Many users cropped cameras often complain that it’s difficult to get a good picture from such a camera and that you must use full frame. Many people just drool on full-frame camerasthinking that they can do something improve their photos. And if you really want to shoot a full frame, and at the same time invest a little bag of money to purchase a camera, then this article is just for you.
Shot on the same Full Frame :) 28 MP for 240 cu The cat is photographed in the sunset red sun.
Any good photography is based on the desire and skill of the photographer, everything else (including photographic equipment) is just a distraction from the main goal. I am often reproached for advocating to shoot with cheap equipment. I don’t actually do that, I advocate the idea that you can get a good shot from any camera if you want. Of course, the better the technique, the easier and faster the result can be achieved. Those who want to get good pictures get them from anyone, sometimes even the cheapest technique.
Actually, in this photo almost the whole essence of the article :)
Therefore, if there is a key aspect - desire, then for only 240 cu can:
Shoot with a full-frame SLR camera, with fast automatic focus, good serial shooting with a huge frame buffer, a huge optical viewfinder, nice controls and at the same time take pictures at 28 MP.
Example photo on my set. Sunset.
The secret is very simple - just use a film camera.
Many readers may think that the film camera is something terribly ancient, incomprehensible to manage, morally obsolete and unsuitable for use in the era of modern monsters Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX. In the expanses of the CIS countries such an impression people have it from the fact that in the Union and on its territory not a single SLR narrow-camera camera with automatic focus was released. Seriously, the old Zeniths do not cause any interest among young people, the main reason for which is the complete obsolescence of technology.
Example photo on my set. Gull
But in other countries long ago let out pretty autofocus analog volatile DSLRs with interchangeable lenses. Moreover, using such a SLR camera is no different from any modern amateur DSLR camera. Nikon D3200 or Canon 600D.
Example photo on my set. Forest Blackberry
I conducted an experiment, which cost me quite inexpensively, as a result of which this kit was assembled here:
- Nikon AF N8008s (also known as Nikon AF F801s) - 400 UAH
- Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (AF) - 700 UAH
- AA Batteries * 4 - 20 UAH
- 200-frame Fujifilm Superia 36 film roller - 27 UAH with free development
- Epson Perfection V330 Photo Scanner - 650 UAH
- Shipping of the camera, lens and scanner - 80 UAH
Total 1877 UAH or 235 cu In fact, I could save on the lens and batteries, since I have both. The camera, film roll and scanner cost me some 140 cu
Example photo on my set. Among the stones
As a result, I got:
- A full-frame camera with a shooting speed of 3.3 frames per second. Some amateur cameras have approximately the same shooting speed. Nikon D80, D70s, D3000, D3100, and some professional CZK for 500 cu they shoot even slower, for example, Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro.
An example of a photo on a film camera. Beach.
- Maximum frame buffer makes 36 shots, for example, Nikon D7100 with the highest quality has frame buffer only 6 shots (RAW, 14-bit, lossless compression).
An example of a photo on a film camera. After sunset
- My camera can work out super short shutter speed equal to 1/8000 seconds, which even can not Nikon D600 и Canon 6D.
Example photo on my set. Among the stones
- A huge optical viewfinder that never dreamed Canon 70D for 1500 cu Yes, and in itself Nikon AF N8008s very good and durable camera.
An example of a photo on a film camera. House overgrown with grapes.
- My Nikon AF N8008s it works easily with manual optics - it correctly measures exposure, has an electronic range finder, which very accurately tells about focusing. Even Nikon D5200 for 600 cu can't measure exposure with AI-S lenses.
An example of a photo on a film camera. Sitting on the rocks.
- Very nice LCD in JVI, its brightness is physically (not electronically) dependent on the light source. The brighter the source - the brighter the LCD, which allows you to always clearly see the camera settings in JVI. For example, on many CZKs, I don’t see the LCD at all on a bright day or when shooting in backlight.
Example photo on my set. Photo from the boat
- Camera control is almost the same as that of any other Nikon CZK. When shooting, you don’t feel any difference, the whole setup is on a monochrome display.
An example of a photo on a film camera. Gull
- Lens Cosina MC AF 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 I just bought it for fun. 19mm at full frame can be safely attributed to an ultra-wide range of focal lengths. The lens focuses terribly fast, and with it you can create amazing pictures. To get the same viewing angle as this cheap lens gives out, on Nikon cropped cameras you should use the expensive Nikon 12-24mm F / 4.0.
