It's a bird

by Vian Esterhuizen

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

22

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the "digital" part of the lens' DG designation. It seems to be more to differentiate them from "digital" lenses that are APS-C only. Sigma calls their current APS-C only lenses "DC". When digital SLRs first began to gain a foothold in the market, they almost all had sensors that were APS-C or similar sized. So new ...


17

Yes, lenses designed for digital sensors have several differences from their older film based camera lens counterparts. One of the primary differences is that digital sensors are more reflective than film, so anti-reflective coatings are applied to the rear element of a digital lens. This helps prevent reflections off the sensor that could result in image ...


6

1/90th of a second is the limit of the cameras shutter speed with out electronic assistance. On your shutter dial you should see it listed as "M90", the "M" standing for mechanical. My first course of action would be ensure that you're using a fresh battery, then check the battery connections is free from corrosion. If the problem persists, it might mean ...


6

Some 'film' lenses designed for 35mm rangefinder cameras have a rear element which lies quite close to the plane of the film or sensor (mostly wide-angle lenses). These work fine for film, but when used on a digital camera cause quite noticeable colour shifts to the left and right of the frame. This is due to the extreme angle of the light from the rear ...


6

There is one significant difference between film and digital sensor for lens optics - digital sensors have a bit of glass and some filters in front of them. The lensrental.com blog has a pretty extensive series of posts on the effect of the sensor stack (short version, there is a very real effect for large aperture lenses) - so it is quite possible that the ...


5

The K1000 needs darkness in order to turn off the meter. Changing the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture will just change what the meter is looking for to balance the needle. The circuit that controls whether or not the meter gets power is controlled by a light-sensor that watches for light on the focussing screen. If sufficient light is present (EV2 @ ...


5

If you are sure you took 10 photos in the middle of the roll and they don't appear, it sounds like there is a mechanical problem that prevented the film advancing and prevented the shutter opening for 10 exposures, which somehow then righted itself after those exposures. There is a slight chance it could be due to not fully winding the film on during that ...


5

Without example pictures, it's difficult to tell exactly what the problem (or constellation of problems) is, but what you are describing could easily be the result of extreme underexposure of the film (more than 2 stops) without any compensation in development (that is, the film was developed for the normal time). Colour noise happens in film as well as in ...


5

Shorter version: Expose it as 3200 and shoot normally. Develop according to the instructions and make sure you use the correct development time for 3200. Longer version: Delta 3200 is not an ISO 3200 film, it is more like ISO 1000-1200. If you expose it as 3200 and develop according to the instructions, you are actually push developing it. The film ...


5

Disclaimer: I can't answer for Nikon, or any system other than Canon. But I can attempt to answer some of your questions in general, as relates to Canon film cameras. This will also serve to answer the same question someone else may have, but from a Canon point of view. Canon hasn't released a new film SLR since the EOS 30V and EOS 300X in 2004. The ...


4

Unfortunately this is an opinion and even then only an estimate can be made because only you know how much force was exerted on the film. It is always worth it to me to try and develop a roll of film that could potentially come out poorly. If I find a roll in a vintage camera, to me the small cost of development greatly exceeds the potential benefits. ...


4

The OP commented elsewhere "I've seen people say it's actually ISO 800 Film intended to be pushed, and their data sheet says something about it being rated ISO 1000" and the data sheet is by far your best source of information. DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31º (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. So yes, it is a fast film ...


4

Nobody can make this decision for you. Because everybody's preferences as to what and how they shoot and therefore which equipment is going to work better for them is going to differ. Not to mention that budgets vary and what's "worth it" in dollar amounts is also going to vary person to person. You can peer at test charts. You can read reviews. You could ...


4

If you exposed at 800, then you should develop at 800. Pushing film with special developing isn't free. It usually makes the grain worse and reduces contrast. You don't want to do it more than necessary. Developing to 1200 after exposing at 800 will give the the drawbacks of pushing the extra 0.6 f-stops without the benefits. In fact, if the pictures ...


3

This is called focus and recompose. Note the position of the focus point in the bottom left picture - it is between the two people. If you tried to focus there, the camera would focus on the background, throwing the subjects out of focus. So you focus on one subject, then recompose so both subjects are now in the frame. You only have to do this in similar ...


