Is 35mm Obsolete?

[Fayd]

The quality of modern sensors is MUCH higher than film ever was.

For indoor sports, film just doesn't cut it. You will be using ISO800 or ISO1600 film to get decent shots (and you will still need a $1000 lens to do it) and you will get awful grain in those photos.

Let alone, you have to pay $5-$10 for every 36 shots.

If you shoot just 100 rolls of film over the life of the camera, it's cheaper to get a digital.

Skimping now to get an inferior product that still costs you more later seems like a lose-lose.

Just my opinion.

Edit: I just saw you found a Rebel XTi. Decent camera and probably worth the investment in something along those lines. Good find.

at a high iso rating, you'll get awful grain regardless.

outside, with any light level and still subjects, film > digital by far for image quality.

but it's a niche market, and not something you get into if you have merely a passing interest.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

at a high iso rating, you'll get awful grain regardless.

outside, with any light level and still subjects, film > digital by far for image quality.

but it's a niche market, and not something you get into if you have merely a passing interest.

The "grain" at ISO 1600 on a DSLR is far more manageable than ISO 1600 film. Take a look at this shiz:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4everhs/9493795139/in/pool-iso1600film

Seriously, even at 1024 resolution, visible grain EVERYWHERE. The road, the clouds, the gray buildings. That shot looks like it came from my P&S circa 2004. Or like it was stored as a 256-color GIF. (BTW, that was not a cherry-picked shot by any means. I literally googled "ISO 1600 film examples" and that was one of the first color results that came up.)

You can get better with B&W film (at any ISO), but in color? Forget it. (You can also do better with B&W DSLR's, but nobody makes them because there's not a market for them. B&W film stuck around because it was easier to process in home labs, it always came out sharper, and the only way to get decent looking high ISO shots was with B&W.) Also, you can always do better with slide film, but there's always that little problem of making prints.

Now, if you want to talk about the merits of medium or large format film, for certain subjects, fine. Or if we're limiting it strictly to Velvia, ok, there's an argument to be made, especially for landscapes and other static subjects. But color 35mm film in standard everyday ISO's (100-800), there's no comparison.

 

[finbarqs]

You mean the guy at Walgreens Photoshops your pics

normally, I take it to my lab, and they process the photos. Since Kodachrome is out (my last fav) eckta and velvia has been my new faves... I've yet to find something on digital that comes out as well as how they come out, even color corrected and balanced. VSCO does a decent job, but cannot recover highlights as well as film does.

Besides, photography is a really subjective field: some people purposely add "grain" to their digital photos to emulate the "feel" of iso 3200 B&W. B&W, nothing can touch film. Silver just look amazing...

 

[justin4pack]

Yes, particularly if the lens that comes with the T3 is the Image Stabilized version of the 18-55 lens, which would probably not come with the XTi. That eBay auction is strangely moot on the subject; although the images show the IS lens, the description merely states 18-55.

In any case, the IS lens, disregarding the significant benefit of Image Stabilization, is also capable of producing visibly better image quality than the earlier, non-IS versions of the 18-55.

The XTI kit I found Does include the IS version of 18-55. ( EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS II Lens) To be exact. This would work well for sports?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The XTI kit I found Does include the IS version of 18-55. ( EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS II Lens) To be exact. This would work well for sports?

It will work better for sports than almost any non-DSLR.

If you really want something good for indoor sports (where you are fairly close to the players), you will definitely need another lens. You can get a taste of what's possible with the 50mm f/1.8 for around $100, but you'd really want to spend $350+ on an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.0 to achieve any real reach for indoor sports.

If you want the lenses that are good for outdoor sports (where the players are farther away), you are looking at paying $1000+.

But the 18-55 is the starter lens for a reason. It is versatile and starts to show you some of what's possible with a DSLR. The IS version gives solid image quality.

 

[justin4pack]

OK so I found an Olympus revolt e-500 with 3 bats and 2 lenses for 150. Whats the quality difference in the that and the xti

EDIT: Ok well I jumped on it, figured I couldn't be losing to much money. She hasn't got home yet so I have been playing with it. Took a test shot of my dog. Hows it look ?

 

[ElFenix]

smaller sensor and a dead system. but most people don't go beyond those 2 lenses anyway. main concern is just 3 AF points with the E-500, so ability to focus track probably isn't all that great.

 

[Gintaras]

I love 35mm because it's so much easier than DSLR's. images come out incredible right off the bat without any photoshopping!

How can you photoshop film images? After scanning negatives?

Even in 35mm era, photographers were retouching negatives, just like now digital photos are post-processed - not necessary with Photoshop...
Unprocessed digital images or 35mm images without retouching are called snapshots, not photos - no matter is it 35mm or digital.

 

[Gintaras]

smaller sensor and a dead system. but most people don't go beyond those 2 lenses anyway. main concern is just 3 AF points with the E-500, so ability to focus track probably isn't all that great.

Dead system?

 

[iGas]

Evolt is not a bad camera, but Canikon have more mature user interface, more accessories, and more lenses. And, as said above, Evolt is a dead system, and four third sensor is smaller than APS-C.

 

[Gintaras]

Evolt is not a bad camera, but Canikon have more mature user interface, more accessories, and more lenses. And, as said above, Evolt is a dead system, and four third sensor is smaller than APS-C.

Cannikons will never die...Cannikons like to argue about photo equipment just for sake of arguing...A lot of Cannikons(and not only) will argue more about cameras than will spend time taking pictures...I call them "photo engineers", not photographers, because many don't take photos, just keep discussing cameras, lenses...

More lenses? What do you take photo's of? How many lenses do you need? How many accesorries?

There's no all-around good photographer. Some like landscapes, some portraits, some wildlife, some macro...

You can not simply can be good at all of those...Lenses are made by other lense manufacturers - Sigma, Tamron...etc...

Canon, Nikon are most popular consumer cameras. Most cameras sold...but...prolly no other cameras - other brands are collecting dust at home - unused like Canon/Nikon does...Same with lenses and accessories...

Why not Sony? Sony DSRL actually is a Minolta camera that just have Sony logo on...

In some years of my photo hobby, I've noticed, that people who complain about cameras - brands, accessories, lenses are those, who can not make a good picture with camera they have, they don't want to learn photography. They do think, if you buy another camera or lense - photo instantly will be good...It won't, even if you buy a Hasselblad or Phase One...

Without a Talent and a Learning Curve of Photography - no camera on the market will help you...

It's a joke, when people post charts instead of images to say that one camera is better than another...

You won't find on the net "photo engineers" posting their pictures to compare cameras, because, as I said, it involves a talent and a learning curve..."Photo engineers" don't have neither...They do have a "talent" to compare camera's without pictures taken - sensor sizes, lense count, accessories count....

To OP...either camera you got - ~$200 is good and you could have some tool to start with, to learn something about photography...

Let Cannikons argue about cameras to no end...that's why they're called - a Cannikons....

 

[justin4pack]

Well I say said this is just a starter camera if she really get into it then we can buy a better 1 later on

 

[iGas]

Cannikons will never die...Cannikons like to argue about photo equipment just for sake of arguing...A lot of Cannikons(and not only) will argue more about cameras than will spend time taking pictures...I call them "photo engineers", not photographers, because many don't take photos, just keep discussing cameras, lenses...

More lenses? What do you take photo's of? How many lenses do you need? How many accesorries?

There's no all-around good photographer. Some like landscapes, some portraits, some wildlife, some macro...

You can not simply can be good at all of those...Lenses are made by other lense manufacturers - Sigma, Tamron...etc...

Canon, Nikon are most popular consumer cameras. Most cameras sold...but...prolly no other cameras - other brands are collecting dust at home - unused like Canon/Nikon does...Same with lenses and accessories...

Why not Sony? Sony DSRL actually is a Minolta camera that just have Sony logo on...

In some years of my photo hobby, I've noticed, that people who complain about cameras - brands, accessories, lenses are those, who can not make a good picture with camera they have, they don't want to learn photography. They do think, if you buy another camera or lense - photo instantly will be good...It won't, even if you buy a Hasselblad or Phase One...

Without a Talent and a Learning Curve of Photography - no camera on the market will help you...

It's a joke, when people post charts instead of images to say that one camera is better than another...

You won't find on the net "photo engineers" posting their pictures to compare cameras, because, as I said, it involves a talent and a learning curve..."Photo engineers" don't have neither...They do have a "talent" to compare camera's without pictures taken - sensor sizes, lense count, accessories count....

