OT 35mm SLR camera

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 21:27:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

g
nd

ng

m

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed selected as ISO which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain or noise. I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy w ith blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Don’t need to do that using a film camera. Makes a lot more sense to explain it using a modern digital camera instead.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember having a long and ultimately fruitless discussion in a photographic newsgroup with someone who was adamant that you could only learn about photography and how to take good photographs if you learned on a film camera, but all his arguments were weak and assumed that the film camera was fully manual (or the photographer had the discipline to ignore any auto or semi-auto settings) whereas the digital camera was fully auto and was only used like that - in other words he was not comparing like with like. He just couldn't see that an SLR film camera with PASM (programme, aperture-priority, shutter-priority, manual) modes and manual/auto focus lens was the same from a learning point of view as an SLR digital camera with PASM modes and manual/auto focus lens. Sure, there are fully-automatic digital cameras with no manual overrides (the ultimate is the camera in a smart phone) but then Instamatics and other similar film cameras gave the photographer just as little control. Yes, you don't learn about film-specific things like reciprocity failure and the advantages/weaknesses of different types of film. But do you need to know about those film-specific things in order to use digital camera.
And digital (even if it's a digitised scan from a slide or negative) gives you so much more ability to be creative with post-processing in software like Photoshop - such as to clone out imperfections and unavoidable foreground objects, to correct perspective (even when you have to take a flash photo deliberately off-axis to lessen the glare of the flash from a window or glass over a painting) or to correct brightness, contrast or colour cast. Imagine how laborious it would be to do those things in a darkroom with dodging and burning, or tilting the negative carrier and printing paper (for perspective correction).
What are the advantages of new "designed for digital" lenses? I've never tried using an old film SLR lens because by chance my film SLR was Canon and my digital SLR is Nikon so neither lens could be used with the other camera. I know that some DSLR lenses have a smaller field of view because many DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than a 35 mm frame and there's no point designing the lens to have a full-frame coverage. Actually come to think of it, I *have* used film lenses on a DSLR: my wife's first DSLR was Canon so I tried my Canon-mount lenses in that and didn't find any worse quality - apart from the appalling pincushion and barrel distortion of those lenses (I paid peanuts for cheap Sigma 28-70 and 70-210 lenses and definitely ended up buying monkeys) but that affected film and digital equally - and there are programs like PTlens which can correct for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/11/2016 19:08, NY wrote:

It depends on what sort of spatial filter is on the sensor. Film will accept light from any direction while a sensor doesn't.
So if you are using long lenses there is no difference as the angle of incidence is pretty close to perpendicular. However with wide lenses the angle can be quite large. Its why good quality wide digital lenses are quite long as they are designed to mke the angle of incidence close to perpendicular.
Oh and there is the fact that a sensor has far higher resolution than film so what may be sharp on a film camera isn't sharp on a digital and its the cheap lens manufacturings fault not the cameras. Pre digital there was no need for very good lens sharpness as film just couldn't resolve it, now there is. It gets worse as pixel count goes up.
My cameras sensor has ~268 pixels/mm which will easily out resolve K2 and its only a 16 Mpixel sensor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, there are always some who run that line with any technology.
Pissed me off completely in school and uni.

Yeah, I've never see any good argument for that approach.

And even when you do things entirely manually, what you do with a modern digital camera is quite different in detail to what you do with film because the technology is quite different with how to get the best results in unusual situations.

Clearly you don’t and digital systems have other quite different considerations even when you do have full manual control.

And there is much more automatic correction possible with the best of the digital systems too. And completely automatic multiple shot systems where you can pick the best out of the set too. Ideal for non static stuff but also for other stuff like binning blinks etc.

And teaching film doesn’t help those who use decent modern digital cameras in that regard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 25 November 2016 19:08:01 UTC, NY wrote:

ng,

re

arn

m
st,

e -

ng

a

ain

n a

I'd say he was right.
Because it depends whether you are talking about photography or getting a g ood picture. Even monkeys can take selfies, I've yet to see a monkey take sucha good pi cture using a film camera and film cameras have been around a lot longer th an smartphones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


More fool you.

No reason why that can't be taught without using film.

All that means is that film cameras are less forgiving that decent modern digital cameras.

But people are much less likely to give a film camera to a monkey to play with than a digital camera given the much higher marginal cost of the individual photos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What can you not learn at all or as well with a digital camera than with a film camera? I'm assuming that we are talking about cameras with similar features. In particular, assuming that both cameras have the ability to turn off auto focus and to set either aperture- or shutter-priority metering - or even fully manual metering, and that the students are disciplined to use the cameras in the required mode while learning. Yes, both digital and film cameras often have auto-everything modes which are fine for taking quick snatched photos (take photo or miss the opportunity) or photos with an average lighting and where shutter speed and depth of field aren't critical to the success of the picture. But if you rely on them (on either film or digital) you will come unstuck in the exceptional cases and you won't learn as much, either.

Interesting you say that because I'd have thought that a film camera loaded with negative film would be *more* forgiving than a digital camera because of the greater exposure latitude of neg film that slide film or digital. If you over- or under-expose neg film by a stop you can usually find some detail in the highlights or shadows, respectively, whereas digital has hard limits: once one or more of the three colours has reached maximum brightness (eg pixel value 255) you won't recover any detail of things that are "brighter than 255". Subjectively the worse case is where one colour maxes-out while the others still record detail, because you get colour (eg cyan or yellow) in highlights which would be less objectionable if they were featureless white.
I find that I tend to use my digital cameras on -1/3 stop in any situation where I haven't got time to study the histogram or to take spot readings from critical parts of the scene, because the clipping and hence loss of details in highlights caused by overexposure is much more noticeable than the clipping to black in shadows caused by underexposure. No-one taught me that: I learned it by experimentation.
Learning on digital shows you the limits of that medium and encourages you to get the exposure correct - or to bracket the exposure. Or even to do something that is very difficult with film because of problems with registration of images: merge several different exposures and produce a high dynamic range photo. Having said that, I am well aware that HDR is an acquired taste and it is very easy to overcook the effect and produce something that looks artificial ;-)
Digital allows you to check a photo (assuming that the subject hasn't moved on!) to make sure that you have exposed correctly in a situation where exposure is critical, or that you have captured a fleeting event at the optimum moment - ideally if the subject can repeat the action until you manage to capture it at the right moment :-)

Yes, we're back to the big advantage of digital that "all your photos are free" (once you've bought the camera) which is a great incentive to experiment to learn what works and what doesn't, and to learn the quirks and limitations of your camera and your medium (neg, slide or digital).
Most of the skills you learn on film can be transferred to digital, and vice versa, but some (eg reciprocity failure, hard clipping of highlights) apply to one medium but not to another.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:

Whiskey will disagree with all that.

255 is limit in the file format jpeg not in the camera. Most digital SLRs will do at least 10 bits and many will do more. Its why its usually better to shot in RAW and develop later.

Lots of good photographers are self taught. It is a useful short cut to read a bit about DoF, shutter speeds and aperture.
The real advantage of digital is you can see what has failed and have another go most of the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 28 November 2016 21:53:29 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

American, irish or scotish can yuo even tell teh differnce ?

So are lots of good footballers and racing car drivers.

don't forget ISO speeds. This is what most beginers donlt understand. The idea of a 'speed' speedd for most is 1/1000th of a second. Digital camera do this setting for them very few select a speed.

On some such as the EOS M3 you can get a rought idea of what you will get brightness wise by just adjusing the dials on the camera.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/21597891212/in/album-72157658555907189/
After 'calculating' the 10 stops extra exposure I needed and setting teh camera to manual I found out I could have just used the auto setting and the ISO to get the effect I wanted. Shame I could only select 15 or 30 seconds.
paid my flicr sub last night $45 (yes dollars) for =2 years unlimited storge which I think beats MS 365 and whatever apple do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2016 13:55, whisky-dave wrote:

ISO aren't speeds, they are sensitivities. You aren't the first photographer to get it wrong. I work in DIN myself.

You can on some film cameras to, by pressing the DoF preview button and seeing how dark it gets. On mine you have a setting to change what the viewfinder does as you alter the exposure.

You didn't do any extra stops of exposure in that image. You made the shutter speed longer to get the correct exposure. It would have been white had you given it 10 stops extra exposure.
You need a ND filter as the lens doesn't perform well stopped down.

You get unlimited storage for photos on google for free. Office 365 lets you store files other than pictures and I currently use it for encrypted backups of my NAS drives, just in case. You can't do that on flicr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 28 November 2016 19:46:56 UTC, NY wrote:

The same thing you can not learn by driving an automatic car as apoosed to a manual one. What can you leanr from a chef when all you need is a microwave cook book.

Not nn particular people managed to take photos wihtout autofocus you know.
, assuming that both cameras have the ability to turn

Which they aren't that's what learning is all about.

True and that is far more likely to happen with digital. That's why a monkey take take such a good photo. Does that make a monkey a photographer too.

Where is the auto-enhance on film ? Where is the auto contrast where is teh auto white balance. How do yuo change contrast using film

I'm pretty sure that was known long before you learnt it. People were touching up photos years before photoshop.

Can do the same with film , but yuo';ve still got the idea wrong.

It would take quite a bit of skill to do HDR using film a monkey can do it on a smartphone.

Making it easier yes. but repeatable unlikely.

but not for teaching because you can shoot a 1000 images and spend all yuor time deciding which is best, whereas a photographer doesn't need to waste so much time in order to get what he wants.
that "all your photos are

or just to produce more shit, or selfies.

Yes but learners rarely do this with digital cameras which is why a lot of colleges are going back to film because it is less distracting.
A friend of mine that teaches photogrpher and has exihitions uses both. Last time she was using 80 year old paper for effect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When did you pass your driving test Dave? And was it on an auto or manual?
--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No! No! No! What you've said is 100% true, but you are missing the point. Both film and digital SLRs are available with manual (M) and various semi-auto (A and S) and fully-auto (P) metering modes and auto/manual focus. To learn, one ignores the auto mode, even if you often use it in non-critical situation in the real world. Are you implying that film cameras are always totally manual and it's only digital cameras which have the auto modes?

