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
Yes, we all understand! just a very interesting and multifaceted topic! and in disputes truth is born! not all the same to write posts like “thank you very much”. then the comments can be turned off altogether. leave some likes.
Endorphin kit :)
I have been thinking for a long time about how to shoot on film and still did not do it for the main reason this is the cost of the film (good), in addition it is difficult to get it + you need to take into account that every 3rd or 4th frame needs to be thrown away, and there is also no way to see what filmed and draw some conclusions. As a result, in order to shoot on film, you just need to be a very rich person, even if you bought photographic equipment for 500 UAH. Conclusion - the golden mean - to use d3100, which is not that much different from digital fullframes - which is what I actually do.
—D3100, which is not that much different from digital fullframes—
it is very different from FF. there is such a thing - DOF. ... :)))
d3100 is not very different from the BZ type Nex, Fuj X, etc.
Do you believe you can tell the difference between two shots from ff and from crop? I don't think ...
I completely agree with the author of the article - "At the heart of any good photography is the desire and skill of the photographer, everything else (including photographic equipment) is just a distraction from the main goal."
And what I said to the top is pure truth, you just don't come to it right away ...
read what is DOF. this is physics.
this is if you do not go into subtleties like that:
- the presence of normal AF
- the presence of a normal low-noise matrix
total crop 1.5 In SOME conditions, it will really produce a picture = FF.
but in SOME conditions, the smartphone will give an excellent picture :)
= "At the heart of any good photo is the desire and skill of the photographer, everything else (including photography) is just a distraction from the main goal."
And what I said above is pure truth, you just don’t immediately come to it ... ==========
theory of the absurd.
give an excellent surgeon an ax and ask them to cut out the appendicitis - will it work? I'm sure yes, but the patient will definitely not survive :)
For a great photo you need three components:
- photographer - who understands what he wants and how to achieve it
- technique - which allows you to realize the goals of the photographer
- subject of shooting - which should be shot - light, conditions, etc.
failure in one of them = poor result.
for example, d3100 you will be long and tedious to shoot good landscapes, sports, etc. and the result will be so-so. why? because no even the best
the photographer will not increase the DD of the camera, its AF or noise. or permission :)
on the other hand, an amateur with no experience will not shoot a session well on the D700 either - simply because he does not know how to use the camera correctly.
Well, try to take off let's say the Caribbean in Moscow. will it work out? I think no. Like the Grand Canyon, it won’t work out of the White Church.
Thanks. We are photographers, like cacti - we grow very slowly :)
Actually, Eugene is right. If you don’t know that the frame was taken on the D3100, then I’m sure that 95% of the eye cannot be distinguished from full-frame. The difference can only be seen in night or evening photos.
he’s not right, actually. because you need to understand what is depth of field, focal, distortion and their relationship.
and by eye, the pictures in the original (and not after downsize) differ easily. except for specially selected cases - aperture at 11, focus at infinity and shoot something on a bright sunny day with highlights and dead shadows. :)
but then d3100 is not needed either - a soap dish for $ 200 is more than enough.
here you are for general development
http://mirrorless1.livejournal.com/9705.html
(NEX-7 with prototype Metabones Speed Booster versus full-frame 5D Mark III)
and find the differences in the depth of field there.
==== The difference can only be seen in night or evening photos. ====
judging by your comment, you don’t really understand what the depth of field is, how it relates to crop 1.5,
how it relates to perspective, distortion, side, etc.
physics, the laws of optics will not be canceled even by a super-duper low-noise matrix on crop. Alas.
Does influenza depend on the camera, and not on the lens?
You messed up something
Yes, I’ve somehow heard that if you set the same aperture on the crop and on the full frame, then the latter will have less flu.
Having no money for the Central Dispatch Center, I bought Zenit-11 at the end of April, I suffer with film, but out of 36 frames of the first film I turned out 29, at my zenith there is a terrible range of shutter speeds (6 options), but this does not prevent me from getting good pictures, which are much better than canon 600d from 18-55. I am very pleased with this article, as a confirmation of the correctness of my actions, in the near future I will buy d90 or d200. Conclusion - filming is cool !! expensive, but worth it!
