"There is not really a technical reason to shoot film." Stefan Daniel from Leica

[dtcls100]

Curious to see how the Leica Monochrome performs in bright light situations versus B&W film. Blown out highlights like other digital cameras? Probably. Recall that the Zacuto tests showed that digital cameras could not record as many shades of grey as film before clipping to dead white. Modern digital is great in low light performance, not very good with highlights. Which situation do you shoot more of?

 

[hepcat]

I would say that film is still there to remind us of the talents that silently pass away after the ease of digital sets in. In film you will have to take care of anything at the time of shot, horizontals, composition, exposure and many more. With digital you can correct everything post shot on the computer. It is not really a problem, but it is always good to have something to remind you of the basis of good photography.
I would say that trying to get things well done on film helps a lot on digital too.

Each has it's place. I've converted to digital completely and have a scanner for my negs and transparencies of yore. I shoot digital as though I were shooting film... unfortunately someone who has never had to shoot with the required discipline of film doesn't understand that discipline. Digital carries its own set of rules, but in essence you're very correct.

What amuses me more than the film/digital debate is the "Full-Frame" sensor debate, and what makes 24mm x 36 mm "full-frame?" It was too many years ago that 35mm wasn't taken seriously because it was a "miniature" format... and now it has become "Full-Frame." *chuckle*

 

[Roger Hicks]

Each has it's place. I've converted to digital completely and have a scanner for my negs and transparencies of yore. I shoot digital as though I were shooting film... unfortunately someone who has never had to shoot with the required discipline of film doesn't understand that discipline. Digital carries its own set of rules, but in essence you're very correct.

What amuses me more than the film/digital debate is the "Full-Frame" sensor debate, and what makes 24mm x 36 mm "full-frame?" It was too many years ago that 35mm wasn't taken seriously because it was a "miniature" format... and now it has become "Full-Frame." *chuckle*

Lenses that are interchangeable between film and digital. What else?

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

Indeed. That's about it. 😀

Lenses that are interchangeable between film and digital. What else?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

What amuses me more than the film/digital debate is the "Full-Frame" sensor debate, and what makes 24mm x 36 mm "full-frame?" It was too many years ago that 35mm wasn't taken seriously because it was a "miniature" format... and now it has become "Full-Frame." *chuckle*

24x36 is full frame for lenses that were designed for 35mm. 'Full frame' isn't a generic term for all 35mm based cameras, but rather a reference to the system that the lenses were made for.
So for a Mamiya 645 full frame would be 56mm x 41.5mm put in a 35mm size sensor and it's no longer full frame.

Likewise if you had a 8x10 Gandolfi you'll need an 8x10 sensor to be full frame.

 

[hepcat]

Technically I believe "full frame" would refer to the largest format film that would fit into the circle of coverage of a specific lens. Of course 24x36 sensors have value for those of us with lenses with a circle of coverage set for that format, as a "normal" lens is once again becomes a "normal" lens.

My point was that there's a certain irony in that the 24x36 frame was once scoffed at as a "miniature format" and hence essentially valueless, now in the digital world it is considered by many to be the "Holy Grail" of sensor size to which we should all should aspire. It's amazing how perspectives change with time and technology.

24x36 is full frame for lenses that were designed for 35mm. 'Full frame' isn't a generic term for all 35mm based cameras, but rather a reference to the system that the lenses were made for.
So for a Mamiya 645 full frame would be 56mm x 41.5mm put in a 35mm size sensor and it's no longer full frame.

Likewise if you had a 8x10 Gandolfi you'll need an 8x10 sensor to be full frame.

 

[dshfoto]

The quote was, " Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film."
That statement sweeps to broad. It seems like he is saying for the same camera format, you can now get the same resolution with a digital sensor that you can get with film. Perhaps that is what he should have said. There are of course other technical issues, such as archival file storage, artistic rendition, and cost effective photography.
In the real world, not on the technical work bench, what is happening is "cameras" are being rapidly replaced by multi-use devices. I now see more photos being take with tablets and cell phones than cameras. The sensors on these have now reached the cross-over point for 4x6 prints for consumer use. Of course these are for the most part not being printed but instantly uploaded to "Facebook" or the next type of photo album.
So . . . . what Stefan Daniel and Leica needs to realize is that Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with a camera. In two years from now, a cell phone or tablet will most likely serve the image needs of consumer market.Not only will film become a " niche market" but also cameras.
Could we see a day when film and film cameras serve the art market, and 90% of the digital photography (still and video) is done with tablets and cell phones?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Technically I believe "full frame" would refer to the largest format film that would fit into the circle of coverage of a specific lens. Of course 24x36 sensors have value for those of us with lenses with a circle of coverage set for that format, as a "normal" lens is once again becomes a "normal" lens.

Which is exactly as I stated 'full frame' is a reference to the sensor being the same size as the legacy lens coverage the body was originally designed for. for example the M8 is not FF but the M9 is the lenses are designed with that in mind.

