Quote (Mrj6000 @ Fri, Mar 13 2009, 12:36pm)
Only just got them from my Auntie's Mum... I've had the Pentax for a while (belonged to my Dad) and I do take photos with that.
e- I mainly take photos with my D40 though, since I'm a cheapskate who can't afford a gz DSLR. =P
Well Dslrs are incredibly expensive and the worst part is that not only the bodies are expensive the lenses are just as pricey if not worse lol. I have heard that if you know what you are doing and you choose each shot wisely the pictures taken by film cameras could actually be better than any dslr including those "gosu" ones. hmm I read about it somewhere a couple of days ago... have to check.
EDIT:
Someone posted this comment in another photography forum and he was trying to point out the advantage in having film camera for shooting landscape photos. Well he does seem to be biased towards old school film photography but it does make you wonder lol
Quote
1) As mentioned above, film is full-frame bodies for cheap. Full-frame does not multiply the effective focal length of a lens by 1.6 like a DX digital body does, so on film that 12mm focal length would actually be 12mm, not ~20mm.
2) Detail and colors. 35mm film (namely, Velvia) has an equivalent detail of 87 megapixels - double that when you include the additional colors and tonal range that film can reproduce and digital can't. For landscape photography, this isn't about how large you can print, but rather the level of detail captured. And oh by the way, large format film is equivalent to over a gigapixel.
3) Film is actually cheaper. Run the numbers of a good DX body (read: $1,000 and up) and then run the numbers of a good film body ($300 + maybe $5/roll of film, less when bought in bulk, and that's after you've developed it yourself) and you can see for yourself.
4) All the advantages of digital - after you develop the film, you can scan it in, get better images than $8,000 D3X's, and then do all the Photoshopmajic crap you want.
5) Better images. You're a little more careful of what you take when each picture actually costs you money, so when you get home you not only have more keepers, you don't have to sift through 700 photos per memory card to find them.
6) With a light table, I can arrange tens of photos around and quickly sort, organize, and examine them. On a computer, I need to load up each photo, zoom in, and pan around because even 30" monitors can't show me all the detail in a certain image nor can it really show me more than few images at a time with any detail.
7) You actually focus on shooting when you can't look down and see the results right after a specific shots, aka it helps you keep your eyes open and get more and better shots.
8) Forced obsolescence. So long as they keep making film (and trust me, they will) - even film bodies from the early 80's will never go obsolete. Digital bodies need to be replaced every few years because the new standard in digital will have come out (try shooting with a D1 or D100 today.... yeahhhhhh).
And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Professional landscape photographers still shoot large-format film, even for magazines and the like, because of the detail involved. Read more here: Why We Love Film
Of course digital makes more sense for most professionals, since time for them is money. But for the amateur, film is better for 90% of anything you might ever do.
This post was edited by Futurama on Mar 13 2009 01:28pm