New Camera
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Ah, I never realized you had a business in that venture.. interesting. I'm not too familar with many of the mid-grade to high end professional DSLRs. Only a few I am familar with, so I'll take in consideration what you say.
Well whats your opinion on Sony's take-over of Minolta's Business and kick starting their new campaign with the Sony R1 as well as the new Alpha 100 series DSLR? As well as, what are your top 3 reasons to stick to Film 35mm SLRS versus going DSLR?
Well whats your opinion on Sony's take-over of Minolta's Business and kick starting their new campaign with the Sony R1 as well as the new Alpha 100 series DSLR? As well as, what are your top 3 reasons to stick to Film 35mm SLRS versus going DSLR?
Sorry James, i wasnt angry, i should have showed that in my post
I dislike how sony took over minolta. Sony have never created good cameras, and to take over one of the most innovative companies (lens mount, 35mm film inventors (technicly) and some camera systems) and then merging them with their... Consumer products... Just makes me shiver. Its almost like Microsoft taking over Google, and then just changing the graphics on the google webpage to msn search and redirecting everything to there. That would cause a lot of controvesy, and in its way the takeover of minolta has caused that.
To be honest that camera does look good (alpha). I dislike the way they say its built on a 21 year legacy because it implies that it is its legacy, going back to the previous paragraph. That camera is definatly geared for dos photographers who think they know what they are doing. For serious photographers, if they are trying to attract us, which it appears it does with the way they talk about lenses, then they are getting nowhere. People allways say that x is better than y, look at the specs. The specs allways mean jack. Its about the personal experience and the quality of the end result, and if thats so, i dont care if it has an anti-blur in there. This parrallel can be drawn with every computer, people compare specs (which are allways juiced up) and say that this is better, then when they buy it and actually use it, they find that even though that screen was super bright and cool, it wasnt sharp so you had to strain your eyes and got a migraine. A similar experience to what i expect the sony to feel like.
I dont stick to 35mm. I use both. As for reasons, well you really have to go with me on this.
Digital
1.) Easy to use (der)
2.) Easy to change (der)
3.) errrrrrrr
Thats it, thats the end of digital advantages. Quality, nope, consistancy, nope, end-result, nope. None of those are better than film. Why? Because digital camera have to be told how to treat light, whereas a film camera knows instinctivly. BUT that said, i still USE digital more than film because of those two reasons.
I use film for art and often for rustic or events filled with emotion or feeling. Film is way more hands on, the results you get in the end, actually feel as if you have done something with. Digital is so empty and so boring after a while, whereas film is allways interesting. For instance after perfecting a shot beforehand, i like bringing in the newly wed husband and wife into a dark room and let them expose or let them watch the final exposure of the image (with gloves on). It is just so more fulfilling than watching it eject from a printer.
I dislike how sony took over minolta. Sony have never created good cameras, and to take over one of the most innovative companies (lens mount, 35mm film inventors (technicly) and some camera systems) and then merging them with their... Consumer products... Just makes me shiver. Its almost like Microsoft taking over Google, and then just changing the graphics on the google webpage to msn search and redirecting everything to there. That would cause a lot of controvesy, and in its way the takeover of minolta has caused that.
To be honest that camera does look good (alpha). I dislike the way they say its built on a 21 year legacy because it implies that it is its legacy, going back to the previous paragraph. That camera is definatly geared for dos photographers who think they know what they are doing. For serious photographers, if they are trying to attract us, which it appears it does with the way they talk about lenses, then they are getting nowhere. People allways say that x is better than y, look at the specs. The specs allways mean jack. Its about the personal experience and the quality of the end result, and if thats so, i dont care if it has an anti-blur in there. This parrallel can be drawn with every computer, people compare specs (which are allways juiced up) and say that this is better, then when they buy it and actually use it, they find that even though that screen was super bright and cool, it wasnt sharp so you had to strain your eyes and got a migraine. A similar experience to what i expect the sony to feel like.
I dont stick to 35mm. I use both. As for reasons, well you really have to go with me on this.
Digital
1.) Easy to use (der)
2.) Easy to change (der)
3.) errrrrrrr
Thats it, thats the end of digital advantages. Quality, nope, consistancy, nope, end-result, nope. None of those are better than film. Why? Because digital camera have to be told how to treat light, whereas a film camera knows instinctivly. BUT that said, i still USE digital more than film because of those two reasons.