Example photo on a film camera
- A scanner in the house is also useful, for example, to digitize old photographs for an album. For example, you can scan your school diaries, and share old memories on social networks. In any case, the scanner will not be redundant.
Example photo on my set. Yachts
- The scanner allows you to obtain images with 48-bit color depth. This means that each channel is encoded with 16 bits. Most 'cool modern cameras'can encode a channel using only 14 bits, and receive 42 bits at the output. Theoretically, with my scanner, you can get 64 times more shades than with any DCC.
An example of a photo on a film camera. Shore
- Of course, my set has more disadvantages than advantages :), but I’ll keep silent about them in this article.
Example photo on my set. Temple in Chersonesos.
The following describes where I got 28 MP from the old film camera.
Of course, the 28MP figure in the article is a duck. But you can still get this figure in this way - the film has a physical frame size of 24mm * 36mm. Let's find the area of the film in square inches, since the parameters of the scanner are indicated in inches.
1 centimeter = 0.393700787 inches
1 square centimeter = 0.15500031000062 frame inches
1 square centimeter = 100 square millimeters
1 square millimeter = 0.0015500031000062 cpi
As a result, the film area is24mm * 36mm * 0.0015500031000062 = 1,339202678405357 sq. inch
Example photo on my set. Landscape
The area of the film is 1,339202678405357 sq. inches. My scanner scans at 4800 pixels per inch, or 23 pixels per square inch. From 040 square inches of 000 pixels per square inch, 1,339202678405357 23 040 pixels are obtained, which is approximately equal to 000MP.
Example photo on my set. Balaclava
If your scanner has a different DPI, then the number of pixels when scanning a film frame can be calculated using the following simple formula:
DPI * DPI * 1,34
Some scanners in specifications have different DPI in height and width, for example, 4800 * 9600 is indicated in the specifications of my scanner. In fact, I can only scan at 4800 * 4800 or 9600 * 9600. The last option is half interpolation. The 'maximum possible DPI' is often indicated, for example 128000 is simply bloating the final image using a mathematical method of interpolating pixels, these numbers should not be paid attention to.
Example photo on my set. Near the shore
The simplest scanners with a slide adapter have 1200dpi, as a result, such a scanner can be squeezed out of one film shot:
1200 * 1200 * 1,34 = 1 929 600 (total about 2 MP)
I indicated '28MP camera' in the title of the article, since my Epson Perfection V330 Photo cuts off the edges of the frame a little when scanning and we end up with images not from the entire area of the film, but from a slightly smaller area. For example, a scanner often creates images like 6639 * 4319 pixels. Those who are chasing megapixels have already realized that from such a simple set you can squeeze these (or not these?) megapixels almost as much as Nikon D800 (a D800 costs almost 3000 cu).
Example photo on my set. Another sunset
By itself, for serious work, such a set is no good. But the task before me was quite amateurish. For 240 cu I can enjoy a full-frame camera with convenient professional-grade control, an ultra-wide-angle lens that helped me out well on vacation and in addition I have a scanner that is convenient for scanning mail invoices :). I do not advocate fussing with a film camera, but once again I want to emphasize that there is absolutely no difficulty in working with a good analog camera. And instead of being discouraged that someone full frame, you can easily and simply shoot a full frame yourself.
Example photo on my set. Road.
More sample photos (1400 pixels long)
Conclusions:
All of the above applies not only to my set. I brought my film set as real worldly example. Now buy used Nikon or Canon's autofocus analog camera is easy, the same goes for good-old lenses. The same story with the scanner.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
The film is good, but the figure is better, good
Hello! Could you post a full-sized scan?
Here's a https://radojuva.com.ua/wp-content/big/img125.jpg
My dear Sevastopol! :)
Igor :)
http://cs537517.vk.me/u203674251/doc/3aabd7fd5a1e/r001-014.jpg
Zenith E, the beloved g44-2, the cheapest film Kodak color 200.
Original from the scanner.
Thanks to Arkady again and of course like :)
Dear Arkady! Could you make in passing out of a love of art and purely for sports interest a field reviewer Cosina MC AF 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5?
I think it will be interesting to the readers of your blog, although hardly anyone will dare to photograph it.
There will be time, I will definitely do it.
since film reviews have gone, can we see Kiev-19M?
I want to buy for the film, I have never worked with the film ...
This is not a review. This article is about opportunities. I do not plan to deal with film reviews.
