35mm film and ff sensors

Lenses gather light ... regardless of what they're on ... did you mean record ...?
 
Last edited:
If a 35mm camera has a 50mm f1.8 lens set at f1.8 and a FF DSLR has the same lens set at f1.8 then they are both gathering the same light. Unless I am missing something fundamentally obvious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only difference between a 35mm film camera and a FF DSLR is the medium recording the image. The sensitivity of the film/sensor will impact how quickly the camera can gather enough light to record the set exposure though.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
do the 35mm film cameras gathher the same amount of light as a ff dlsr?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the dynamic range? Some films have more exposure latitude and can record more detail over a scene. So you can expose normally and still retain detail in the shadows and the highlights. Digital cameras have less dynamic range meaning that for the same exposure made at the same ISO you won't get as much detail recorded in the highlights and shadows.

Otherwise the amount of light gathered is entirely dependent upon the aperture and shutter speed used. They govern how much light is allowed to reach the film/ sensor. That goes for any film format or sensor size.
 
My reason really for asking was because when people quote ff focal length in 35 mm terms,i had never asked the question does this mean if you have a 35mm film camera its equal to a
ff dlsr in sensor size,.thats what i cant get my head around
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
My reason really for asking was because when people quote ff focal length in 35 mm terms,i had never asked the question does this mean if you have a 35mm film camera its equal to a
ff dlsr in sensor size,.thats what i cant get my head around
Click to expand...

It's the other way round (film came first ;))

A "Full Frame" digital sensor is the same size as 135 film.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
My reason really for asking was because when people quote ff focal length in 35 mm terms,i had never asked the question does this mean if you have a 35mm film camera its equal to a
ff dlsr in sensor size,.thats what i cant get my head around
Click to expand...
Yes when people refer to full frame they are referring to a sensor that us the same size as a frame taken with a 35mm film camera. So the lenses for full frame are the same that are used on a normal 35mm film camera (exceptions would be specialist cameras like the panoramic hasselblad xpan etc).
 
So theorecticaly an old film camera will give a sdofield and be on par with a ff camera for a few pounds? ;0
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
So theorecticaly an old film camera will give a sdofield and be on par with a ff camera for a few pounds? ;0
Click to expand...
yes

the words 'full frame' mean a sensor size the same as a frame of 35mm film, being 36mm x 24mm as opposed to the non-FF frame sizes of 22.2mm x 14.8mm (Canon APS-C) or 23.5 x 15.6 mm or 23.7 x 15.6 mm (Others APS-C)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
So theorecticaly an old film camera will give a sdofield and be on par with a ff camera for a few pounds? ;0
Click to expand...


Yes BUT to see the results from a film camera you'll need to get the films developed and possibly printed. You'll also need to buy films. To see the shots at any sort of decent size, you'll need to either get them printed or scanned (easy but time consuming as a DIY job once you have suitable equipment) at a cost. All these costs quickly add up (I reckon on close to a tenner per 36 exposure film) while effectively, digital shots are free (ignoring the [hefty!] cost of the body in the first place).
 
Nod said:
Yes BUT to see the results from a film camera you'll need to get the films developed and possibly printed. You'll also need to buy films. To see the shots at any sort of decent size, you'll need to either get them printed or scanned (easy but time consuming as a DIY job once you have suitable equipment) at a cost. All these costs quickly add up (I reckon on close to a tenner per 36 exposure film) while effectively, digital shots are free (ignoring the [hefty!] cost of the body in the first place).
Click to expand...

All true but we all know that a DSLR is soulless but an analogue camera is a piece of machinery that is nice to use (unless you're using a Canon EOS film body in which case they're the same!).

The much lower cost of the film camera setup up front compared to the digital equivalent means that it will take a fair few rolls of film before the digital camera is cheaper :0)
 
A relatively cheap way to view your film shots is to have them made into slides and then project them.
I have an old Hanimex 35mm slide projector which still works...I'm sure they can be had for a few bob.

I have many memories of Sunday afternoons when we all had to sit in a blacked out room while my Dad would proudly display the 36 slides he'd collected from the developer the previous day only to have them returned to their box afterwards, never to be seen again.

Each slide had its own story and would prompt several minutes of family argument before moving on to the next one.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
All true but we all know that a DSLR is soulless but an analogue camera is a piece of machinery that is nice to use (unless you're using a Canon EOS film body in which case they're the same!).

The much lower cost of the film camera setup up front compared to the digital equivalent means that it will take a fair few rolls of film before the digital camera is cheaper :0)
Click to expand...

Not quite. Old film cameras can be had relatively cheaply second hand, but then so can old digital cameras. For 99.9% of us a 10MP second hand DSLR will do the job fine, as will the camera you're already carrying in your phone.

