame sensor, that same 28mm lens will have the field of view of approximately 44mm if you're using full-frame sensor/35mm film.

That's why although 28mm is wide enough for 35mm film camera and full-frame camera, 17mm will be the equivalent field of view if you're using a non-full-frame camera (be it 1.5 or 1.6 crop sensor)

 

[fitzperry]

Deleted--sorry I double posted.

 

[fitzperry]

Aaaaaccckk!!! Too many numbers! Maybe it's just because I'm paying bills and trying to reconcile a ridiculous number of medial bills with the corresponding EOB's (why can't they just bundle it all together instead of a bill from the surgeon, another from the anesthesiologist, a couple from the surgery center, more from the labs, yada yada yada), but that makes my head hurt. You're right--I should just be happy with my camera and leave it at that.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

let me make it simple.

Real wide angle for non full-frame camera starts around 17mm.
35mm is considered "normal" lens (the field of view of what your eyes see).
Beyond that, it's "closer" than what your eyes normally see.

 

[fitzperry]

Kelly,

I re-read your other post after a brief respite from the bills, and it makes more sense to me now. Thanks for explaining.

 

[MICKEY88]

For a pro photographer I can see how you could still justify the cost over time when your film expenses are figured in. But for the average person that's a hard pill to swallow. I am eagerly waiting for the day when I can buy a 5D for a reasonable cost (because I REALLY want one). Until then I'll keep trying to persuade my employer to buy me a really expensive camera so I can have my toy! But it won't happen.

the average photographer would be lost with a high end digital

it's part supply and demand, and part quality...

the higher end digitals are made more rugged, and made to last longer, yeilding a higher number of shots before breaking down..with more electronics and control..., and such..they are more complicated to make...

the supply and demand part is simple economics, if you make 1 million low end digitals, and 1000 high end, it naturally costs more per camera to produce,

and they also know that pros will pay what it takes to have the best..

the whole digital thing is still new, just like in the 70s when the first digital watches came out, they were close to 100 a piece, now they can be had for under 10, with time digital camera prices will come down as all electronics do...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the whole digital thing is still new, just like in the 70s when the first digital watches came out, they were close to 100 a piece, now they can be had for under 10, with time digital camera prices will come down as all electronics do...

tee hee. I still wear a digital watch with EL backlighting I bought for $1 at a dollar store back in 1992. Its EL is kinda dim now, maybe I should change the battery.

 

[handicap18]

the whole digital thing is still new, just like in the 70s when the first digital watches came out, they were close to 100 a piece, now they can be had for under 10, with time digital camera prices will come down as all electronics do...

When I was in Atlanta about 10 years ago, a few guys in the elevator I was in were talking. I remember distinctly one guy saying,,, "if cars had evolved in the same way computers and electronics have, we'd be able to by a new Volvo for $400 and it would go 400MPH"

Its an exaggeration, but its a good point. When it comes to electronics, anything new is just about obsolete by the time it hits the store shelves. When the first Nikon dSLRs came out about 5 years or so ago they were $5000. My D50 cost $600 and is now a better camera than those original ones (higher res, more pixels, better sensor, more features, etc...).

What the 5D is today will be something else in a few years and it will be better and cost a lot less.

 

[phinz]

When the first Nikon dSLRs came out about 5 years or so ago they were $5000.

I held a Nikon dSLR in my hands in journalism school back in... 1993? At the time the photographer we were talking to said it cost something like $10k. I'm guessing it was just a digital back on a standard Nikon pro SLR, but that much money in a camera was insane to me back then.

 

[MICKEY88]

I held a Nikon dSLR in my hands in journalism school back in... 1993? At the time the photographer we were talking to said it cost something like $10k. I'm guessing it was just a digital back on a standard Nikon pro SLR, but that much money in a camera was insane to me back then.

I'm pretty sure that would have been a Kodak back...if I remember right they developed the technology for the space program and NASA had the first digital cameras//..

 

[Kelly Grannell]

how the mighty have fallen.

Where I was born, Kodak brand was so prevalent people over there referred to a camera as "a kodak", just like people here referring tissue paper as "kleenex". Nowadays, nobody there refer a camera as "a kodak" anymore.

 

[PaulD]

I held a Nikon dSLR in my hands in journalism school back in... 1993? At the time the photographer we were talking to said it cost something like $10k. I'm guessing it was just a digital back on a standard Nikon pro SLR, but that much money in a camera was insane to me back then.

We have one of those at work. We used it until a short time after I was hired. It's this massive B&W thing with a little hard drive in it and a SCSI port (no USB here). I think it's the Kodak DCS 420. It's basically a Kodak back on a Nikon body. We used it tethered on a stand but I hear journalists used to carry those things around. Google it so you can see the size of this thing! They must have had a lot of neck and back pain...