I use film for art and often for rustic or events filled with emotion or feeling. Film is way more hands on, the results you get in the end, actually feel as if you have done something with. Digital is so empty and so boring after a while, whereas film is allways interesting. For instance after perfecting a shot beforehand, i like bringing in the newly wed husband and wife into a dark room and let them expose or let them watch the final exposure of the image (with gloves on). It is just so more fulfilling than watching it eject from a printer.
what was the point of that?
I wonder that one toa bout hwhy jaames has posted there. .. but anyways, I agree with you about specs versus true end product and i know 35mm usually does the better job. But hmm you did mention quite a few good points about 35mm. As well as I second your opinion about your bias against Sony which in reality is one of the worst brands out there. As back in the day, it use to build good electronics back in the day but now a days all is about is selling out their liscense as long as the product fits the bare minimum of product performance. Your not actually getting a good product now a days, as most of their products have more eye candy than anything as well as durability. Now I will admit there has been a few sonys that caught my eye with interest but thats it about sony.
Well not only Minolta going out of the business but Nikon as well has stopped producing 35mm cameras, which is a blow to the SLR community. DSLR seems be growing in popularity but what about those very high end DSLR that are about 25+ MP which average what, 50-80k for the body? As they use a film plate for storage?
Now when you say "digital camera have to be told how to treat light, whereas a film camera knows instinctivly" now thats kinda of a flawed statement. From my understanding, Film Cameras are being told how to treat the light but the actual extent of how it is treated is very quick and sudden. The camera does not make any adjustments to compensate whatso ever. But, while in Digital it makes all those adjustments automatically. 8/10 times those adjustments do not actually serve the photo true justice by not giving the desired result.
Well not only Minolta going out of the business but Nikon as well has stopped producing 35mm cameras, which is a blow to the SLR community. DSLR seems be growing in popularity but what about those very high end DSLR that are about 25+ MP which average what, 50-80k for the body? As they use a film plate for storage?
Now when you say "digital camera have to be told how to treat light, whereas a film camera knows instinctivly" now thats kinda of a flawed statement. From my understanding, Film Cameras are being told how to treat the light but the actual extent of how it is treated is very quick and sudden. The camera does not make any adjustments to compensate whatso ever. But, while in Digital it makes all those adjustments automatically. 8/10 times those adjustments do not actually serve the photo true justice by not giving the desired result.
The statement isn't true in its fullest terms. The real point I am making is the CCD has a signal and that signal needs to be understood, alogarithms have to be applied to it, stuff pasted onto it and then finally stored. The film camera adjusts itself to the light, just like the in digital, but as soon as that shutter closes, the camera does nothing to anything (minus wind the film on). And thus my statement holds that, digital has to be told, whereas film.... well i suppose it doesnt manipulate the film anyways, so it just has to work itself to produce optimum results.
In all modern camera's there are spot filters (and occasionly other types too) a spot filter analyses the light at the center of the viewfinder, and depending on luminosity and aperture limitations on the lens or the speed of the film or if the person wants compensation, it will give back two inversly proportional (by the square... can't quite remember) numbers which stand for the shutter and how big the shutter is. Now this isnt a camera, even though this system has to be told how to understand light. This feedback optimises the image.
Oh and further support for my arguement is that exposing film to light independent of any other variables and it exposeses and you get an image (even if blown out). Can you do that with a CCD?
In all modern camera's there are spot filters (and occasionly other types too) a spot filter analyses the light at the center of the viewfinder, and depending on luminosity and aperture limitations on the lens or the speed of the film or if the person wants compensation, it will give back two inversly proportional (by the square... can't quite remember) numbers which stand for the shutter and how big the shutter is. Now this isnt a camera, even though this system has to be told how to understand light. This feedback optimises the image.
Oh and further support for my arguement is that exposing film to light independent of any other variables and it exposeses and you get an image (even if blown out). Can you do that with a CCD?
I understand what you ment much better now, as well as everything does make sense to some degree. Looks like I might need to do alittle bit more research.
Well let me ask you this, is there any way to get the benefits and flexibility of a Digital Camera and have the LCD for review purposes simply as well as able to get more than 24-27 exposures per roll Film Camera that doesn't cost couple thousand dollars+ ?
Well let me ask you this, is there any way to get the benefits and flexibility of a Digital Camera and have the LCD for review purposes simply as well as able to get more than 24-27 exposures per roll Film Camera that doesn't cost couple thousand dollars+ ?
Get a Polaroid camera for instant film results... Polariods surpass Digital 'benefits' and the technology has been around for well... forever.
Otherwise i dont get your question
Otherwise i dont get your question
videos? huh? no photos?
Affiliates & Friends
