One reason for the probable survival of film

bmattock said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_Z6-u81PY
Click to expand...

FWIW, the images in that commercial demonstrate an extremely narrow DoF. Like something on the order of 85/1.4.

Same with this ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWS8BpZElnI

This one flat out says: "Choose a lower f number to blur the background!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHyHfuc53s

Another one that shows low DoF, but doesn't talk about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuMqOocKn5o

So even if they aren't verbally saying "depth of field," they're still selling it.
 
Also, here's an example of a P+S that's trying to emulate the shallow DoF of a large sensor camera:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Fuji-Finepix-F70EXR.shtml

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]• Pro Focus Mode: The focus-bracketing mode found on the Fuji Finepix F70EXR is designed to emulate the out-of-focus background look of a digital SLR when shooting portraits or macro subjects[/FONT]
Click to expand...

If consumers don't care about shallow DoF, why would Fuji pay their engineers to rig up a "fix" for their small sensor cameras?

Here's an example image:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/exr/topics/topics01/index.html
 
antiquark said:
Also, here's an example of a P+S that's trying to emulate the shallow DoF of a large sensor camera:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Fuji-Finepix-F70EXR.shtml



If consumers don't care about shallow DoF, why would Fuji pay their engineers to rig up a "fix" for their small sensor cameras?

Here's an example image:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/exr/topics/topics01/index.html
Click to expand...

I'll give you that one, I had not seen the 'feature' or the advertisement for it before. I will note that it's an apparent rarity in digital point-n-shoot camera advertising.
 
4/3 is plenty big enough sensor to get selective DoF. I can't post any examples at the moment, as I'm using my iPhone to reply. Just need a fast lens; lots of manual focus options for that, or the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic (for micro 4/3.)

Re: Fuji---'Professional focus.' That's a new one.
 
You know what I find sad? This is a perfect time for someone to buy a 35mm film camera that is basically a P&S, like the Elan II/E. There are even better, professional grade film cameras in that price range also.

It is a golden opportunity for the casual and advanced hobbyist and it is even being considered as an option.
 
payasam said:
Digitalintrigue: "but...I believe the depth of field in this instance is more accurately described to be the same as a 50mm lens at f/5.6 on a full 35mm frame."

Robert, I wasn't considering field of view. I did not say it explicitly, but I had in mind the actual focal length of the lens.
Click to expand...

Mukul, the wording in the first post was: "depth of field can be seen to be that of a 25mm lens, which many still consider an extreme wide angle."

It is indeed the DOF of a 25mm lens on 4/3, but 25mm is not an extreme wide angle on 4/3, it's a 'normal.' I guess this is what is confusing me, because the DOF of a 25mm lens on full frame 35mm would be much greater than this example.

I guess I'm asking you to rephrase... :)
 
bmattock said:
As I've stated before, just because technology A is better than technology B, that is no reason, or even indicator, that A will survive once B comes on the scene. It's not about which is better, it's about which the common consumer will purchase. I love film and it is better than digital. That fact does not make the slightest bit of difference.
Click to expand...

Bill is correct about what the consumer perceives as "better", the consumer will buy. Look at the madness over the pixel race. On another forum, a professional wedding photographer was still using a Kodak Pro camera of something just over 3 megapixels and his customers where very happy with his work. At least he was making a decent living in a very competitive market. Yet, on the digital forums, how many people have abandoned a perfectly good camera to buy the latest 12, 15, 20 megapixel wonder camera? In Manufacturing we had a saying, "quality is what the consumer perceives it to be." Many a superior item quality wise has been pushed aside by a fancy piece of junk because the marketing people were able to convince Joe Public that he needed it, wanted it, and could not live a decent life without it. I do not want to believe that film will ever die, but????? :(
 
The reason most people buy digitals is convenience, as I said earlier. There's no film processing hassle and digital files are what most people want these days, not prints.

Add in the fact that, for most people, the quality of the images they get from their auto-everything digital is visibly better than the quality of the images they ever got from a film p&s and drugstore processing, and you have all you need to know about film's disappearing act.

What? You thought all those people were using Nikon F6's and pro labs?
 
What I meant, Robert (and most others seem to have understood this), is that it is the absolute focal length of a lens which determines depth of field (assuming that other variables are kept constant). The angle of view of a lens will change with the size of the light sensitive medium.

Yes, of course it is possible to get selective focus with a Four Thirds camera. It is not always possible, however, at wider angles of view (shorter focal lengths). In sum, a photographer accustomed to 35mm FF is liable to find the depth of field more than desired (landscapes and certain other kinds of picture excepted).

The Micro Four Thirds sensor is the same size as the Four Thirds sensor, that is, only very slightly smaller than APS-C.

[edit] Papa Smurf, aren't you really from Remembria?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom