Bought a Nikon 35mm film camera sight blind at auction today....

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Cursitor Doom, Apr 19, 2014.

  1. On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:19:08 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >it was in its day, but those days are *long* gone.
    >
    >digital surpassed it long ago.
    >
    >you're stuck in the past.


    Yes, stuck in an age of quality and quite happy to remain here. You
    can keep your plastic junk.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 27, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >it was in its day, but those days are *long* gone.
    > >
    > >digital surpassed it long ago.
    > >
    > >you're stuck in the past.

    >
    > Yes, stuck in an age of quality and quite happy to remain here. You
    > can keep your plastic junk.


    you keep demonstrating your ignorance. there were plastic junk film
    cameras, and even cardboard ones. not that it matters.

    the fact is that digital produces higher quality images than film ever
    could, including kodachrome, and with less hassle. you're stuck in the
    past, refusing to acknowledge that technology has progressed.

    and there's nothing wrong with plastics and composites either, some of
    which are stronger than some metals. ask airbus about that sometime.
     
    nospam, Apr 28, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:27:12 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:


    >you keep demonstrating your ignorance. there were plastic junk film
    >cameras, and even cardboard ones. not that it matters.
    >
    >the fact is that digital produces higher quality images than film ever
    >could, including kodachrome, and with less hassle. you're stuck in the
    >past, refusing to acknowledge that technology has progressed.
    >
    >and there's nothing wrong with plastics and composites either, some of
    >which are stronger than some metals. ask airbus about that sometime.


    You have no concept of quality in the traditional sense, that much is
    clear. And I would venture to say that the K25 emulsion is vastly
    superior to anything digital can produce today. Maybe that situation
    will change in the years to come, but certainly not for some
    considerable time yet.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 28, 2014
    #63
  4. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >you keep demonstrating your ignorance. there were plastic junk film
    > >cameras, and even cardboard ones. not that it matters.
    > >
    > >the fact is that digital produces higher quality images than film ever
    > >could, including kodachrome, and with less hassle. you're stuck in the
    > >past, refusing to acknowledge that technology has progressed.
    > >
    > >and there's nothing wrong with plastics and composites either, some of
    > >which are stronger than some metals. ask airbus about that sometime.

    >
    > You have no concept of quality in the traditional sense, that much is
    > clear.


    wrong.

    > And I would venture to say that the K25 emulsion is vastly
    > superior to anything digital can produce today. Maybe that situation
    > will change in the years to come, but certainly not for some
    > considerable time yet.


    very, very wrong.

    digital surpassed k25 quite a while ago.

    this is not up for debate. hard numbers prove it.

    even entry level digital cameras can beat k25 and high end digital
    blows it away in every possible metric.

    film luddites refuse to acknowledge any of this. they continue to claim
    that film is better despite extensive evidence otherwise.

    it's a lot like the flat earth society or the moon landing conspiracy
    idiots. facts show just how out to lunch they are but they continue
    their nonsense.
     
    nospam, Apr 28, 2014
    #64
  5. Cursitor Doom

    cjt Guest

    On 04/28/2014 01:54 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> you keep demonstrating your ignorance. there were plastic junk film
    >>> cameras, and even cardboard ones. not that it matters.
    >>>
    >>> the fact is that digital produces higher quality images than film ever
    >>> could, including kodachrome, and with less hassle. you're stuck in the
    >>> past, refusing to acknowledge that technology has progressed.
    >>>
    >>> and there's nothing wrong with plastics and composites either, some of
    >>> which are stronger than some metals. ask airbus about that sometime.

    >>
    >> You have no concept of quality in the traditional sense, that much is
    >> clear.

    >
    > wrong.
    >
    >> And I would venture to say that the K25 emulsion is vastly
    >> superior to anything digital can produce today. Maybe that situation
    >> will change in the years to come, but certainly not for some
    >> considerable time yet.

    >
    > very, very wrong.
    >
    > digital surpassed k25 quite a while ago.
    >
    > this is not up for debate. hard numbers prove it.


    cite?

    >
    > even entry level digital cameras can beat k25 and high end digital
    > blows it away in every possible metric.
    >
    > film luddites refuse to acknowledge any of this. they continue to claim
    > that film is better despite extensive evidence otherwise.
    >
    > it's a lot like the flat earth society or the moon landing conspiracy
    > idiots. facts show just how out to lunch they are but they continue
    > their nonsense.
    >
     
    cjt, Apr 28, 2014
    #65
  6. On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:18:11 -0400, Scott Schuckert <>
    wrote:


    >All I can say is, the pictures I made on Kodachrome - 25 and 64 - look
    >far better to me than I currently make on a much more expensive digital
    >camera (a Nikon D90, if you'd care to make fun of that) and the same
    >lenses.


    I agree, Scott. Looking at some old transparencies I took with my
    Spotmatic with K25 at a classic car show some 30 years ago through my
    favourite slide viewer is simply mind-blowing. I feel I could step
    through and be there, it's so stunningly real. Nothing digital comes
    close - not even remotely.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 29, 2014
    #66
  7. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, cjt <>
    wrote:

    > >> And I would venture to say that the K25 emulsion is vastly
    > >> superior to anything digital can produce today. Maybe that situation
    > >> will change in the years to come, but certainly not for some
    > >> considerable time yet.

    > >
    > > very, very wrong.
    > >
    > > digital surpassed k25 quite a while ago.
    > >
    > > this is not up for debate. hard numbers prove it.

    >
    > cite?


    <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pd
    f>
     
    nospam, Apr 29, 2014
    #67
  8. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    <> wrote:

    > >All I can say is, the pictures I made on Kodachrome - 25 and 64 - look
    > >far better to me than I currently make on a much more expensive digital
    > >camera (a Nikon D90, if you'd care to make fun of that) and the same
    > >lenses.

    >
    > I agree, Scott. Looking at some old transparencies I took with my
    > Spotmatic with K25 at a classic car show some 30 years ago through my
    > favourite slide viewer is simply mind-blowing. I feel I could step
    > through and be there, it's so stunningly real. Nothing digital comes
    > close - not even remotely.


    you are either visually impaired or you're trolling.
     
    nospam, Apr 29, 2014
    #68
  9. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <290420140918110028%>, Scott Schuckert
    <> wrote:

    > I'd be interested in your "facts" and the assumptions they make - is it
    > only number of pixels?


    nope. it's everything, including resolution, dynamic range, colour
    accuracy and overall image quality.

    > All I can say is, the pictures I made on Kodachrome - 25 and 64 - look
    > far better to me than I currently make on a much more expensive digital
    > camera (a Nikon D90, if you'd care to make fun of that) and the same
    > lenses.


    the d90 was a great camera in its day, but it's old (about 5 years or
    so), which is a very long time in technology. a lot has changed since
    then.

    today's slrs are much better, and the d90 wasn't that expensive either.
    if you want expensive try a d3 or a d3x which were available about the
    same time as the d90.

    regardless, they all can beat film.

    right now, the nikon d800 is about the best digital slr you can get and
    there is no contest between that and any film.

    entry level slrs are 24 mp and they too beat film, although with not as
    big of a gap as the d800.

    relatively soon, the performance of the d800 will be in entry level
    slrs, with the d800 being replaced with something even more capable.

    the gap is wide and getting wider. technology progresses.
     
    nospam, Apr 29, 2014
    #69
  10. On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:44:29 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Cursitor Doom
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >All I can say is, the pictures I made on Kodachrome - 25 and 64 - look
    >> >far better to me than I currently make on a much more expensive digital
    >> >camera (a Nikon D90, if you'd care to make fun of that) and the same
    >> >lenses.

    >>
    >> I agree, Scott. Looking at some old transparencies I took with my
    >> Spotmatic with K25 at a classic car show some 30 years ago through my
    >> favourite slide viewer is simply mind-blowing. I feel I could step
    >> through and be there, it's so stunningly real. Nothing digital comes
    >> close - not even remotely.

    >
    >you are either visually impaired or you're trolling.


    I doubt you're even old enough to have seen any colour shots through a
    viewer. I'm guessing the last viewer was made a good ten years before
    you were born. Consequently you are, as usual, expounding opinions
    about something of which you have no first-hand knowledge.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 29, 2014
    #70
  11. On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:44:33 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >right now, the nikon d800 is about the best digital slr you can get and
    >there is no contest between that and any film.


