35mm Camera and filters - Pls help.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I am a little new to this forum but this is an area that I want to get a little better in. I have two questions to ask and hopefully somebody can help:

1.) How long will it be before digital cameras equal 35 mm in quality? What would be the equivalent CCD rating to 35 mm quality.

2.) Could somebody recommend a good quality, but economical 35 mm camera for somebody looking to get into semi-amateur photography, I want to be able to take action shots and I love those soft skin tones and surroundings that some filters can produce - what are they exactly called?

Thanks

Tygrus

-- tygrus (tygrus2000@hotmail.com), February 21, 2001

Answers

My sister and her husband love digital photography. However from what I've read you'd need a 30 Megapixel digital camera to equal a 35mm negative. Of course 30Megapixels doesn't exist yet. Nevertheless my sister is very happy with digital: digital cameras have white balance adjustment so you don't need filters, you can see and print your photo right away without the need to use up the roll of film and send it out for developing. My sister takes her kids' school photos and scans them in and prints extra copies. She says she can't see any difference between the original and the copy. My sister and her husband think I am crazy by not embracing digital photography.

A Co-worker of mine uses an EOS system and a 2400 dpi film scanner. He prints his own pictures on his computer. I suppose he clings to using film because he loves his Canon EOS IS lenses. Or maybe he wants the 30 megapixels in the 35mm negative? But I don't think his film scanner can scan in that much resolution. He likes the ability to modify the picture with software before printing - rather than pay for custom printing at a film developing lab. But that film scanner he uses costs about $800!

My personal opinion is that to switch to another way of doing things, the quality much go UP and the cost must go DOWN. With digital photography we have the reverse - the Quality is LOWER and the cost his HIGHER. I buy professional film for under $4 per roll of 36, I get it developed with twin 5x7 prints for $10, and I get 8 X 10 enlargements for $2. Meanwhile, a Canon FD system costs under $200 for the camera and under $100 per prime lens from 28mm to 200mm at auctions. A very nice Canon EOS film system including "L" zoom lenses costs less than the Canon D30 camera body.

I find another thing very peculiar. The digital cameras have these itsy bitsy tiny zoom lenses that are supposed to be the 35mm equivalent of something like 35 to 135mm. This might be the normal lens for these digital cameras, but the same lens is a very wide angle lens on a 35mm SLR camera. We all know that Canon is totally incapable of making a wide angle zoom lens that has low distortions - even for over $1000. Even for $50,000 - Canon can't make it. So, the people buying Canon's $3000 Digital SLR camera must use a zoom lens that has bad distortion at the wide end (i.e. 17-35/2.8 zoom) - and pay over $1000 for it.

Perhaps I'm an old dinosaur, but I'm going to wait for 50Megapixel digital cameras which has SLR - see through the lens system (so I don't autofocus on the wrong object) - not a rangefinder system, and it's gotta take removable lenses, and these lenses must be the 35mm kind where 50mm is the normal lens, not 20mm! Oh, and this camera needs to cost under $500 - not $3000 for the D30 that isn't up to the $250 Rebel 2000 capabilities. So, when the digital capabilities and quality substantially exceeds what I'm using now, and the cost is substantially less than what I'm using now - then I'll upgrade to digital. Until then I refuse to downgrade to digital.

-- Howard Z (greenspun@howardz.com), February 21, 2001.


"1.) How long will it be before digital cameras equal 35mm in quality?"

No one knows, but it will probably be right after I buy my next camera. Actually there are already some very high quality (higher than 35mm film) digital cameras now. But they are medium format digital cameras, and they cost many thousands of dollars.

"What would be the equivalent CCD rating to 35 mm quality. "

There's a lot of discussion about this and it doesn't seem that anyone really knows. If the average 35mm lens resolves 70 lines per mm, and you need two pixels to capture each line, then you need about 17 megapixels. If you use 80 lines per mm, then you would need 22 megapixels. Some people claim you would need three times that many because each pixel in a digital camera only senses one color. Others claim that the color fill in algorithms work well enough for that not to matter, and still others claim that you don't need anywhere near that many pixels to be the equivalent of film.

I do know that the current crop of three-megapixel cameras produce a very good 8X10" print. The ones that I have seen and produced are not quite as sharp as good prints from good film, but it is very close. Larger prints clearly show the film based print superior. The new 6-MP cameras that are just about to hit the stores must be even better.

I personally think you will need about 12-MP to duplicate 35mm film, but like I say, there is a lot of arguments out there.

"2.) Could somebody recommend a good quality, but economical 35mm camera for somebody looking to get into semi-amateur photography, I want to be able to take action shots and I love those soft skin tones and surroundings that some filters can produce - what are they exactly called?"

I prefer Canon's, so you will only hear a biased recommendation from me. So here it is: Canon Rebel 2000, or if you can part with more money, the Elan IIe or Elan 7e. Don't get either of these with the lens that comes in the Canon camera kit. And never buy a Canon with a cheap non-Canon brand lens. There are too many good reasons not to get a cheap Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Phoenix, Vivitar, etc. They do produce some nice lenses, but if you are looking for affordable lenses you will only get junk from them. Get the Canon 24-85mm, 28- 105mm, 28-135mm or the 50mm f:1.8 if you wont to save more money.

If you are willing to buy used, any of the Canon Rebels or Elans are a good bet.

Nikon, Minolta and Pentax also put out some nice cameras in the same class, but I think the Canon is the best of the lot, in the low to mid range cameras.

The filter you are looking for is called lots of things, but I believe the generic term is a soft filter. You can duplicate the effect by putting some fine netting over the front of you lens. I prefer black.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), February 21, 2001.


You may not have intended it, Tygrus, but it would be possible to write and awful lot in response to your questions. I'll try to restrain my tendency to ramble, but I had better admit up front that I'm a Nikon user.

(1) How many megapixels in a frame of 35mm film?

Jim's right, of course, that there is no unanimity on the answer to this, but there is a growing consensus. Grossly oversimplifying, the short answer is that there are 6 megapixels in a 35mm film frame. This is based on the rule of thumb that if you use

you can record 40 line-pairs per millimetre on the negative, and safely enlarge the picture 8x to a sharp 10"x8" print.

And 36x40x2x24x40x2 is approximately 6 megapixels.

Nikon announced a 6 megapixel SLR -- the D1X -- a couple of weeks ago. Contax has indicated they will launch one this year; so, I believe, has Pentax. And everybody was expecting a 6 megapixel Canon EOS 1D to be launched in time for the Olympics, and is wondering why it hasn't been announced yet.

There is (mindnumbingly much) more I could write on the subject -- and have written on the Nikon Mailing List -- but I'll keep it short this evening.

A good quality, but economical, 35mm camera. I think it's fair to expect that all of this year's crop of 6 megapixel SLRs will be good quality, and that none of them will be economical. Based on the description you've given, I'd recommend either

But, more important than family-level or enthusiast-level, more important than Nikon or Canon, I would join Jim and recommend: go for good glass.

In the case of Nikon, and being as definite as I dare, I would recommend the following two zooms:

  1. AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF
  2. AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED (not the 70-300 G series)
These are mid-price (approx $300) lenses that can run rings round any point-and-shoot zoom lens you've ever seen. (They even take the same size filter, which is handy when travelling light.) Together with a $300 N65/F65 -- and a tripod of course -- you have all you need to make stunning pictures ... apart from skill, which neither Nikon nor Canon can sell you.

Canon, of course, can offer you equally good glass. I understand that both companies' 28-105 zooms are seen as being equally good, and I'm sure Canon has a 70-300 equivalent, though I don't know what it is.

Brand Management classes I've attended have said how hard it is to make money if you are not first or second in market share. Minolta and Pentax have smaller market share than Nikon and Canon; this makes their systems less wide-ranging, and increases the unit cost of less common items. But it doesn't make their engineering any less good, and their systems have a wide enough range for all but the most obsessive amateur.

Best of luck in your quest,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), February 23, 2001.


Uh...

Personally, I think that:

    The digital/film debate will continue on similar to the CD/vinyl debate. For most consumer/amateur shots, digital is easy to spot. I don't think film will disappear in my lifetime, FWIW.
  1. If you go Canon, try to start with the Elan/II or a used (read: repaired) A2/5. The Rebel/S/XS/G/2000/etc is a great camera, but if you're at all serious about photography, you'll outgrow it pretty quick, so you might as well start with a better body.
  2. Skip the filters, unless you're shooting macro or B&W. They almost always detract from a shot and are generally hackneyed. Want to do the selective focus thing? Learn how to judiciously use depth of field...
End of rant - soapbox's free.

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), March 02, 2001.

i SERIOUSLY RECOMEND, the NIKON N65 camera kit, or if u want an upgrade, get the N65 body with a tamron lense! I know for a fact that nikon makes the best and that nikon cameras are INDESTRUCTABLE. i just came back from a snowboarding trip with my best friend, it was cold, but, the pictures came out AWESOME, and the camera still works great no matter what weather u decide to shoot in. LATER< and have fun!!oh yeah, you don't have to be a pro to own a N65, they are easy to use and they work great, just read the owner's manual before u use it!

-- Ryan Micheal Champ (lilmanspunky@yahoo.com), April 07, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