Camera Choices Dilemma

[ChevyBaby]

Hey all!

Just had an incredible lecture with the amazing Jamie Morgan - look him up if you like classic, black n white photography. He taught me a hell of alot about the business and how things really work in the real world, he was an inspiration.

His lecture left me wondering, I've got a shoot coming up that's supposed to be very cinematic, like a film still and I don't know whether to shoot with my Nikon D3000 or the Mamiya RZ67 to get the perfect effect I'm after, crisp and sexy!

Any ideas?

 

[Big Mike]

You should be able to get crisp (and sexy) shots with either camera...or just about any other camera.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Thats sort of a pointless question and very ambiguous. As Mike said, either. To me, cinematic implies more to do with staging, props, and a very clear storytelling element in the shot. This what I picture when you say cinematic Dave Hill Photography

 

[Derrel]

You want crisp? Cook everything on Medium-High heat! Or, use a tripod!

 

[ChevyBaby]

I just meant coz it looks like i'm most likely going to use Photoshop to do a lot post, was it worth using the 35mm coz its digital or use the 120 and scan the negs. Didn't know if it was worth my time to scan negs rather than just shoot on digital.

And yes Goonies, he is in my research folder

 

[gsgary]

When did the D3000 become a 35mm

 

[ChevyBaby]

When did the D3000 become a 35mm

What do you mean?

 

[gsgary]

When did the D3000 become a 35mm

What do you mean?

This is what you wrote
was it worth using the 35mm coz its digital or use the 120

 

[ChevyBaby]

Yeah, the d3000 is a 35mm DSLR

 

[bentcountershaft]

When did the D3000 become a 35mm

What do you mean?

The D3000 has an APS-C sensor which is 23.6x15.7mm as opposed to a full frame or "35mm" sensor which is actually 36x24.

 

[gsgary]

Yeah, the d3000 is a 35mm DSLR

No it's not

 

[Derrel]

Well, scanned film can look quite nice. I think some of the chromogenic B&W films look pretty good when scanned on a decent scanner. These newer style, dye-based monochrome films work pretty well with most modern film scanners. 6x7 negatives are pretty big, so you do not absolutely need a "killer" scanner...perhaps your university has a good medium format film scanner (Nikon or Minolta, perhaps?) that can handle 6x7 negatives. The cost of film and the realities of working with film versus the cost of digital and the realities of working with digital capture ought to be factored into the decision. Digital capture will give you the option of very easy proofing/previewing of the images as they are being shot. Either film or digital could be used...it's not like film is impossibly outdated or useless. The aspect ratio of the capture devices is another factor to think about. You mention " cinematic"...what aspect ratio are you shooting for?

 

[ChevyBaby]

i've just been taught them as small format which i automatically refer to as 35mm, my bad habit, sorry! So thats even smaller than 35mm, i thought i was being really dumb then judging by gary's reaction.

I just feel like the quality might not be good enough from it but then if i've processed my 120 film n put it in photoshop it'd be different wouldn't it? because i wouldn't be processing it, i'd just be editing things like levels, filters and such on a TIFF so i'm worried it won't look as good in the long run?

 

[ChevyBaby]

Well, scanned film can look quite nice. I think some of the chromogenic B&W films look pretty good when scanned on a decent scanner. These newer style, dye-based monochrome films work pretty well with most modern film scanners. 6x7 negatives are pretty big, so you do not absolutely need a "killer" scanner...perhaps your university has a good medium format film scanner (Nikon or Minolta, perhaps?) that can handle 6x7 negatives. The cost of film and the realities of working with film versus the cost of digital and the realities of working with digital capture ought to be factored into the decision. Digital capture will give you the option of very easy proofing/previewing of the images as they are being shot. Either film or digital could be used...it's not like film is impossibly outdated or useless. The aspect ratio of the capture devices is another factor to think about. You mention " cinematic"...what aspect ratio are you shooting for?

I've got a hassleblad scanner, which always confuses the crap outa me lol but it's a good'n none the less.

The price was factored i which made me just think 'mmm digital' but i've already got a stash of film and chemicals. Having said that my little stash is about 10 films at the mo which might not be enough! (I'd like to hope it would be though)

The aspect ratio is a good point you've made, i automatically drew up my storyboards at 6x7 if i'm honest but i can allow for cropping if i were to shoot on the D3000. Hmm yeah you've just made the best point of the day, Derrel!

 

[Vinny]

Personally, I come from the era that 35mm was small, medium format was good and large format was the ultimate. A d3000 isn't anywhere as large as a medium format camera assuming that's what the Mamiya RZ67 is. I would go with that although I am no professional and would love to try a medium format one day ... One day I'll treat myself!

Everything I read about digital is that a crop sensor (D3000, D90 and I guess 90% of what most people own) is not as good as a full frame sensor. Back in the 70's a 35mm camera would not take as detailed photo as a 120 camera although things may have changed with digital.

If I had the opportunity I would use the best that I had available. Just my opinion.