Digital photo quality...

[limbimtimwim]

The more expensive units are faster - more frames per sec - but the most of the doohickeys on the more expensive jobs I don't covet as I mostly shoot manual anyway. 80 series Nikon is well regarded but next price tier.

The Nikon D40 can do 2.6 FPS until the memory card is full if doing JPEGs and the memory card is fast. Which is pretty damn impressive.

[Finn]

The more expensive units are faster...

Dunno. By the time I got my gear set up, you had already taken your shots, packed the camera away and were checking your valve clearances. And, to add insult to injury, you kicked my tripod on a 30 sec exposure.

[bungbung]

The Nikon D40 can do 2.6 FPS until the memory card is full if doing JPEGs and the memory card is fast. Which is pretty damn impressive.

I have a couple of D70s, they're pretty slow 2.9fps
My D2x does 8fps (6mega pixels instead of 12).

[Beemer]

Digital is ok but when you want real quality, film is still the best (and most expensive, no question about that)

I worked on a paper as a photographer for a while when they were switching from film to digital and at that time I would have agreed with you, but not now. Film has its advantages and disadvantages but the publishing industry would be pretty slow moving if it went back to film. Considering the quality of digital now, I think most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a digital shot and one from film. As for the lenses - they are specially made for digital and have a lot of tricks up their sleeve.

As for price, they can both be expensive. I paid about $6000 for my Nikon F5 body when I bought it and if I'd bought the top Nikon digital body (something like a D2Hs) I would have been up for a lot more than that. Okay, if you are talking Leica or Rolliflex, you would pay a lot, but the average pro digital camera is much dearer than the same quality in a film camera. And of course with film you have the ongoing costs of film, developing and printing.

I haven't supplied actual prints to a client for years. All my work is digital and either emailed directly to them (for a few shots at a time) or sent on disk. The size I shoot my shots at means they can be printed up to about A3 size or larger - more than what the industry needs most of the time.

Great shot Dave - thanks for showing it to us. Nice shots he takes, that Osborne. I was happy with one I took at the Cemetery Circuit one year where you could see the veins on one rider's neck bulging!

[vifferman]

I just remembered - a guy I used to work with is a keen amateur photographer, and has both digital and film Canon cameras. I'll just flick him an email and ask.

He said:

"Any EOS lens will operate on an EOS400D camera with good results. The optimized lenses he is referring to are the EF-S series which won’t fit older digital models or any of the film bodies.
These lenses have a more compact barrel length by having part of it protruding back into the camera body which the newer bodies have allowed for by redesigning the reflex mirror and lens thread housing. Most the lenses I am using were bought for my film cameras and work a treat. Remember you have a magnification factor of 1.6 with a 400D.

However be very wary of buying third party lenses such as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron as the 400D seems to check a squillion things before releasing the shutter and if you have altered the focal length on a third party lens you get the dreaded “Error 99” message and the camera ceases to function until you switch it off and on again. Strangely enough the image was taken and stored on the card but the camera refused to function until you turned it off and on again This happened to [my wife] on our last trip to Alaska back in September as she was using a Sigma 28-200mm lens and seemed to happen if the focal length was changed on the zoom lens during framing of the shot.


I have been told that you can buy third party lenses that have the “new Canon chip set” in them."

[Big Dave]

isn't that costing more in the long run tho?
and I only know of a few places that rent gear. Last time I rented a 5d with one lens and flash, was $375 for the day.. Granted, it's not the $7500 worth of the gear all in one hit, but still only 20 days of use out of it

It's tax deductible and means new sh*t every 2 or 3 years.
Game over.

[limbimtimwim]

I have a couple of D70s, they're pretty slow 2.9fps
My D2x does 8fps (6mega pixels instead of 12).

Wow, that's awesome. But they probably didn't cost less than $1000

I wonder if a D40 would compare well with a professional Nikon from around 2001?

[bungbung]

I wonder if a D40 would compare well with a professional Nikon from around 2001?

That would be a D1x, 5mp/3fps. D40 is probably better in many ways. (and cheaper)

[Big Dave]

Film has its advantages and disadvantages but the publishing industry would be pretty slow moving if it went back to film. Considering the quality of digital now, I think most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a digital shot and one from film. As for the lenses - they are specially made for digital and have a lot of tricks up their sleeve.

What you can't get around is the fine arts aspect that film requires a level of commitment - money down and invest in the process - each click is a spend - and then digital spurns all that with shoot 20 and ditch them disposability that is a monkeys and typewriters scenario.

There are also no smelly and toxic darkroom prices to pay for the digitale and some must suffer for their art.

(I try and pay those dues getting the shot)

And then there is large format - poster cameras etc - that the pixel counts cant match.

[bungbung]

Of course, if you have the money there are digital backs available for medium and large format cameras.

[vifferman]

What you can't get around is the fine arts aspect that film requires a level of commitment - money down and invest in the process - each click is a spend - and then digital spurns all that with shoot 20 and ditch them disposability that is a monkeys and typewriters scenario.

Not only that, but you can check that the image is basically OK at the time, and reshoot if it's not. There are also some clever tricks you can do with digital images that are considerably harder with film.
Although nowadays, there is a lot of processing options that are available anyway, as the developing machines that handle the negative -> print process allow manipulation anyway.

I recently wanted to get a reprint of a 25 year-old wedding photo, and was quite dismayed to learn that coloured negatives are pretty volatile (but slide film seems to be more stable - maybe those plastic negative sleeves out-gas fumes that wreck the film?) Anyway, the technician said the negative's colour balance was essentially stuffed. So I asked her to print a test photo first, before going to A4. She printed me off a range, with varying colour compensation. The one we chose looked perfect.

[Big Dave]

Of course, if you have the money there are digital backs available for medium and large format cameras.

Just reminded me I worked at a place in east tamaki that had a camera the size of a room.

It took film quite a few feet across. That would be some card!

[Big Dave]

And, to add insult to injury, you kicked my tripod on a 30 sec exposure.

And if you get in my road again it's going off the bridge.

[Finn]

And if you get in my road again it's going off the bridge.

I do believe that was in fact my road...

[Big Dave]

I do believe that was in fact my road...

details, details - we should do another expedition.
I've got a Rocket III Classic test bike shortly. Will look to get some nice night shots.
I'll ping you.