3

Fujifilm's recent cameras take their design cues from rangefinder cameras of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. At that time, a look similar to this was typical, just as DSLRs in the 2000s tended to be rounded blobs of black plastic or today's smartphones are mostly shiny black rectangles. Therefore, there are many candidates, but I think perhaps the closest is ...


3

For me, time is more limited than money, so I've usually had the shop scan the film and skipped prints altogether. Film scanning ought to result better quality by skipping an intermediate transformation and by detecting and "removing" dust automatically (except with black-and-white film). You can save money by scanning from film yourself, especially if ...


3

If you want to experiment with a film SLR, my suggestion would definitely be to buy a used body compatible with your current lenses. You do not need to buy a new body. If you have Nikon lenses, look for a Nikon body. I don't know the Nikon range in detail, but current lenses should work fine on 1990s/2000s-era Nikon autofocus SLRs. One caveat is that film ...


2

why not simply set it to 3200 and run with it? That's what it's rated at... That said, it's a somewhat flexible film and you may get good results at 1600 as well. There's nothing wrong with doing what the package says you should do. Nor is there anything wrong with experimenting.


2

That tiny part hanging out of the canister is known as the 'leader'. Notice that it is only about half as wide as the rest of the film (or canister). Don't pull on it to check this if you can't see the full width of the roll, just trust me. The rest of the roll is fine, the canister is working exactly as designed. Some cameras roll the entire film, ...


2

It sounds like everything is fine- some cameras don't rewind the film all the way back into cartridge, and yours must be one of them. When you get the film developed, you won't see any problem.


2

I guess you're girlfriend was using 135 film (regular 35 mm frames) and that format is large enough to deliver amazing results. Search for the tag 135 film in flickr, 500px or alike and you will find results that I bet you'll find stunning. They will sport amazing resolution and color rendition that will without doubt beat camera the quality of photos from ...


2

Devil's advocate: shoot digital. The ever-rising costs of film and developing as well as the cost (in time and/or money) to scan and clean an image is significant and from a non-artistic and monetary point of view digital is the clear winner over a fairly short time period. That is, of course, over simplification -- but it bears looking at. When I used to ...


2

$14 a roll! My goodness that's a lot of money! $16 prints? Where are you going!? That's more than my local drug store as well as my local photography shop. It should be close to $12 for 24 prints. All that aside, you could self develop color (it really isn't that hard if you know how to take a hot bath!) and can get over 20 rolls for about a $100 set up ...


2

Do you shoot B&W or colour? If you shoot in black and white, have you considered developing the film yourself? Developing colour film is more tricky, but black and white film development is a relatively easy process. I realise my answer will be much less relevant if you're shooting in colour, but thought I'd put my suggestion in to help anyone else who ...


2

Fuji's X-series cameras always remind me of the Minolta HiMatic 7s. The reason there are so many examples of cameras that look like a Fuji X-camera is probably that everybody wanted their camera to look like a Leica. Here's a comparison of the iconic Leica M3 with the Fuji X-100 from Nokton on Flickr: I'm looking for a mechanical vintage camera As ...


2

To answer your question directly, there are 3 spots where you're spending money for 'using film' and luckily for you there are cheaper options on all 3 fronts: Film Cost $16 is way too much, even for the Pro stuff, you can get 36 exposure rolls of Fuji Pro from BHPhoto for $10.29 each. And sure, you could really cut costs by going to non-'Pro' film and get ...


2

Yes, you can re-wet the film. If you do, make sure it is submersed long enough to be fully wet. Then dry it just like you would freshly developed and rinsed film. That means dipping thru Photo Flu solution as the last step before hanging to dry. Of course the drying area needs to be as dust free as possible. Hang it somewhere air isn't blowing around, ...


1

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very good constant aperture zoom that is optimized for the APS-C sized sensor of your 70D. In terms of field of view, it shoots much like a 28-90mm zoom would on a full frame camera.This gives you a wide range of focal lengths from just at the edge of wide angle to just into the edge of telephoto. In terms of cost it is more ...


1

I do not own either of the two lenses. From experience, I'd say the zoom is the better choice for traveling. The versatility of a single lens providing multiple focal lengths is a key advantage. I'd get a dedicated macro lens for the macro work. Here's a comparison of both ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible