Canon 1DX or Phase One?

[Derrel]

Article on older 16- and 22-MP digital backs...MF Backs - Q3

As you can see, many of those older backs are not much wider than an FX sensor.... 37x37mm as opposed to say 24 x35.9mm....and the older backs have images only 4,000 to 5,000 pixels on the long dimension....the D800 is over 7,000 pixels at 36MP capture size...

You might want to look in to MF backs being sold by rustbelt-area dealers, like Columbus Camera Group, located in a part of the USA where there's not much money, and times are tough. I've picked up some major low-priced deals from CCG.

 

[gsgary]

I used to write film off as too inconvenient!

Since joining this forum and actually doing some research, I am becoming curious about the power of film. I find the dynamic range of digital cameras a bit trashy to say the least, the look of film has this organic feel that digital doesn't seem to replicate very well. I may begin to try it very soon! The problem is though, the more you hear about film becoming obsolete the more expensive and difficult it will become to get your images processed.

Film will not become obsolete it's very easy to get hold of, i have just started shooting 120 and it looks great
This was shot on 120 HP5 that was 27 years out of date that came with my Mamiya C330 Mamiya C330 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sw1tchFX]

All are good arguments, and it's been said, the clincher is that unless you're shooting really only one thing in particular, SLR's are more flexible.

I used to write film off as too inconvenient!


Since joining this forum and actually doing some research, I am becoming curious about the power of film. I find the dynamic range of digital cameras a bit trashy to say the least, the look of film has this organic feel that digital doesn't seem to replicate very well. I may begin to try it very soon! The problem is though, the more you hear about film becoming obsolete the more expensive and difficult it will become to get your images processed.

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is. And you're right about the DR of digital looking trashy. Color Neg has outrageous latitude in comparison. I think one of the main reasons why people say film looks worse than digital is either they weren't exposing it correctly, or weren't sending it off to a competent, good lab like RPL or NCPS.

 

[usayit]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

You cannot make this statement without admitting that resources to support your film habit are far more convenient for you than others.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

All are good arguments, and it's been said, the clincher is that unless you're shooting really only one thing in particular, SLR's are more flexible.

I used to write film off as too inconvenient!


Since joining this forum and actually doing some research, I am becoming curious about the power of film. I find the dynamic range of digital cameras a bit trashy to say the least, the look of film has this organic feel that digital doesn't seem to replicate very well. I may begin to try it very soon! The problem is though, the more you hear about film becoming obsolete the more expensive and difficult it will become to get your images processed.

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is. And you're right about the DR of digital looking trashy. Color Neg has outrageous latitude in comparison. I think one of the main reasons why people say film looks worse than digital is either they weren't exposing it correctly, or weren't sending it off to a competent, good lab like RPL or NCPS.

Thanks Sw1tch, just beware I will be coming to you for advice when I do start experimenting with film!

 

[Crollo]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

When I told people I was using film I always got the exact same propaganda ****. "Oh you're shooting film, but film is hard to find! It's difficult and expensive to get processed! Why would you shoot it!" Horse****. I went down to london drugs, picked up 5 rolls, shot them all, had them developed the next week. Don't tell me it's 'hard to find' or 'expensive' because I have ​no job.

 

[gsgary]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

You cannot make this statement without admitting that resources to support your film habit are far more convenient for you than others.

There is no problem in the UK getting hold of film and getting it processed

 

[gsgary]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

When I told people I was using film I always got the exact same propaganda ****. "Oh you're shooting film, but film is hard to find! It's difficult and expensive to get processed! Why would you shoot it!" Horse****. I went down to london drugs, picked up 5 rolls, shot them all, had them developed the next week. Don't tell me it's 'hard to find' or 'expensive' because I have ​no job.

I sent a roll of 120 off last Monday afternoon and the negs and a DVD of scans came back Thursday morning , that is less than 3 day turn round

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

You cannot make this statement without admitting that resources to support your film habit are far more convenient for you than others.

All you need is:

1. Internet access and a shipping address
2. Access to a USPS office or FedEx/UPS shipping center.

Can't get much more convenient than that!

 

[gsgary]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

You cannot make this statement without admitting that resources to support your film habit are far more convenient for you than others.

All you need is:

1. Internet access and a shipping address
2. Access to a USPS office or FedEx/UPS shipping center.

Can't get much more convenient than that!

I don't need that only 12 miles away one of the top places in Uk transfer to peak-imaging.com

 

[gsgary]

They are a bit more expensive than the ones i post but quality is fantasic

 

[usayit]

1. Internet access and a shipping address
2. Access to a USPS office or FedEx/UPS shipping center.

Can't get much more convenient than that!

That all adds up... I am a film shooter too... back when I had a local shop I trust. We have had this discussion before... recall that digital fits my life because I make a living working with computers. Just pointing out the cost and convenience of shooting film is different for different people and calling all others Lazy is a bit overboard... almost insulting. I work very hard and earn a good living.... my passion is in photos but not my life's priority.

Let's just say that your statement is just as bad as someone calling Film shooters a Luddite.

As I recall, your sources are local... something you are lucky to have.

 

[o hey tyler]

Film is not obsolete, and it is not difficult to get or get processed. Lazy people just say it is.

You cannot make this statement without admitting that resources to support your film habit are far more convenient for you than others.

All you need is:

1. Internet access and a shipping address
2. Access to a USPS office or FedEx/UPS shipping center.

Can't get much more convenient than that!

Yes you can get more convenient... Much more convenient in fact, because getting to your digital images requires one thing:

1. Card reader (and even then, it's not necessary)

It also doesn't cost money every time you import images to your computer... With film it does.

Not trying to discredit film here, it's a great thing. But it is certainly NOT convenient, whichever way you slice it.

 

[Derrel]

The fun part of film is going to one's "archive" ( an optimistic euphemism at best) and trying to locate a specific photo made at "some date" or of "this particular person". Oh, sure, it's easy if you've not hit your 25th birthday and your "archive" is a couple hundred rolls...try looking for film shot when Jimmy Carter was President, or images shot,and developed, but not contact printed, during the first Reagan administration. Oh...yeahhhh....film is "convenient". Convenient my ASS!!! It can take DAYS to locate a frame....because the film has not been key-worded, and it's basically a 24x36mm negative, one of 35 or 36 per Neg-A-File page...film separated from its contact sheet or proofs...days can stretch to weeks locating specific negatives.

Oh, yeah, film is "convenient"....I love the crap out of spending 20-45 minutes per image to perfect a real film image, scanned from 10 to 30 year-old film which has been stored in the "real world", and not kept in a clean room at Intel HQ. Yes, dust, scratches, chemical spots, water spots, fabric fibers, etc.,etc. Getting a perfectly clean image from a small negative like 35mm can take, easily, 20 to 45 minutes of careful spotting and cloning. Yes, film is convenient....it keeps you at your desk at around 10 minutes per image created, typically. So, that means you don't have tyo worry about doing other things, so that makes life convenient; one KNOWS he'll be sitting right there, running the scanner and spotting the dust off the resulting scans, 10 minutes per frame on "clean" film, longer on real-world "archived" film.