Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why interchangeable lenses? (Score 1) 402

by qqaz (#38606024) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?
Bridge cameras give you all of the drawbacks of a DSLR with none of the benefits. Their sensors are as small as a pocket P&S. Their lenses are soft, full of CA, they distort like crazy, and are so slow that the extended zoom range is almost useless unless you only shoot at high noon. There's literally no reason anybody should ever buy one.

Comment: Mirrorless lacks in quality compared to a DSLR... (Score 1) 402

by qqaz (#38605976) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?
...if you insist on comparing apples and oranges. Yes, a high-end DSLR will obviously outperform any mirrorless except the M9 because there are no high-end mirrorless cameras except the M9! That said, I guarantee that my $200 NEX-3's sensor will outperform any DSLR at that price point. And those DSLRs can't even mount any of the lenses I own. For me, the choice is obvious.

You like SLRs, and that's fine. It doesn't mean they're better, it only means you prefer them.

Comment: Re:Learn photography. (Score 1) 402

by qqaz (#38605876) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?

Haha, you're worried about 6 incompatible lens standards? That's nothing. Back in the day, you had Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Olympus, Contax, Fuji, Leica M, Leica R, Pentax, M42, and a bunch more less common ones.

Anyway, mirrorless cameras can literally mount any lens ever made for any system. Incompatibility is a non-issue.

Comment: Re:14k buys a lot of film. (Score 1) 347

by qqaz (#32030962) Attached to: How To Get 39 Megapixels From a 53-Year-Old Camera

Average seems to be around $15-$20 per roll, so you're looking at $20-$25 per roll of film total.

I said this before, but I don't think I could pay that much for processing even if I tried. Even on the high end, $5-10 is more accurate, and it can definitely be done for less than that.

Given that most professional photographers and high-quality photography enthusiasts like to take a dozen or more shots of the same event and pick the best one, 560 rolls is not a very big number, depending on the exact type of film it's either 6,700 or 123,000 final shots.

No. People don't shoot medium format film the same way they shoot digital. MF film shooters take their time and only take photos of things that are worth taking photos of, instead of mashing their machine gun 1523fps shutters in hope that they get lucky.

If you figure a couple hours wasted time vs the digital, and only pay yourself $10 an hour, that cuts in half the number of photographs you can get out of $14,000. It probably wouldn't last a pro a year.

Scanning doesn't take as long as weeding through your 4000 digital photos of the same thing, looking for the best one. I know, I've done it both ways.

An amatures could get a lifetime out of that much film, but what amature is using a friggin Hasselblad?

Actually, most Hasselblad users at this point probably are amateurs. The prices of the gear have gone down so much that these cameras are very affordable for hobbyists.

I'm not trying to make a "film is better than digital" argument here (both have their merits, and I believe film is the better choice for some applications), just want to stop the spread of misinformation. There seems to be a lot of it in here.

Comment: Re:Vinyl records and tube stereos too (Score 1) 347

by qqaz (#32028578) Attached to: How To Get 39 Megapixels From a 53-Year-Old Camera

35mm film certainly won't have that type of resolution, but medium format and larger should.

My crappy flatbed tops out at around 2400dpi (it can do higher resolutions, but IMO it doesn't really see any more detail beyond that) , which creates a 29 megapixel file from a 6x6 frame. The Nikon scanner that the parent mentions can do a lot better.

"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus

Working...