To OP...either camera you got - ~$200 is good and you could have some tool to start with, to learn something about photography...

Let Cannikons argue about cameras to no end...that's why they're called - a Cannikons....

If we are not all gear heads we would happy living in caves and/or still be using...

Low and behold this is a tech site.

 

[Gintaras]

If we are not all gear heads we would happy living in caves and/or still be using...


Low and behold this is a tech site.

Focus on OP and Photography...OK?

 

[Paladin3]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NewCanon-EO...Kit-/111148254546?hash=item19e0f3c552&vxp=mtr

I would go with the above T3 (DIGIC 4, 100-6400 ISO) for the same money as the XTi (DIGIC 2, 100-1600 ISO).

I would suggest everyone stay far away from that auction. Four brand new Canon T3 cameras with lenses for just $150 each on a buy it now? From a seller with ZERO feedback? On a listing that only has stock images, and no explanation whatsoever of why he is selling brand new cameras for significantly less than street value?

It has all the classic signs of a fraudulent listing.

 

[Gintaras]

If we are not all gear heads we would happy living in caves and/or still be using...

And I would suggest for ya:

When you asleep, do argue with Leonardo Da Vinci...if he'd used brushes and paints of WELL KNOWN brands...Mona Lisa could've looked way better...

I don't argue or discuss with iGas - he does know much more and much better than any good photographer or any other inventor of anything...

You'll see...at the end of this tread...

Just give him his way...

 

[CuriousMike]

Took a test shot of my dog. Hows it look ?

Her nose is in focus.
Next time, set your focus point on the eye.

Have fun.

 

[justin4pack]

Her nose is in focus.
Next time, set your focus point on the eye.

Have fun.

Thanks! Always can use advice.

 

[justin4pack]

I am so indecisive. I can pick up a Rebel XS for $50 more then what I paid for the e-500. Is that a worth while upgrade?

 

[Syborg1211]

Cannikons will never die...Cannikons like to argue about photo equipment just for sake of arguing...A lot of Cannikons(and not only) will argue more about cameras than will spend time taking pictures...I call them "photo engineers", not photographers, because many don't take photos, just keep discussing cameras, lenses...

Maybe we don't post our pictures on here because we don't care what people like you think of our photos? People come here most of the time looking for advice ABOUT GEAR, not about how to take pictures.

Canon, Nikon are most popular consumer cameras. Most cameras sold...but...prolly no other cameras - other brands are collecting dust at home - unused like Canon/Nikon does...Same with lenses and accessories...

Instead of making wide assumptions based on absolutely nothing, let's stick to the facts please.

In some years of my photo hobby, I've noticed, that people who complain about cameras - brands, accessories, lenses are those, who can not make a good picture with camera they have, they don't want to learn photography. They do think, if you buy another camera or lense - photo instantly will be good...It won't, even if you buy a Hasselblad or Phase One...

It's called GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome, and sure it is a problem but it has NO IMPLICATIONS WHATSOEVER ON THE SKILL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. You are a bigot if you really believe that any photographer who actually cares about the camera and equipment they are using is not actually a good photographer. For anyone who is actually interested, here's an interesting article on GAS.

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/03/the-fear-to-photograph-and-the-gear-acquisition-problem/

It's a joke, when people post charts instead of images to say that one camera is better than another...

You won't find on the net "photo engineers" posting their pictures to compare cameras, because, as I said, it involves a talent and a learning curve..."Photo engineers" don't have neither...They do have a "talent" to compare camera's without pictures taken - sensor sizes, lense count, accessories count....

It's called science. The best way to compare two different things such as cameras is to isolate them and make all other conditions equal. This means taking the exact same shot with different cameras to show people what the actual differences are between them. If I post a picture of a sunset I took with my camera and someone else posts a picture of their cat with their camera. How much are you going to learn about the differences between these cameras?


I'm going to quote myself from another thread just because I think it's relevant to this thread:

If you're looking at making this a lifetime hobby, the brand you buy into is actually the more important decision than what specific model you get. When you buy a camera, you're buying into a particular camera system, ie the camera, plus lenses, plus accessories.

Lenses/optics last a lot longer than camera bodies because lenses are pieces of glass manufactured based on the laws of physics and bending light. Camera sensors are limited by technology and are improving constantly with larger margins than lenses ever do these days.

So why are Canon and Nikon the most popular? Their lenses offer the best quality to price ratio of any of the systems. This is due partly to their popularity since they can build in mass quantities and pass those savings off to the buyer. On top of this, both Canon and Nikon have a much more complete library of lenses with different focal lengths and for different uses than the other brands.

Just go and compare any given focal length lenses and see which lenses are higher rated for picture quality while having lower pricing - it will become obvious why people tell you to get Canon or Nikon.

Gint is right that the camera won't make an impact on how good of a photographer you are in terms of composition and creativity. He is absolutely wrong that the camera brand you choose has no impact on your photography experience though. Canon and Nikon make the photography experience easier by offering you better availability of anything you'll ever need.

Go check out a local camera store and compare how much Canon/Nikon gear they have to every other brand and tell me that you wouldn't be disappointed if you walked in there looking for only Olympus gear.

 

[ultimatebob]

Dead system?

They don't really make a lot of new lenses for the Four Thirds system.

The Rebel XTi and Rebel XS the OP was looking at use Canon EF and EF-S lenses, which have been around for awhile now and will probably continue to be around for at least another decade.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

They don't really make a lot of new lenses for the Four Thirds system.

The Rebel XTi and Rebel XS the OP was looking at use Canon EF and EF-S lenses, which have been around for awhile now and will probably continue to be around for at least another decade.

Well, considering how short of a time (m)4/3rds has been around, it's got a pretty good collection IMO, and none of them that really need to be replaced. If you look at Canon and Nikon, they maybe put out 2 or 3 new lenses in a year... even as users eagerly await replacements. (e.g. Canon has been needing a replacement for the 50mm f/1.4 for ages)

As far as lens systems go, I don't really see any of the current major systems going away. At this point, they're really pretty much the same (with the exception of Nikon's older models using mechanical linkages instead of purely electrical connections). All that is different is just a mounting flange and the exact pinout. That's why Sigma, Tamron et al. can put out all of their lenses in Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica mounts. And there are plenty of people who make a hobby or business out of selling adapters, or modding lenses to use other mounts.

In any case, m4/3 has caught on rather well and has the support of two major manufacturers. I don't see it going away anytime soon. Lack of introduction of new lenses isn't a death knell. 4/3 is 10 years old. m4/3 is 5 years old. Canon still sells quite a few lenses that were designed over 10 years ago.

EDIT: I didn't realize the camera was plain 4/3 and not m4/3. Ok, maybe you have a point, but still, it's not so bad.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

And I would suggest for ya:

When you asleep, do argue with Leonardo Da Vinci...if he'd used brushes and paints of WELL KNOWN brands...Mona Lisa could've looked way better...

I don't argue or discuss with iGas - he does know much more and much better than any good photographer or any other inventor of anything...

You'll see...at the end of this tread...

Just give him his way...

Actually, the Mona Lisa looks how it does, because Da Vinci was a technology-nut. He spent months (years) mixing and diddling with the tools (paint, brushes, canvas, etc) because he wasn't entirely satisfied with what was available commercially at the time. He would likely be extremely thrilled with modern paints...

 

[Gintaras]

It's called science. The best way to compare two different things such as cameras is to isolate them and make all other conditions equal. This means taking the exact same shot with different cameras to show people what the actual differences are between them. If I post a picture of a sunset I took with my camera and someone else posts a picture of their cat with their camera. How much are you going to learn about the differences between these cameras?

Let's compare...This is "chart" of mine camera

I'm pretty satisfied considering I'm an amateur and photo hobbyist...

Now, post your "chart"...not someone else, but YOURS - YOUR OWN Photo's...taken by camera you have...

And we might have something to compare...

 

[Gintaras]

Actually, the Mona Lisa looks how it does, because Da Vinci was a technology-nut. He spent months (years) mixing and diddling with the tools (paint, brushes, canvas, etc) because he wasn't entirely satisfied with what was available commercially at the time. He would likely be extremely thrilled with modern paints...

I told in some previous posst that I don't get in arguments with idiots...

Would you care to post your masterpieces in order to prove that 500 year old brushes and oil paint was worse that in today's technology?

gio ahead...A Theater Of Tragedy....