sure it is. just run out of money.
Film is extremely costly. My coolpix has paid for itself twice over in savings on film and developing.
for occassional yes film rules. but when you shoot as much as I like to film is prohibitively expensive.
No its not.
If by film we limit that to 35mm film (that is what 99% of people use) then the Canon EOS 1ds at 11mp (The Cmos sensor is as large as a 35mm frame in fact exactly as large so it works all lens properly)
it captures images HIGHER in resolution than even the best 35mm film. MORE detail and LESS noise
it is even starting to move in on medium format (albeit at the very low end of medium format)
the problem is the cost. $6 grand ! but that is coming down.
You could buy (and process) a lot of 35mm film for $6000!
-dave w
But if we ignore Chris Taylor (whew) then film is VASTLY superior. Ever seen a liftoff photo taken with large format films? It rocks.
Besides the 11mp is well beyond most people. A Hasselblad is not :)
With a small penalty in ultimate resolution.
Cool Flight.... ;-) (Big ol' Grin)
Mark A Palmer TRA 08542 L3
Thanks for the cool pics!!!!
Art Upt>
$175 Of man, I would have bought 2!! I paid alot more than that!! I just bought a few filters and a lense adapter cameragear.com
Cheep stuff!! and good quality!
- Theo
that depends on what you define as a lot.
a pro photographer will spend $7 (LOW END) on a roll of film and lets use cheapest practical developing (although again they probably use better if they do not have in house developing) so figure another $7
thats $14 bucks a roll of 24
thats 428 rolls a film. many pro photographers go through that in 6-12 months OR LESS
MANY MANY pro photographers spend a HELL of a lot mroe than 6g;'s on their non digital cameras.
For me it would mean the END of film. I would never ever have to use film again. (goto steve's digicams and download some sample pictures.) grab the one with the kitty cat. now start zooming in. Keep going. See the eye ? keep going till the EYE (ONE eye not plural) fills your screen.
AMAZING the resolution it captures.
IT also gets outside the "obsolecense" loop. right now a digicam becomes obsolete like computer parts to because better comes out. but once you get to resolutions of 11mp better is not always better.
I would love to see anyone here on this board that would except RARELY ever need mroe than 11mp. (and you can not claim to unless you are telling me you make use of Medium Format film which you would have to in order to exceed this units resolution.)
ALSO remember once you recoup the cost of the camera EVERY picture from then on is TOTALLY free (unlike film) except for printing them. which costs me under 10 cents a print. even for 8x10's
Your 35mm camera does not go obsolete because it captures MORE resolution than you are likely to ever actually need (most people never get anything over 4x6)
the same will apply when you get to 11mp for most people even 5mp is outside the obsolescence loop.
by the way 428 rolls of film equals a little over 10 thousand images. after
10 years I have probably exceeded this number already in digital files. I took almost 4 thouds with my QV casio camera's alone (before megapixels came out)I have no idea how many I took at naram. I think it was something like 900 pictures ??
it would not take me long to recoup the camera cost especially since I can not consider it till it drops below 3 grand at least (I am hoping it is 2g by end of next year)
Short of breakage it will be the last digicam I will ever have to buy.
Chris Taylor
DO you have a large format camera. Most that I have seen (OK EVERY one that I have seen) IS magnitudes beyond the normal person. just changing the film can be a pain on some of the large format cameras.
the closest most people get to things bigger than 35mm is 120 film and even that is VERY expensive for a moderately decent camera.
11mp is not beyond them since it works the "same" as the 1mp camera (the res does the camera is clearly a proffessional grade camera) its just a jpg only bigger.5mp is MORE than enough for 90% of the people out their.
Chris Taylor
yes but only for a relatively small percentage of my shooting. for normal "family" pictures and such the res of 5mp is more than enough to produce
8x10's indistinguishable from film 8x10'sand then consider most people will never make an 8x10 but stick with 4x6's
the only time I get a res hit is when I shoot small stuff (from far away) or when I shoot rockets.
for normal composition items or macro (AWESOME macro on my coolpix) it is EASILY the equal to any 35mm camera to 8x10
Chris Taylor
"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newshost01.voicenet.com:
Wrong. The best 35mm film has an equivalent resolution of 25 to 30 megapixels per 24 x 36mm frame.
len.
The only time you get a res hit is when you do digital vs film.
You simply find that acceptable most of the time is all.
120 and 4x5 ish systems are easily obtainable for under 5-10mp camera prices.
We have a 13 mp Kodak camera here at work, and trust me, it is no replacement for a 2 1/4 Hasselblad!
You're cracking me up, Chris. I find myself unable to participate in this thread anymore! ;)
-Rich
Chris Taylor Jr wrote:
And I can leave my 35mm with 300mm lens in the (non-locking) cloth tankbag on my motorcycle at the races. If it gets stolen, boo hoo, I am out less than 100 bucks. I can leave it on the tripod at launches and if it gets knocked over...hey, let me burn one of your J motors (or heck, a G motor) and we will call it quits.
A $6000 camera? I'd be afraid to take it anywhere.
Of course not! I'd do the same for you!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Used a 4x5 camera in my photography class in college. Of course that was before Chris Taylor was born :-)
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
And any continuous-tone film has "infinite bits per pixel" compared to any sort of digital imaging.
-dave w
Does Yashica still make the roll film twin lens reflex (Rolleiflex clone)?
-dave w
Hi Bob,
This thread has certainly been an interesting read :)
Unfortunately, you won't find much in the digital world with the short shutter lag that you have properly identified as a very important feature for rocket photography in that price range.
The ideal action photography cameras are currently the Canon 1D and the Nikon D2H. Both about $3500 for the body alone. Both ~4 MP, BTW.
Everything else is a compromise for action photography in the digital world.
The other digital SLRs (Nikon D1x, D1h, D100, Canon D30, D60, 10D, 300D, and even the 1Ds) are great cameras in their own right, but the 1D and D2H were designed for action photography. Actually, the Nikon D1h would also be a decent choice but is a bit obsolete now.
There are plenty of high quality film SLRs that would be fine for rocket pics (Canon 1v probably tops the list). Of course, a $200 used SLR from 20 years ago will also have very nice shutter lag but not all the bells and whistles of a modern film SLR.
I shoot with the 1D and have been extremely happy with the results. I have blown up images from this camera to 24x36 and been amazed with the results.
As soon as you get into SLR photography, you'll soon find out that the lenses are more important than the body.
Point and shoot digitals have definitely blown away point and shoot film cameras. You won't find many people shooting action photography (successfully) using any type of point and shoot due to the lack of high quality lenses and performance (shutter lag, CF write speed, etc).
Don't get me wrong, consumer point and shoot digitals are very slick and have their place. Just be prepared to practice overcoming the limitations when shooting rocketry or any high speed subject matter.
- Marc
Klinger Photography
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.