Nikon D200 - does not shine with anything today. except for the price of $ 200 per carcass.
Nikon D90 - noisy matrix and 12bit color - only 4000 (approximately) semitones.
IMHO, better D5100 :)
I am always surprised at the capabilities of the almighty offtop. By the way, this article has more comments than in https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/08/ice-cube-m/
well yes. people have already agreed to crop 1.5 = FF. it's only the beginning :)
Arkady I think, is cunning and provokes :)
Film is a good thing. but there are many BUT:
1. It is unclear whether the frame turned out or not. everything will be visible only after development, etc.
2. every frame is money. you cannot delete. film stock, film change = time, money, space
3. Film development is highly dependent on the quality of the lab. How fresh is the reagent? who controls the process and how?
4. there are not so many labs. most likely a little. = time to search, etc.
5. labs love to scratch the film with longitudinal stripes and leave stains of reagents on the film
6. It is good if one film = one session. those. Development settings are identical for all cards. And if not? labs will not (as a rule) do individual
development / construction for individual frames.
those. The main advantage of the film is DD and the ability to “drag” the color of the shadow will be destroyed by the development of the lab, where the average will be taken during development.
7. about such things as special solutions for developing a film with a bunch of features, you can also forget in the lab.
in other words, developing a film in a lab is a "chamber film" where all the possibilities are cut and the quality is averaged.
I do not dissemble.
I’ll give you another idea. For example, I took pictures in this short information article during my vacation. At the same time, I had two more cameras at hand. One of them, the Canon 350D, filmed on a good Biotar https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/08/biotar-2-58-t/ (there are also examples). I dubbed important points on Biotar or on my third camera (it’s not difficult for me to constantly carry equipment, I’m constantly with the camera). As a result, in my printed album 19 photos were printed on the Canon 350D (out of 956) and 31 photos on the Nikon N8008s (out of 108). I print for myself only what I like, I print 20 to 30 from friends of the guys who do this. This set can really be used for amateur photography. It amazes me how commentators climb into prof. segment, touching on the topics of expensive backdrops and building theoretical logical chains, and at the same time in life have not dealt with autofocus film cameras. But this article is especially for amateur photographers, constrained in finances, but having a desire.
Therefore, I want to draw one more conclusion: an analog camera with an autofocus lens can (actually has) the percentage of good shots that is much higher than a digital camera with a manual lens. Again, I consider everything in the context of the usability of an autofocus film apparatus, and not in the context of “film-digital”.
And I agree with Valentin Kalenichenko, who offers a surprisingly simple and concise method of using film cameras (!) - they can complement digital cameras.
= Therefore, I want to make one more conclusion: an analog camera with an autofocus lens can have (really has) a percentage of good frames output much more than a digital camera with a manual lens. ====
and who argues with this ?????
Your comment doesn’t change the list of film problems above.
and the bad mood of a technician in a minilab can mess up a valuable film. irrevocably.
I'm not even talking about how to be on a journey with undeveloped film - airports, etc.
the autofocus digit is already at least as good as film. and was not inferior in 2003 - see
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro.html
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro_23.html
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro_3204.html
and in terms of convenience, efficiency, it is much superior.
Does the film make sense - YES. but only for someone who understands its pros and cons.
and certainly not for a novice lover.
IMHO!
I wrote about real photographs in my album. About the practical component. And theorizing which is better is a completely different topic.
Arkady, the weakest link in the film is not the camera and the hands of the photographer. Nowadays, the weakest link is photolabs and the film itself. The further the more expensive it will be. Here, the commenter is right, and you understand that perfectly. Yes, DD films, a normal camera, normal hands and eyes of a photographer are capable of doing at least no worse, but photolabs will destroy everything. Yes, a good scanner will cost just like an FF camera)
Everyone understands this. I do not campaign for the film. I wrote about the possibility of an autofocus film camera, and in the comments, a full offtopic about the film was inflated.
Arkady, thanks for the interesting article! And then they all rushed to criticize, the author tried, tried and only received not grateful criticism. You just touched on a topic about which everyone can think about the crop and now all the "thoughts out loud" splashed out on you. I also thought about this before, I really wanted SF and it was the reason described in my comment that stopped me.