My point was that there's a certain irony in that the 24x36 frame was once scoffed at as a "miniature format" and hence essentially valueless, now in the digital world it is considered by many to be the "Holy Grail" of sensor size to which we should all should aspire. It's amazing how perspectives change with time and technology.

That's wrong, 24x36 is no 'holy grail' it still is miniature format It's certainly not valueless (it never was).
It is not the format 'to which we all aspire' but rather at this current period the sweet spot in size/quality/cost.
Of course this could change, Leica have also bought out a 'full frame' camera called the S2 some MF cameras can accept backs that are FF with respect to lens coverage.
If someone brings out a new system that doesn't use legacy bodies or lenses with a smaller sensor that will be full frame also.

I had a 3mp 24x36 sensor in a Phase one back in the late 1990's it wasn't FF though as we had it on a 645 Mamiya! 😉

You'll notice that I don't confuse 'full frame' with 24x36 that is a common mistake–but an erroneous one.

 

[hepcat]

You'll notice that I don't confuse 'full frame' with 24x36 that is a common mistake–but an erroneous one.

It is, indeed.

And yes, I realize that I'm painting with a very broad brush and my original post was more tongue-in-cheek from reading across a variety of sources online as more and more companies join the race to bring out "full-frame" 24x36mm sensor cameras and more and more consumers believe that they need one.

"Full Frame" in 35mm terms has some convenience for those of us with a stable of lenses left over from the film world. There's no "crop factor" to figure in, and certainly it's nice to have a 28mm field of view that covers what a 28mm "should" have. That's convenience. And I'm conversant in the DOF issues as well... etc. etc. etc.

"Full Frame" IS the current "holy grail" in the mainstream media frenzy though... I waited for years for an affordable digital back for my Hasselblad 500cm. I'm glad I sold it a decade ago when I did tho... as I'd still be waiting.

I'm just glad that good photography hasn't had to wait for "full frame" though. There is amazing work being done with less than "full-frame" sensors, and I suspect there will be for many years to come.

 

[Snowbuzz]

Interesting. My film pictures, to my mind, are tangible things that someone can scoop out of storage and look at today, tomorrow, or 100 years from now. My digital pictures, to my mind, have a nebulous quality: like they don't really exist. I feel uneasy about them. I fret about constantly backing up and exporting.

Anyway, just musing.

 

[Photo_Smith]

It is, indeed.


"Full Frame" IS the current "holy grail" in the mainstream media frenzy though... I waited for years for an affordable digital back for my Hasselblad 500cm. I'm glad I sold it a decade ago when I did tho... as I'd still be waiting.

I'm just glad that good photography hasn't had to wait for "full frame" though. There is amazing work being done with less than "full-frame" sensors, and I suspect there will be for many years to come.

You seem to be under the illusion that 'full frame' is 24x36–and seem to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

I have owned a 24x36 sensor which isn't FF and two that were a D700 and a Contax N (almost forgot a brief fling with a Kodak SLRn)
You can consider Micro 4/3 Full frame if it isn't used with legacy adapter lenses likewise the already mentioned Leica S2 is FF.

Again one last time–24x36 isn't necessarily full frame please don't use those terms interchangeably your 'holy grail' depends on the camera body/lens not the sensor just remember that.

And remove the small sensor 'chip' off your shoulder 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

My photography began in the middle 1960s, before digital capture was even imaginable. I started doing digital image processing in the middle 1980s, professionally, with several million dollars worth of computing equipment that belonged to NASA. It wasn't until 2002 that I bought my first "real" digital camera with a good lens and 5Mpixels image resolution. Things snowballed from there. I worked entirely with digital capture from 2004 until late in 2011. There was no lack of quality, of versatility, of emotive power in the photos I made.

I began to add some film work back into my photography after that. Why? Because I could, I had the time and the money. Because I like the cameras, and I like the different look of film. Because I like its flaws and limitations, its unpredictability, its lack of dynamic range and resolution.

There is little*in way of technical grounds to use film if what you're looking for is the best image capture available today. If, however, you seek a visual language that exists outside of technical specifications, film is there still to enrich what you can do in images.

I haven't sold my digital cameras either. I use both, and both return superb photographs that satisfy me. I don't need any more cameras, film or digital. I'll be shooting with the ones I have until the next wave of curiosities drive me to go further.

G

 

[Mystyler]

You can consider Micro 4/3 Full frame if it isn't used with legacy adapter lenses...

You've just hit on one of my pet hates - people telling me my 4/3 sensor isn't "full frame". It bloody well is. :bang:

 

[Roger Hicks]

You've just hit on one of my pet hates - people telling me my 4/3 sensor isn't "full frame". It bloody well is. :bang:

Not in common parlance. Of course you can define any term in any way you like, but I really do believe that for most people, 'full frame' is shorthand for '24x36mm' (or very close thereto).