I shoot both film and digital, and my choice on the day depends on my mood. You kind of have to bury your head in the sand over the cost element of film.
 
Ste_S said:
Not quite. Old film cameras can be had relatively cheaply second hand, but then so can old digital cameras. For 99.9% of us a 10MP second hand DSLR will do the job fine, as will the camera you're already carrying in your phone.

I shoot both film and digital, and my choice on the day depends on my mood. You kind of have to bury your head in the sand over the cost element of film.
Click to expand...

I shoot film too so my comment was a little tongue in cheek. I'm also about to launch a Kickstarter campaign for a large format film camera so know about relative costs of film and the choice to ignore them and focus on enjoying the process ;0)
 
Snip:
stevelmx5 said:
All true but we all know that a DSLR is soulless but an analogue camera is a piece of machinery that is nice to use (unless you're using a Canon EOS film body in which case they're the same!).
Click to expand...

Oi! I'll have words with you at the F&C trip at the weekend if you're not careful! :p There's nowt wrong with EOS film cameras, that EOS 3 of mine has so much soul it even knows where I'm looking! :D It's a living, breathing, beast!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Snip:

Oi! I'll have words with you at the F&C trip at the weekend if you're not careful! :p There's nowt wrong with EOS film cameras, that EOS 3 of mine has so much soul it even knows where I'm looking! :D It's a living, breathing, beast!
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't resist [emoji6]

Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to make the meet on Saturday but I'm sure I'll be at another one in the future so you can beat me up with a plastic EOS body!
 
stevelmx5 said:
Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't resist [emoji6]

Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to make the meet on Saturday but I'm sure I'll be at another one in the future so you can beat me up with a plastic EOS body!
Click to expand...
Sorry you're not going. Oh, and is there any truth in the rumour that you only call my EOS 3 plastic because you can't spell polycarbonate?! :D :p ;)
 
Sensor size of 35mm film can be slightly bigger than a FF digital sensor, but we are talking very little difference really and not enough to be meaningful.
The 5D has a 35.8 x 23.9 sensor (according to Wiki), later models were "proper" full frame i.e. 36 x 24mm
Not sure about the other models or Nikon etc.
Matt
 
Twigman said:
A relatively cheap way to view your film shots is to have them made into slides and then project them.
I have an old Hanimex 35mm slide projector which still works...I'm sure they can be had for a few bob.

I have many memories of Sunday afternoons when we all had to sit in a blacked out room while my Dad would proudly display the 36 slides he'd collected from the developer the previous day only to have them returned to their box afterwards, never to be seen again.

Each slide had its own story and would prompt several minutes of family argument before moving on to the next one.
Click to expand...
How wonderful that moment in time,such a lovely family feeling that escapes so many in these modern times
 
I still have my Dad's old Hanimex slide projector from the mid-1960s and that still works too. It needs a new drive belt for the auto change mechanism, but until I get round to emailing a couple of eBay sellers to check the size of the belt I can still operate the change mechanism by hand rather than the wired remote control switch.

There's something nice about projecting slides, the whirr of the cooling fan on the projector, the mottled grid shape of the cooling ventilation slots lighting up a small patch of the ceiling, the sound of the change mechanism, and the look of all those Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Agfa slides, each with their own slight but particular look. Plus, those huge images projected on the wall showing detail you'd never know was there just looking at the 35mm transparency.

I feel a little bit sorry for the younger generation who perhaps haven't experienced an old-fashioned slide show (as long as the photos are good and it's not the neighbour's holiday snaps!). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the instant convenience of digital photography so wouldn't want to go back to those days full time! Err, unless of course that came with the 'job for life', a company or private pension scheme that was likely to give me a financially comfortable old age, cheap house prices, a 9 to 5 five-day working week, fantastic rock and pop music in the 'top 20' charts, paisley shirts, free love.... I have a feeling that if someone invents a time machine the 1960s is going to get a bit over-populated! :D
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
So theorecticaly an old film camera will give a sdofield and be on par with a ff camera for a few pounds? ;0
Click to expand...

Exactly :)

Except at my last wedding I'd have needed £700s worth of film & processing instead of - nil, except clicks = depreciation :D

This year so far cheap film cameras would have cost at least £25,000 by comparison to my two £1,200 digital cameras lol

Oh, and as I expect them to last 3 years overall they'll save me about £70,000-£80,000 compared to cheaper film ones ;)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Exactly :)

Except at my last wedding I'd have needed £700s worth of film & processing instead of - nil, except clicks = depreciation :D

This year so far cheap film cameras would have cost at least £25,000 by comparison to my two £1,200 digital cameras lol

Oh, and as I expect them to last 3 years overall they'll save me about £70,000-£80,000 compared to cheaper film ones ;)

Dave
Click to expand...

You mean they've saved your combined clients that amount, as I'm not aware of any business that doesn't charge its costs on within it's costings and profit margins, and usually with a 'handling charge' mark-up too?

Also, I doubt you'd have taken as many photos if it had been costing you that amount per roll plus D&P, as the clients wouldn't have ordered as many? How times change... and how we make work for ourselves to fill in the time we'd otherwise have saved producing a 10 photo de-lux monochrome album! ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
You mean they've saved your combined clients that amount, as I'm not aware of any business that doesn't charge its costs on within it's costings and profit margins, and usually with a 'handling charge' mark-up too?

Also, I doubt you'd have taken as many photos if it had been costing you that amount per roll plus D&P, as the clients wouldn't have ordered as many? How times change... and how we make work for ourselves to fill in the time we'd otherwise have saved producing a 10 photo de-lux monochrome album! ;)
Click to expand...

lol - my last film Weddings were based on the cost of...

36 photos taken, or 72 photos take or the rarely chosen 108 photos taken :D

I didn't enjoy Weddings at all until I had the freedom digital now allows :)

Dave
 
Glad you took my comment the right way, I wasn't having a go at you or the wedding photo profession; just the human race in general! We seem to love making work for ourselves... do you remember all those labour-saving inventions they used to show on Tomorrow's World in the 70s? We were going to have so much leisure time, weren't we? That was about as right as jet cars and protein pills instead of a plate full of calories. Computers... we'd only need to work 1 or 2 days a week if we had those! :facepalm: Meh! :banghead:
 
Mr Badger said:
Glad you took my comment the right way, I wasn't having a go at you or the wedding photo profession; just the human race in general! We seem to love making work for ourselves... do you remember all those labour-saving inventions they used to show on Tomorrow's World in the 70s? We were going to have so much leisure time, weren't we? That was about as right as jet cars and protein pills instead of a plate full of calories. Computers... we'd only need to work 1 or 2 days a week if we had those! :facepalm: Meh! :banghead:
Click to expand...

I LOVED that show - but shouldn't we all have flying cars now and robots doing all the actual work?

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I LOVED that show - but shouldn't we all have flying cars now and robots doing all the actual work?

Dave
Click to expand...
I rest my case. :LOL: Millions of years of evolution and the only thing we seem good at is making life more complicated and more work for ourselves!
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
So theorecticaly an old film camera will give a sdofield and be on par with a ff camera for a few pounds? ;0
Click to expand...

Yes in terms of depth of field, but not in other ways.

There's no changing film speed part way through a roll, and going above 400ASA colour often resulted in images that sucked. Then there's basic image quality, which matters more to some than others - I used to print my own shots, and moved to medium format because prints from colour film lacked crispness and depth. I'd put my D610 DSLR on par with medium format film, and probably better than my Bronica ETR. There is a nice quality to film work that's difficult to replicate with digital, but in most ways I'd say digital is now preferable, and not having a bill for a hundred+ quid after coming back from a holiday doesn't do any harm either. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
There's no changing film speed part way through a roll, [ snip ]
Click to expand...
Yes, you can. You need to develop accordingly which basically means stand development.
 
Snip:
ancient_mariner said:
Yes in terms of depth of field, but not in other ways. There's no changing film speed part way through a roll, and going above 400ASA colour often resulted in images that sucked.
Click to expand...
Perhaps try shooting some Ilford XP2 400 at 200 ISO when it's sunny and at 400 ISO when it's dull (on the same roll of film with standard developing) and see what you think? Also, perhaps have a look on some photo hosting sites such as Flickr, etc. at some results from Kodak Portra 800 ISO film and let me know what you think. It's probably down to personal taste, but I hope this is of at least some interest to you. :)
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
No idea.
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
Does that work for colour too?
Click to expand...
In a way yes.XP1 was, if my memory serves me correctly, based on colour film and relied on the latitude of the emulsion to allow for any iso you wanted to dial in, within reason and to change mid roll. So you could do the same for colour negative film, slide film was a definite no though as it had high contrast and low latitude by comparison to negative stock.
Matt
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I rest my case. :LOL: Millions of years of evolution and the only thing we seem good at is making life more complicated and more work for ourselves!
Click to expand...
Perhaps modern life is more neurotically stressful (or maybe not) whilst less physically laborious? But stress impacts on bodily health. And what about diet? So maybe life is a no-win situation (and it's just the balance that changes)?

So much for film versus sensors!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Snip:
Perhaps try shooting some Ilford XP2 400 at 200 ISO when it's sunny and at 400 ISO when it's dull (on the same roll of film with standard developing) and see what you think? