>> |
Anonymous
>>29464 Sorry, I'm not going to get myself dragged into this "dSLRs have LCD screens, so they are clearly superior" argument. This is one of the dumbest, if not THE dumbest, things ever said on /p/.
>Did you even look at the URL I posted, where the guy gives a clear chart showing resolution+ISO for film and various (several year old) digital cameras? I did, it's quite interesting. However, it's only one unverified source, and the results are different from my personal observations (see somewhere below).
>Pop quiz: if film is so much better, why is it that fashion/event/wedding/sports/studio photographers and photojournalists all shoot digital and have for years? Not all. Those who know their stuff, and are worth their price, shoot on film for good reasons. Ask aroud, preferably not in your local digital camera club. The Arizona Highways link explains it quite well, though there's more to it. The only redeeming feature of digital is convenience (for specific purposes), if you're willing to sacrifice quality.
>Why is it that people spend +$20K for a digital back for their medium or large format camera? We're discussing 135 format here, aren't we? I didn't see any (full size) shot from a medium/large digital back, but I don't see how they're not limited in the same way as the smaller sensors are (proportionally to their film equivalents).
>Why is it that virtually nobody sells film SLRs anymore, and Polaroid's film sales disappeared and they desperately tried to save themselves by switching to the digital camera market? Why is it that the dSLR market is fiercely competitive and exploding in growth? Because demand from a mass consumer says anything about the quality? What are you doing shooting with your dSLR then? dSLR is so niche compared to compact, or even mobile phone cameras. Eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong.
|