    At least we agree on that!
    >
    >entry level slrs are 24 mp and they too beat film, although with not as
    >big of a gap as the d800.


    24 million is a lot of pixels if pixels float your boat. Personally I
    rarely find the need to blow anything up to double-decker bus size.
    Obviously *you* do, though. Selfies probably.

    >relatively soon, the performance of the d800 will be in entry level
    >slrs, with the d800 being replaced with something even more capable.


    I prefer my Nikons with an 'F' in the model designation.

    >the gap is wide and getting wider. technology progresses.


    Oh good. Perhaps one day your digital technology will equal the
    legendary K25. Not in our lifetimes, though (certainly not mine,
    anyway.)
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 29, 2014
    #71
  12. Cursitor Doom

    Michael Guest

    On 2014-04-27 00:47:39 +0000, nospam said:

    > In article <2014042620204521278-adunc79617@mypacksnet>, Michael
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Agreed. After all, when it was the FILM that evolved, the cameras were
    >> built to last. When the camera is evolving every few years that won't
    >> happen. You didn't have to replace a Nikon F every three years. My
    >> Nikon D5000 is 4 years old and hopelessly outdistanced by about every
    >> APS-C format DSLR that is out there now.

    >
    > your nikon d5000 didn't stop working the moment the d5100 came out.
    >
    > it still takes photos now that are just as good as it did when new. the
    > fact that there are newer and more capable cameras does not change
    > that.
    >
    > it's called progress. that's a good thing.
    >
    > a lot of people want technology to stand still so they can get more
    > useful life out of a product. that's a bad thing.


    Yes my Nikon D5000 still takes good pictures, but it will never take
    better. It had a useful life of only a few years. My Nikon F lasted for
    decades. It improved every time the film improved. You did not have to
    improve the camera. There was just as much progress as film evolved. It
    is damned annoying to have to replace the hardware for every upgrade
    when it used to be only the firmware (film). And no, I don't agree with
    you about digital. It is better than film in many ways: cost, speed,
    workflow, immediate feedback, storage, etc. Except one. Film users know
    what that is and it is not something the numbers you crunch describe,
    because you carefully avoid it. It has to do not with "warmth" or any
    of that touchy feely crap that some film users tout and which makes
    their arguments less valid. It has to do with the continuity of the
    image, the true analog nature of film photography (blunted with digital
    printing, but preserved with true wet process optical printing, or with
    pure transparencies). Digital has not achieved it. It may well, as the
    technology further advances. Maybe. Some day.
    --
    Michael
     
    Michael, Apr 29, 2014
    #72
  13. Cursitor Doom

    cjt Guest

    On 04/29/2014 01:44 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, cjt <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>> And I would venture to say that the K25 emulsion is vastly
    >>>> superior to anything digital can produce today. Maybe that situation
    >>>> will change in the years to come, but certainly not for some
    >>>> considerable time yet.
    >>>
    >>> very, very wrong.
    >>>
    >>> digital surpassed k25 quite a while ago.
    >>>
    >>> this is not up for debate. hard numbers prove it.

    >>
    >> cite?

    >
    > <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pd
    > f>
    >

    Perhaps you could be more specific about the comparisons you're making?
     
    cjt, Apr 29, 2014
    #73
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. daren pelletier
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    504
    Skip Middleton
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Bought a pedometer today!

    , Jun 20, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    323
    ian lincoln
    Jun 22, 2005
  3. ellx-lux

    Unusual sight at Luxembourg Airport

    ellx-lux, Feb 5, 2005, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,001
  4. +/-

    BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

    +/-, Sep 30, 2005, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    118
    Views:
    2,443
    Bill Tuthill
    Oct 14, 2005
  5. Anonyma

    I bought my wife some clothes at Target today

    Anonyma, Mar 18, 2007, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    Anonyma
    Mar 18, 2007
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    481
  7. +/-
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,039
    Andrew Haley
    Oct 7, 2005
  8. Scotius
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    548
    Scotius
    Jul 1, 2010
Loading...