Good luck
I buy and display film only in the labs of the Photo Fund of Ukraine. The quality is impeccable.
"The further, the more expensive it will be?" As follows from the following, the devil is not so terrible as he is painted. http://fotofond.com.ua/index.php?route=product/category&path=798_474_515 Color and black-and-white photographic films can be shown in Kiev in the Laboratory of the Photo Fund located in the Photomaster store, at 4/6 Gorky St., orders are also taken at the Photolavka store at 8 Shota Rustaveli St.
Opening hours: Mon. - Sat. from 10-00 to 20-00, Sun. from 11-00 to 18-00 (without lunch).
We process photographic films from the regions of Ukraine. Photo Fund is an organization professionally related to photography and focusing on the highest standards. And the basis of high-quality optical photography is the high quality of the development process, to which we pay great attention.
The standard process of developing C-41 color negatives is carried out in Fuji 230 developing machines, taking into account all technological and chemical processes using Fuji's "native" reagents and distilled water.
35 mm films (type 135) and medium format (types 120 and 220) are processed.
Type of film Process Price, UAH
Negative 35 mm (type 135) S-41 7,00
Medium format (type 120) S-41 8,00
Medium format (type 220) S-41 16,00
Urgent work is carried out with an additional margin of 20%. The basis of all analog photography is film. Moreover, the quality level of the final image is determined by the processing quality of the film carrier.
A standard development process using traditional film processors is almost always sufficient for processing. Together with constant control of parameters, "native" chemistry and experienced personnel, such processing makes it possible to print prints up to 20x30 (from amateur films), and when using professional and medium format films, up to 30x40.
But this may not be enough in cases where the maximum possible result is needed, or when the difficult shooting conditions do not allow you to achieve the necessary creative design.
Especially for such cases, the Photo Fund offers professional manual development of color negative film by the S-41 process.
Film processing is performed on a rotary developing machine JOBO ATL 3, which allows to obtain the highest quality of development with wide possibilities of manual process control.
The photofund provides color film processing services for the S-41 process, the low-temperature (alternative) S-41 and CROSS process. In this case, it is possible to increase and decrease the sensitivity (PUSH and PULL process), and the size of the photo material can reach 20x25cm.
The development process involves loading photographic film into a special tank and processing it with a given rotation speed, temperature and processing time in each solution. By varying these parameters, you can get the highest quality development, which is expressed in high sharpness, maximum yield of dyes, minimum grain and low haze. In addition, such processing guarantees the absence of mechanical damage, improves color rendering, evens out contrasts, and adds elaboration of details.
The applied TETENAL chemistry is fully consistent with the equipment and allows you to get all of the above benefits.
Duration of work is up to 2 days.
Type of film Processing
S-41 Push / Pull C-41 Cross on S-41
35-мм (тип 135) 15,00 20,00 15,00
Medium format (type 120) 20,00 25,00 20,00
Medium format (type 220) 40,00 50,00 40,00
9x12 cm or 4 ”x 5” 10.00 15.00 10.00
Urgent work is carried out during the day with a margin of 50%.
Good advertising to a good service center. Will you order the whole of Ukraine and the CIS to go slurp jelly to you? Minilabs in all cities, towns and in many towns even exist. But practically NEVER any of them, even during their heyday, complied with the operational and technological recommendations recommended by KODAKOM or another manufacturer, and from that it was always and everywhere to get a quality processed negative; even for a higher fee they will not do it. Do they need it?
Valentin, is there a photo center in Kiev where they will print photos with an Adobe RGB profile? And will they give a profile file for such a printing press? After all, printing with the sRGB profile kills all efforts to calibrate the monitor and orient yourself to the installed Adobe RGB when processing photos.
Arkady, please tell me how this camera (Nikon AF N8008s) is friends with manual optics, is there exposure metering? if not, tell me which film nikon measures the expopair.
Thank you!
Yes, friends. The article says:
I support with both hands.
I still have an old Zenit-19 (the batteries are still alive and work out all the shutter speeds), plus three lenses to it Pancolar 1.8 / 50, Zenitar-M 1,7 / 50, Jupiter-37A 3,5 / 135, but I haven’t been filming for a long time because of the quality of the lab, when there were no numbers, I put up with it, went to the neighboring city for printing, but with the appearance of the number the print quality disappeared even there, so I take pictures on the D90, sometimes I use old lenses for it.
>> If your scanner has a different DPI, then the number of pixels during scanning can be calculated using the following simple formula: DPI * DPI * 1,34
Where did 1,34 come from?
1.34 is the area in square inches of the film frame. For this, it is written in the article. Please, before asking questions, please read the text of the article.
Everything is as you say. I used Nikon EM for a long time - the viewfinder is huge and covers 100% of the frame. True, there was no display, and I often missed a bit with the exposure, but the photo-breadth of the film worked wonders. The shutter at Nikon was already magnificent then - it sounded just awesome compared to even the Kiev-20, which was quite appreciated by photographers.
There is no need to manually count megapixels of a scan: FastStone Image Viewer does this automatically.
Arkady, please advise some kind of film camera on which it would be possible to mount the lens with the M42 thread with the least difficulty under three requirements:
1) with the same working distance, i.e., to preserve infinity without corrective lenses.
2) For metering to work with M42 lenses.
3) To have a convenient good apparatus - a large viewfinder, etc.
For example, Canon EOS - infinity with M42 will be (the EF mount has a smaller focal distance, of course you need an adapter), exposure metering should also work. The specific model already needs to be looked at from the available ones, there are different ones at flea markets.
Denis, thanks!
Any Pentax film, great cameras. On very old M42s, those that are newer up to the latest with their Pk mount (Pentax-K), for which there is a (lensless) adapter to the M42.
If you take it with a bayonet mount, you will get the opportunity to use Pk lenses produced in large quantities from various manufacturers, among which there are many worthy. After all, at first Asahi Optics (Pentax) (to attract manufacturers to its brand) opened the Pk mount specification for free and did not require royalties.
Arkady, thanks.
An excellent, semantic article if you read the whole, and not pull the paragraphs.
Is this Balaklava in the photograph of “Yacht”? And it looks like the picture is reflected horizontally? Is this a feature of the scanner or was it intentional?
It’s just the wrong side one tape tape installed in the scanner.
Clear.
I like to shoot on film, the color rendition of the film is of course very different from the digital warmth of the color, the greater sincerity or something, and just because you see the photo not immediately, but some time after the film was developed and scanned. This is always an exciting moment, it seems like a feeling from childhood, when you open a kinder surprise and look at what’s inside, it’s intriguing :) I have a film scan of the eos30 and a digital nikon d90. In comparison, I can say that, as a amateur photographer, and not a professional photographer, it gives me greater pleasure to shoot on film, and not on a number, despite all its (numbers) advantages, precisely because of the film properties described above. But this coin has another side. What if you calculate the cost of one press of the shutter button on the film canon eos30 and nikon d90? First, you need to buy a film for the film camera. I shoot on a fuji superia 200/400 iso, 36 frames per reel. The average price is somewhere around 25 UAH. Then, it needs to be developed and scanned, in my city a normal scan costs 20 UAH, development is free. Total coil costs 25 + 20 = 45 UAH, 36 frames. 45/36 = 1.25. In general: one press of a button on the film unit costs twenty-five kopecks in hryvnia. Now let's calculate for the digital camera, take for example the d90 kit 18-105 at the price of the photomag. this, at the moment, 6185 UAH. Since neither film nor scans are needed for it, we will divide its price by the guaranteed shutter life = 100 clicks. received 000. It turns out that one frame on it costs 0.061 kopecks, which is 6 times cheaper than film. Therefore, my personal conclusion: to shoot on film as it is now shot on a digital is for the rich Pinocchio. For the proletarians, it’s better to dig into a number, and then learn how to process it under a film well there: edit colors, grain, etc.
I think that even a very rich Pinocchio will not “shoot on film the way they are shooting on digital now”. Of course, if he is not out of his mind.
"Valentin, is there a photo center in Kiev? ..." http://zifra.com.ua/services For the past 10 years, the "CIFRA" photo studio has been offering its clients the highest quality services in the field of printing and photo processing.