After all, in 35mm, 24x36mm was known as 'full frame' in contradistinction to 'half frame' (despite the best efforts of some to use 'double frame' and 'single frame'), so I think banging your head against a brick wall is a pretty apposite image.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Not in common parlance. Of course you can define any term in any way you like, but I really do believe that for most people, 'full frame' is shorthand for '24x36mm' (or very close thereto).
.

You can't really define it any way you like and just because the majority get it wrong doesn't make the 'common parlance' argument correct.

The size 24x36 is NOT full frame, it can be when it refers to 35mm cameras and legacy lenses it certainly isn't when installed in other systems.

Back in 1998 I had a Dalsa sensor in a Phase One back which was 24x36 and because the back was attached to a medium format camera and lens meant it couldn't be considered full frame.

In order for that back to be FF it would need one side of the sensor to be 56mm.

Likewise µ4/3 is also FF because the camera system is designed around the sensor not the other way round.

The Leica S2 is FF for the same reasons.

It's pretty simple—lets not pretend 24x36 is FF because people can't be bothered to learn correct terminology.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can't really define it any way you like and just because the majority get it wrong doesn't make the 'common parlance' argument correct.

The size 24x36 is NOT full frame, it can be when it refers to 35mm cameras and legacy lenses it certainly isn't when installed in other systems.

Back in 1998 I had a Dalsa sensor in a Phase One back which was 24x36 and because the back was attached to a medium format camera and lens meant it couldn't be considered full frame.

In order for that back to be FF it would need one side of the sensor to be 56mm.

Likewise µ4/3 is also FF because the camera system is designed around the sensor not the other way round.

The Leica S2 is FF for the same reasons.

It's pretty simple—lets not pretend 24x36 is FF because people can't be bothered to learn correct terminology.

And equally, let's not pretend that it isn't FF because some people refuse to accept common usage. If 'the majority get it wrong' then sooner or later 'wrong' will become 'right', because, um, they're the majority. That's how language tends to work. Look at the word 'prestigious' for a wonderful example.

If you want to, by all means qualify 'full frame' and use your own definitions. Just don't get bent out of shape when others accuse you of pointless pedantry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Full Frame only truly makes sense in the context of digital cameras derivative of antecedent 35mm film camera systems. The fact that it has come to mean "35mm Film format" is a historical accident, just like "crop factor" and "APS-C" as a format designation of digital sensors.

Common parlance is illogical and seemingly driven by the misuse of terms rather than by their meanings. Doesn't matter much, tho. As long as what you say or write is understandable to the audience, best to just get on with getting the message across.

Just like with all the film vs digital brouhaha. The goal should be quality images, not just image quality. Quality images survive even mediocre image quality in the long run. Ticking off the pluses and minuses of one vs the other means nothing in the context of making the same old boring pictures of the dog, the cat, the fuzzy tree on the hillside ...

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

Full Frame only truly makes sense in the context of digital cameras derivative of antecedent 35mm film camera systems. The fact that it has come to mean "35mm Film format" is a historical accident, just like "crop factor" and "APS-C" as a format designation of digital sensors.

Common parlance is illogical and seemingly driven by the misuse of terms rather than by their meanings. Doesn't matter much, tho. As long as what you say or write is understandable to the audience, best to just get on with getting the message across. . . .

Exactly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

And equally, let's not pretend that it isn't FF because some people refuse to accept common usage. If 'the majority get it wrong' then sooner or later 'wrong' will become 'right', because, um, they're the majority. That's how language tends to work. Look at the word 'prestigious' for a wonderful example.

If you want to, by all means qualify 'full frame' and use your own definitions. Just don't get bent out of shape when others accuse you of pointless pedantry.

Cheers,

R.

Roger ?!?
So you're saying if the majority call all 24x36 FF even when it isn't then it becomes FF because that's the way language works?

The standard definitions of photography will have to change because the error of the many overrides the ones with knowledge?
For instance film=35mm because that's all the masses have used?

I don't use my definitions BTW just the correct ones, I'm not 'bent out of shape' either.


Give me a break-honestly I expect better from you

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger ?!?
So you're saying if the majority call all 24x36 FF even when it isn't then it becomes FF because that's the way language works?

The standard definitions of photography will have to change because the error of the many overrides the ones with knowledge? . . .

Para 1: 'Fraid so. Didn't say I LIKE it, or that I agree. Just that that's the way it is.

Para 2: No, you're the one saying that, by false analogy with what I said. I might reasonably say that I expect better from you, too.

For another example of 'error', by English standards, many Americans can neither spell or pronounce 'mediaeval': they miss out the 'a' and say 'muh-deevil' instead of 'meddi-evil'. How much good will it do if I get excited about this?

The fact that Webster was a self-appointed (and not very competent) spelling reformer didn't help, but even when words are spelled correctly, pronunciations vary: 'furtle' for 'fertile', for example.

Cheers,

R.