Film SLR vs DSLR

[jake337]

First we have to have affordable computers able to handle 2 gigapixel files. Such a sensors won't happened. There is no point.

I remember the guy who sold my family a computer years ago "Yep you'll be good for years with that massive 20GB harddrive! You'll never use it all up!"

Nowadays a single software package can be near enough to that or more - and photos will eat that up in no time!
The tech will advance, as will the specifications - the real factor is the cost of producing the silicon wafer that size. Heck we are only just reaching a point where the 35mm sensor might digitally start to become the norm again (we are down to the 6D fullframe - we could easily in the next few years see a true entry level 35mm sensor hit the market).

I think he was referring to the fact that cameras are already pretty much at the limits of human eye resolution when their images are printed and hung. Thus, there's not much point in going beyond that. Better technology would make more sense to apply to smaller, lighter, cheaper equipment, but not so much higher resolution equipment.

At least, that's what I would expect if people acted rationally with regard to camera equipment, which they do not... So yeah, we may very well see large format digital in the mainstream sometime in the nearish future.

No. I want a digital medium that measures 8x10 inches.

I want to shoot portraits from 10-20 feet from my subject while getting the compression of a 360mm-900mm lens.


Also, movements.

 

[jake337]

Someday I hope there will be 8x10 digital sensors that are "affordable".

First we have to have affordable computers able to handle 2 gigapixel files. Such a sensors won't happened. There is no point.

12-24mp would be fine. It's the size of the medium I want. Not the resolution gained from it.

 

[Gavjenks]

Full frame sensors cost approximately 12-15x as much to make as APS-C sensors, despite only being twice as large. This has little to do with resolution, and more to do with wasted portions of the silicon wafer (large rectangles dont tile into a circle as well as small ones) and a greater amount of material lost when one has a defect in it (and also higher likelihood that it will have a defect).

If we simplistically extrapolate this out to a 8x10 sensor, we would get:

size = 53x larger ~= 2^5.5, so 12-15x more expensive 5.5 times over = 448,403 times more expensive to manufacture than a full frame sensor

Note, however, that the cost of a FF digital is only partially its sensor, and also involves all the fancy features and fast mirror FPS, robust build quality, etc. Those would not scale in the same way as sensor cost. And again, very simplistic math.

Maybe in reality 10-25,000 times more expensive? Dunno.

 

[jake337]

Full frame sensors cost approximately 12-15x as much to make as APS-C sensors, despite only being twice as large. This has little to do with resolution, and more to do with wasted portions of the silicon wafer (large rectangles dont tile into a circle as well as small ones) and a greater amount of material lost when one has a defect in it (and also higher likelihood that it will have a defect).

If we simplistically extrapolate this out to a 8x10 sensor, we would get:

size = 53x larger ~= 2^5.5, so 12-15x more expensive 5.5 times over = 448,403 times more expensive to manufacture than a full frame sensor

Note, however, that the cost of a FF digital is only partially its sensor, and also involves all the fancy features and fast mirror FPS, robust build quality, etc. Those would not scale in the same way as sensor cost. And again, very simplistic math.

Maybe in reality 10-25,000 times more expensive? Dunno.

Someone did make one. Cost them about $200,000.

I can dream that there will be one for less than $30,000 in my lifetime. I'm 30. It would be worth it to me in retirement. It would be equivalent to a car payment then.

 

[Gavjenks]

Perhaps a more cost effective method is to split the image and send it to many smaller sensors? That way, the cost of the sensors would scale LINEARLY to the increase coverage area, instead of geometrically or exponentially due to the mathematics of silicon wafers and defects.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/50-gigapixel-camera-straight-out-science-fiction-840003

They focus on resolution in the above article, but presumably, total sensor size is also massive.

AWARE2 Multiscale Gigapixel Camera more technical info



Also, Canon and Nikon already make fresnel lenses in their cameras, without you being able to see the discontinuities of the glass in the image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens . Canon for instance calls these "diffractive optics" but its really the same thing they use in lighthouses pretty much. This is very similar to the gigapixel technology discussed here, except that you would simply rotate the curvature of the individual parts of the lens to go to different sensors instead of just one.

That would be different than the gigapixel approach above (they seem to use something like the effect of movements in a view camera instead), but the "fresnel prism" (for lack of a better term) would weigh vastly less (thus possibly being handheld) and would allow all the parts of the image to have the same focal plane for a more traditional photograph.

In fact, there is a commercial lens that uses technology that is somewhat a combination of the above methods: https://www.lytro.com/camera

 

[Alex_B]

No. I want a digital medium that measures 8x10 inches.

I want to shoot portraits from 10-20 feet from my subject while getting the compression of a 360mm-900mm lens.


Also, movements.

The latter is widely underrated these days.
In particular since hardly anyone still knows what it feels like to have the freedom of movements.

Don't get me wrong, for economical and practical reasons I mainly shoot digital. But whenever I use my 4x5 I feel in heaven for the freedom and possibilities it gives - some hard or even impossible to mimic in digital with smaller formats.

 

[EDL]

So, I guess we can safely say film vs digital is like asking someone which they prefer: Driving/owning/working on a Model-A, or a Ferrari 458 Italia...

(no, that's not meant to denigrate film, because there are plenty of folks who would prefer the Model-A)...