Valentine, thank you !!!
Theorists' comments about DD, BB, ff, grip are touching .. what wasn’t there yet .. it’s clear that without basic knowledge it’s impossible to understand why “it doesn’t work” or why a “awesome shot”, but the topic is about something else, can try those very best conditions, for absolutely not expensive.
a simple example from the life of not a super-megaphotographer, but of an ordinary LOVER
So in 2002-3 I had a Canon film AF soap dish, I don't remember the focal length parameters, but I bought a Canon SX100 to replace it ... at first I just sobbed over the pictures from a new acquisition for 350 ye.
the realization that there is no turning back and the figure will win, nevertheless made us learn how to use it and get more or less pictures. As time passed, I upgraded to 3100, life became much more fun, now I use 7000 it became even more fun and parallel Kenon film AF, I use very little film, but I look more and more often at the announcements about the device in the review for those. the possibilities and the same DD film remains VERY interesting to an amateur like me, who loves / dislikes, likes / dislikes, much more important parameters than DD FF BB and flu
I, too, will soon begin to photograph on film. As soon as my Praktica MTL 5B is repaired.
It’s strange to read half of the comments, I started to shoot from the film, after 1,5 years I switched to digital ... that's the truth - the film teaches you to think before pressing the button and not shoot any garbage
on film I had about 80% of normal images from the reel, on the figure at the beginning about 50%, now even less)
filmed on the N90 - no problems when using manual optics, the JVI is huge and light, it will not go in comparison with the D300 = /
do not compare the film-cirfu, it is different and at the same time very similar, just the number is simpler, and not everyone will deal with the film.
ps I like to shoot on film, as it looks nicer, I agree when scanning the detail drops quite strongly compared to the figure, but when shooting a portrait on a sunny day, I will not get just a white spot on my face like on a figure. I made a conclusion for myself - the film is interesting on bright days and when we shoot something bright, but a digital at night.
A film is also preferable during night shooting, since the noise of the DPC matrix becomes stronger the longer the exposure, and the noise canceling small details in the picture, especially in the shadows (http://www.afanas.ru/video/photoLE.htm) The grain of the film does not depend on the exposure time.
Insert a card with min. volume and there will be motivation for "thoughtful and unhurried". I myself shot on film for 20 years before the number appeared ... Recently I took out my Practice LTL-3 from the closet (and there was also Pentacon 6 somewhere), held it in my hands and put it back without any regret. It is more correct to speak not about what is better or worse, but about what is different. By analogy, a wave with vinyl has recently gone, while since the late 70s and early 80s of the last century, all recording studios have processed sound already in digital, and then again analog and mechanics. I wonder if vinylophiles know about this ... also lamps (and the corresponding warm tube sound). By and large, lamps have one advantage over semiconductors - low noise figure. At the same time, in any path, the first stages are critical in terms of noise, because their noise is amplified by all other stages ... Output stages on lamps are good, but still see above .. You can also talk about vehicles and horses ....
"The frame buffer is 36 shots."
Like the number of frames in the film? But this is not formally a buffer, because it is not a temporary storage ... ..
Moreover, it is 36 shots only if the film is freshly inserted, and when it is already shot, it can be 1 frame. And after that, you don't need to wait until the card is written to, but recharge the camera ...
Good article. Recently I tried to take pictures on the old Zenit, little happened, but overall I liked it.)
So I want to order Nikon F80 with ebay. Do not advise what to look for when buying?
I would prefer a camera already tested and described above by Arkady.
cool photos
I immediately thought that Balaclava
12 points
Some professionals both in our country and in the world, due to the unsatisfactory work of the labs, have previously and especially now develop the film themselves with small, inexpensive machines such as Jobo CPE (any format - up to large, the most fashionable topic now is middle format from six by four and a half to six by seventeen cm slides and negatives). Kodak and Fuji are now expanding their almost minimized film production ... The output of scans from slide modules (extremely unsatisfactory in terms of resolution ...) using native mirrors ... (up to 5 pcs.) and reduce the scanning step in order to significantly increase its resolution - as a result, the quality rises almost to the same ...). And there is no need for expensive digital hassels…. Compared to the width of the slide, any DD, from the CZK itself, will rest for a long time ...
I agree. I am afraid that in this regard the CLC will always rest. We are at a dead end, because to increase the DD, a complex matrix with pixels of different sizes is needed. And there is nowhere to reduce their size - the noise grows catastrophically. In addition, small pixels will inevitably begin to deteriorate from thermal diffusion, since the matrix is very hot during the operation of the CZK. In astronomy (I am an astrophysicist by profession), instead of noise reduction devices, the matrix is cooled with liquid nitrogen. Alas, this is impossible in the Central Purchasing Commission. And there is no need to boggle the foreheads of "digital cameras" and "film people". A serious craftsman must master both technologies, using their strengths to solve creative problems.
Thanks to Valentin and Arkady for their true fanaticism (it is more common among the most advanced amateurs and extremely rarely among professionals ...). Professionals have no time to understand the intricacies - they have to work continuously, and the improvement is almost always only with the rustling of "cabbage" ... (art on a commercial basis turns into a - a place) o g about p about c about w o d n about….
“Professionals have no time to understand the intricacies - they have to work continuously”? A professional is obliged to understand the intricacies - otherwise he is not a pro, but a primitive dumb artisan. Fanaticism has nothing to do with it. It's just that Arkady is a pro, and I am an advanced “teapot” (“samovar?”).
In the field of photography services (Arkady is an exception ...), just such professionalism (kosilovka ...) Even in modern photojournalism there are a lot of “machine gunners” (the possibilities of reporting technology relax ...) In six months the resource of top cameras is knocked out ... Even landscape painters switched to total shelling from different angles - “at home we will understand” what's what ...
We call it “bombing”. Sometimes I also have to burn the shutter.
The article is good, it touched on many “for a living”.
I appeal to amateur photographers - digital cameras. How often do you print pictures with numbers? I have friends who have shot tens of thousands of shots at the figure, store everything on a computer, view only on the LCD monitor, and not a single picture on the wall or in a photo frame. I don't understand such people. And those who try to print from numbers / s Nikon 7000, 7100, D90 / get a similar result - the image is flat, decorative, people seem to be “glued” to the background / even without using a frontal flash /, pale colors, questions with contrast, landscape themes motley, everything merges. And the sharpness is on top! Fortunately, Nikon is making good lenses now! After all, they paid 800-1000 dollars for them! And this, at times, becomes the only source of pride. And the fact that there is no naturalness in the pictures, people are afraid to admit to themselves, since the money has been spent, and considerable. Such self-deception ...
Why print them? How is viewing on a large monitor worse than viewing on a piece of paper? It’s okay to print some selected photos, framed and on the wall, but why create multi-kilogram dust-collecting albums, which also age, spend money on it, if you can safely and cost-effectively store everything in its original digital form, I don’t I totally understand.
As someone wrote above, film and paper have their own 'soul', and not all people can 'feel' it. For example, I love printed photos, no monitor will transmit such a picture as printing in a photo lab :)
Hollywood held a special conference on the archival storage of images - and for its initiation, the cost of this process increased by several times (up to seven). Due to technical progress and frequent changes in recording and playback methods, it is forced to perform a complete rewriting of the entire array ... every eight to ten years (due to obsolescence of equipment and the deterioration of media ... And film media from the 19th century are calmly stored at a depth of 200 meters in salt room ... Why am I writing this (the failure of the hard drive can cross out a significant part of life, disks and flash drives also become obsolete ...) - hard-core clean digital cameras also need to - print ... (have at least a shortened paper archive for a very rare - res t and in r and c i)
Do not be silly. Backing up the data, and your photos will be stored for at least 200 years, if there is so much paper, there will still be degradation.
http://www.photorepair.ru/hranenie-tsifrovyih-fotografiy Indeed, Denis, you shouldn't say stupid things without thinking ...
I didn’t say anything stupid. It is much easier to save a digit, hard drives are now cheap, and they can be stored (like data on them) for a very long time. The main thing is not to keep everything in one copy (you probably will also print in two copies, and keep the second copy in another apartment?).
Paper on the wall (especially in the sun ...) is not a way of archiving. The longest shelf life is laminated with storage in the dark….