I downloaded a full-size snapshot. The picture is 100% absolutely bad ... Either the grain of the film, or the scanner, but the picture is completely without small details, this is especially evident on the lines of the book. It seems to me that the same picture was on my Fuji soap dish.
The disadvantages here are simply huge - the cost of the film (if from a trip for 3-5 days I bring about 500 photos, then I need a lot of film :)), the development of this film, it is all to be scanned, not the best quality of the scanned photo ... As an experiment - Yes cool. But even for pleasure, taking pictures with such a set is only worth it if you print directly from film in a large format, then there will be a certain plus from all this.
There are many subtleties.
Oh, and more! A sunset photo with a silhouette is quite noisy, even in a smaller version. After all, the film also produces noises. It seems to me that modern matrices give less noise.
So that's the trick !!! Noble film grain as an artistic effect in photography. Many post-processing photographers specifically add noise
No, these are scanner noises. Arkady used a flatbed scanner with an attachment for scanning negatives - such devices are unsuitable for any serious work with film.
You still have to study and study ... 500 frames in 5 days ?? !!! ... Studying again) The film will never die.
Yuri, it seems that you have never been to a new place or city. As a rule, for a day of active rest in a new city, I visit 3-6 interesting places (at least 10 photos for each), plus 15-20 photos of my wife, plus 20-30 photos of the night city. So 100 photos a day is the minimum, if you do not click everything.
The tape has already died. Now these are already convulsions fueled by enthusiasts. If in doubt, look at the number of films sold 10 years ago and now (less than 1% of that turnover and number of sales remains).
I was on vacation for 10 days, all this time I shot with three cameras, the film was always with me. It is very strange, but with a leisurely thoughtful shooting on day 10, my third film clip was half used up. I had to finish off the third clip forcibly with different small things. Total 108 photos. On the other hand, on vacation, I shot on Biotar from my review https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/08/biotar-2-58-t/, as a result, I received 956 photos from him in 10 days, and on the computer I took only 53 photos from him, this is because the lens is manual. At the same time, out of 108 film photos, only 62 remained for myself. Here is such a life arithmetic. P.S. This generally does not apply to the topic of digital / film, it's just observation. Please do not continue the topic of film-figure.
Igor, fortunately, your prediction did not come true!))) In 2013, you predicted the inevitable death of the film, however, from 2015 to the present day (2019), sales, development and digitization of films are constantly growing, once closed production facilities are being resumed, new films are being developed, film cameras are still being produced, both small and medium format. According to employees and personal observations, most of the clients are photo lab. these are not old school photographers, but young people born in the 90s - 20s. Because the film has future, now is the time of the film renaissance
yeah, mylntsi fuji) here is the photo latitude !!!! And for viewing on a computer and printing 10 to 15, even this finished scanner is enough)
SW Arkady, on the Nikon N8008s, N90 cameras will metering work with Jupiter 37-A lenses (with adapter), Helios 81H, etc.?
I photograph with Zenith and want to switch to Nikon. The main camera is Nikon D90.
Thanks for your reviews.
Yes, it will work. This is indicated in the article. Please read the article at least once before asking questions.
Great article !! Only recently he himself guessed before that)) It is a pity that the film is not free!
Now Neykon pidskoche in price)
now tsey nikon pidskochit in price)
Your scanner gives at best a real 2..3 microseconds. 28 is pure Epson's invention. Even on Nikon Coolscan 5000 you can only squeeze 24 megapixels, and you on a tablet - 28. Aren't you ashamed?
No, I’m not ashamed.
Yeah, unfortunately, Arkady ignored the extremely poor picture quality from a flatbed scanner.
Did not ignore:
And the article itself touches on another topic.
What is this vegetable garden for? The full frame has several advantages over the crop. For example, you will definitely not achieve “low noise of the matrix” in this way. It is possible to achieve a larger angle of view at the same focal lengths, but in your examples there is no play with depth of field (the lens is not the same). You have probably reached shirik for cheap. But modern technologies, with a strong desire, allow you to make panoramas, i.e. glue a large photo from several small ones (for landscapes it will go).
An article for general familiarization, in fact, everything is written in it.
There's something about it. And the most remarkable thing is that with good shadows, there is no overexposure in the clouds - there, even in the brightest areas, details are preserved. Try some film ...
By the way, about scanning. Elizarov (who is the author of deep-life) has assembled a photo-scanning installation using the Vega-12 lens. So 24 - not 24, but honest 12 (for local nerds - “blown by the damned Zhidomason 12) MP can be obtained. Objectively, scanners are better and cheaper, so I'll probably start with scanning my father's films with such macros.
And then the question arises about the resolution of the film. There are some characteristics:
http://www.filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html
12MP seems to be enough. But the Russian film has worse parameters.
Here is a comparison of the film and the ancient figure of 2003
Comparison of film and numbers on the example of the positive and negative films of Fuji and Fuji Fujifilm S2 Pro.
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro.html
there are 3 articles. everything is clear and understandable….
Hello everybody! As if on a whim I bought a Nikomat FT2 a couple of days ago, and yesterday a “helios” 44, white (I didn't count the aperture blades for sure, but dofig!) And a film. Our Ural winters freeze all the electronics in the trash, but here the kamplekt turned out like Nikomat Kalashnikov - neither frost nor heat is scary! Wish me good pictures, friends. Arkady, our sensei, thanks from the bottom of my heart :-)
Comparison of film and numbers on the example of the positive and negative films of Fuji and Fuji Fujifilm S2 Pro. Part two.
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro_23.html
Comparison of film and numbers on the example of the positive and negative films of Fuji and Fuji Fujifilm S2 Pro. Part three.
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro_3204.html
The article will help many understand that analog photography also has a place to be.
take it of course more, but it's worth it.
I shoot only on tape)
and by the way, I have the same Cosina, only for Pentax.
I recommend.
Thanks to Arkady for the article.
The article is interesting.
Only there is one problem with the film. There is simply nowhere to show it. In minilabs, as a rule, they don’t deal with film, and if they do, then the quality is such that they don’t want to come to them a second time. And to carry out S-41 at home is unrealistic. :(
I have a photo lab under the house, they show it for free for an hour.
although a fan of the film, but, alas, I can’t call 35mm film a competitor to the cropped figure. she lacks permission. And winding up DPI during the scan leads to the opposite effect. 2400 is good, 3600 is good, and 4800 and higher only leads to extra megabytes.
I think that many have understood, and there is no need to explain that 28MP in my article is a kind of “duck” :)
The film does not need to be scanned, it must be printed with the optical method. Otherwise, there is no point in the film.
When shooting in RAW, and on one camera, even in JPEG, the maximum quality, shadows and lights are pulled no worse than here, so I recommend you pull the number before the film :)
But I didn't have to pull in my examples. Once again, I will repeat myself, this article is not on the topic “film - digital”.
Denis, I can draw details in the lights and out of the lousy Jpeg, if there are at least some of them. It's not about that. Look at the histogram - it's flat, and it's on a sunny day. It's just like “warm analog sound”, you can't repeat it with filters.
In general, the answer was written to the comment “Try something like a film ...”, but the phone browser dropped the comment here.
Yes, the dynamic range is good, and no one argues with that. But other? Color rendering? Of course there are amateurs, but far from realism. Noise in all images. Yes, you don't have to pull yourself - everything is stretched out at the development stage, that's understandable.
So, IMHO, the film has already outlived its own, it has more minuses than pluses. If it is essential for someone to shoot on a full frame, but there is no money, then of course, but the quality of the photo will not improve from this ...
And cf * h on the topic film vs digit, this record well could not but give rise :)
Oh, what are you really. And what about the realism of gouache or watercolor as compared to current digital SLRs? And even the color rendering of oil paints suffers greatly in comparison with poor camera phones. But they exist somewhere out there and do not pretend to anything. This article is about a different world, and even with humor that was not appreciated.
People want Full Frame not only for the size of the matrix, but for a lens that becomes wide-angle, for a high working ISO, tenacious autofocus, etc. (it's no secret that a full frame is usually a professional technique).
Not so long ago, there was a desire to deal with film, but after scanning my old films and twisting the imitation filters in Photoshop I realized that this is not mine ... Too difficult (you have to develop and print yourself, at least in black and white), expensive (costs for film and chemicals) and inconvenient (I'm used to shooting several hundred frames - so that the MEMORY about events remains).
... In general, the film is a cool thing! She conveys not only a picture, but also a part of the soul of the model and the photographer ... And it's not about the resolution ...
PS. Remark about scanners. For maximum scan quality, you need a scanner not only with high resolution, but also with a high dynamic range. After all, the optical density of the film is high. Here is an old article on this subject: http://old.computerra.ru/gid/hard/39414/
Maybe then it's better to reshoot the film with a DSLR? However, with all this, it is no longer a film photo obtained ...