For me personally, digital is what really brought me into photography. I've had an interest for years, and actually purchased a Canon A-1 from the post PX in 1982 when I was in the Army. Unfortunately, the cost of film, processing (no chance of having my own darkroom then) was too prohibitive. I traded the camera for a motorcycle helmet a few years later (after my girlfriend's brother borrowed the camera and dropped it on concrete and messed it up).

Along comes digital, and voila...

I prefer the "instant gratification" it provides. I can think all day long about a shot, but without actually trying a shot at whatever settings and seeing the result, I don't have a basis to build my thought on. I like to experiment too, and that is much easier in digital and way less costly.

I respect anyone who still shoots film and have nothing bad to say about it in the same way I respect a fellow hotrodder who just happens to like a different brand or style of rod than I do. It's all good.

Heck, if we all liked the same thing, the same way...it'd be a pretty boring world.

 

[amolitor]

You can hack a flatbed scanner into a sort of digital back for large format. There are obviously certain limitations.

 

[Alex_B]

So, I guess we can safely say film vs digital is like asking someone which they prefer: Driving/owning/working on a Model-A, or a Ferrari 458 Italia...

(no, that's not meant to denigrate film, because there are plenty of folks who would prefer the Model-A)...

To me it is like asking which is better, painting or drawing.

 

[cosmonaut]

I think you will actually learn faster on a digital rig. But with that you can pick up a nice Nikon f4/5 for almost nothing and they are extremely advanced film cameras. I love my f4s.
But digital is the way to go. Color film can get expensive in processing and you could pay for an entry level DSLR really quick paying for processing. Even cheap DSLRs have amazing image quality. Digital has come of age. Porta 400 film is close to ten dollars a roll and then 10 bucks for developing. At 20 dollars for 36 pictures the cost runs up quick.

 

[timor]

So, I guess we can safely say film vs digital is like asking someone which they prefer: Driving/owning/working on a Model-A, or a Ferrari 458 Italia...

(no, that's not meant to denigrate film, because there are plenty of folks who would prefer the Model-A)...

Very curious comparison. You don't know much about the film photography, right ?

 

[cosmonaut]

Digital cameras have made great advancements in resolution but they still cannot compact to a well exposed large format negative that has been drum scan.

However 99.99 percent of photographs do not need that much resolution and detail.

I have heard many people describe the analog photography to be more like crafting an image instead of just snapping pictures with a digital camera. Analog photography can have a more tangible feel to process because of the physical tasks one must preform.

In my opinion if you are going to shoot film you might as well shoot large format film especially if you want to do fine art landscapes.

Shooting large format forces you to slow down and put a lot more effort and thought into each image. The number of images you take will significantly drop but at the same time you will find you have a much higher percentage of images you are pleased with.

I got out of MF due to the cost. I agree a slower pace will force you to think. But only 8 to 12 shoots per roll, developing and turn around time all factors in me selling my gear. Plus I was getting the very same results with a second hand Sony a850. I bought it for less than what I sold my Mamiya 7 for.

 

[timor]

I got out of MF due to the cost. I agree a slower pace will force you to think. But only 8 to 12 shoots per roll, developing and turn around time all factors in me selling my gear. Plus I was getting the very same results with a second hand Sony a850. I bought it for less than what I sold my Mamiya 7 for.

That is another angle to look at a hobby. Unless you are a professional, of course.

 

[EDL]

So, I guess we can safely say film vs digital is like asking someone which they prefer: Driving/owning/working on a Model-A, or a Ferrari 458 Italia...

(no, that's not meant to denigrate film, because there are plenty of folks who would prefer the Model-A)...

Very curious comparison. You don't know much about the film photography, right ?

Probably more than you think I do.

The comparison was not meant to denote an old, outdated technology (intending to paint it as inferior) vs a new, modern (implied better) technology. It was intended to compare two different styles. I also mentioned hotrodding and within that realm there are those who like the very early automobiles, restored to pristine and those who like newer muscle cars customized and with big, powerful engines, and everything in between. Heck, there are folks who just like building cars more than they like owning and driving them, so they'll buy one, spend a couple years rebuilding and customizing it, sell it and start over.

The point is that everyone has their taste for what they do and why and one isn't "right" and the other "wrong".

I'm guessing by the explanation I just had to give, you didn't get it, right?

 

[timor]

So, I guess we can safely say film vs digital is like asking someone which they prefer: Driving/owning/working on a Model-A, or a Ferrari 458 Italia...

(no, that's not meant to denigrate film, because there are plenty of folks who would prefer the Model-A)...

Very curious comparison. You don't know much about the film photography, right ?

Probably more than you think I do.

The comparison was not meant to denote an old, outdated technology (intending to paint it as inferior) vs a new, modern (implied better) technology. It was intended to compare two different styles. I also mentioned hotrodding and within that realm there are those who like the very early automobiles, restored to pristine and those who like newer muscle cars customized and with big, powerful engines, and everything in between. Heck, there are folks who just like building cars more than they like owning and driving them, so they'll buy one, spend a couple years rebuilding and customizing it, sell it and start over.

The point is that everyone has their taste for what they do and why and one isn't "right" and the other "wrong".

I'm guessing by the explanation I just had to give, you didn't get it, right?

I think this explanation gives me some understanding of car enthusiasts division. What I understand you like to make images but couldn't really cope with film technology (for maybe very many different reasons). So it became for you outdated and bad when compared to new, digital thing. That's OK man, I think myself, that digital photography is a blessing for many. It is like a fast food and driver thru compared to own cooking.