Not sure what "nn" is a typo for. "in", perhaps. If so, I wonder if you are again assuming that when you refer to a film camera you are meaning "a fully manual film camera".

Yes, you do seem to be implying that a film camera is manual-only and has no auto modes whereas a digital camera has those modes. If I gave that monkey firstly my Canon film SLR and then my digital SLR, I'd expect it to take equally well-exposed, in-focus pictures with both cameras if they were both in P, A or S mode and had auto-focus turned on. And to produce equally badly-exposed and focussed photos in M mode and with auto-focus turned off. We'll ignore any skill on artistic composition of pictures :-)
That's due to auto versus manual, not film versus digital. Let's be clear which we are comparing.
Film cameras have had auto modes for several decades. The last film SLR that I bought (a Canon, sorry can't remember model, in the early 90s) had:
- PASM metering modes - auto-focus (obviously with autofocus lenses) - motor rewind of film and (with an accessory) motor drive (film advance)
My present digital SLR (Nikon D90) has the same metering modes and the same auto-focus.
On both cameras, you can turn auto-focus on/off. You can set to fully manual, semi-auto (set one parameter eg aperture and other parameter eg shutter varies automatically) or fully auto programmable mode where both parameters vary according do a program which favours highest possible shutter speed with a long lens and greatest depth of field with a wide angle lens or whatever.
I think we are all agreed that while learning, you restrict yourself to manual everything, maybe allowing A and S metering modes but not P mode. And turn off auto-focus.
Would you have disbarred even my film SLR because it had auto-focus and auto-exposure capabilities, even though these *could* be turned off? Would you insist that to learn, you need a manual-only camera like my old Yashika which only had a manual TTL exposure meter and no auto-focus capabilities? I wonder where you would find such a film camera nowadays, given that auto capabilities have been on film SLRs for some time.
I'm glad I initially learned on that camera. Learning with true manual-everything drums the skills into you and makes you appreciate the automatic settings and know when *not* to use them. But I'd have learned equally well on a mythical digital camera that only had manual metering and focus.
I think you are not comparing film versus digital for learning, you are *really* comparing manual versus automatic. I agree: while learning, you need to use manual or perhaps also A or S modes, but not P, and you need to have auto-focus turned off. And that's on either a digital camera or a film camera.
OK, many digital cameras have colour- and contrast-enhancement built into the camera. There is an equivalent with film: the automatic settings that are used by many developing and printing houses to adjust for variations in negative exposure and colour cast. I once fell foul of this: I took two photos under different lighting conditions, one tungsten and the other fluorescent, on daylight neg film without using any colour correction filters. I was interested to see how that film coped with wrong, uncorrected lighting conditions. The prints were both automatically colour-corrected as if they had been shot under daylight! To eliminate this variability, you need to use slide film or else to have your own control of the negative printing process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 14:57:34 UTC, NY wrote:

No. but how many people buy cameras of any sort. How many people learn to drive in their own car ? How many peole learnt to become a pilot in their own plane ?
Studetns wanting to enrol on photography courses rarely have their own camera. They have a smartphone perhaps a tablet too.
I was in jessops buying a tripod and someone was askiong the shop assistant.
"I want a good camera that can take good pictures but I don't want to spend a lot of money" he asid this panasonic is quite a nice camera it has a good zoom range, the assisatnt was asked what's a zoom range. Next it was what's the differnce between optical zoom and digital zoom then....

A film camera one would likely choose for teaching. Which would require some inteligence, like buying a car to use to teach at a driving school why not choose a maclaren MP4-x you might ask. When I started teaching my brother photography, I suggested a cosmic symbol as a good cheap starting point but that was in 1970s. I would NOT suggest an iphone or any smartphone to teach photography fine for teaching people how to take snaps and selfies.

only to you it seems. But even if the film camera was completely automatic you;d still need to kn ow what film to put in itm, unless that is automatic as well. So tell me what film would yuo choose ?

So what film would you choose ?

Do you have to decide what film to use before or after taking the picture ?

So what film would you choose ?

So what film would you choose and why ?

It would depend on what you're teaching. but again what film would you choose to put in this camera and why ?

Which you can rarely get with a digital camera as they are made to be as easy as possible to use some won;t even let you take a photo unless yuo subject is smiling is that all portrait photography is ?

How do you know ?
what ISO would you have set on yuor first digital camera and why ?

NO.

Why do you need them ?

So you learnt something.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you actually want a decent camera on a budget, you'd do better without a zoom lens.
--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 14:13:09 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Talking shit again I see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tell me all about prime lenses versus zooms, Dave. I could do with a good laugh.
--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 15:29:37 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Laugh on at the Leica Q (Typ 116) camera then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a prime lens is.
--
*Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.