CakeBoy wrote:AND, you lot are such camera heads. Just don't travel to Greece on holiday together
Guilty as charged.
simonp wrote:I think that was the case, but is changing.
purely aesthetics, but I just don't like the feel, which is the point I was making above... I like my cameras to be fully manual (but then I'm not shooting sports).
The top pro level ones are now at 16.7 megapixels full-frame 35mm CCDs, which is pretty much the equivalent to the grain size IS0 100 transparency film I believe.
as I'm sure you know, direct comparisons between analogue and digital is always tricky, at best. Digital has distinct advantages, generally I prefer the look of film though (less plasticky). As to the number of megapixels/resolution, that's a real quagmire of a discussion, which I'm not sure has been argued convincingly either way yet... it'll be a while before a digital camera will be able to match the quality of 6x7 at under a thousand pounds, so I'm holding on to my MF gear.
Quite a few pros use them now as they allow quick exposure checking using the graph thingy (the name of which escapes me
)
yeah, histograms are definitely useful, but using a spot meter gives me the same information and allows me to make the decisions, not the camera.
I'm definitely into digital darkrooms though.
D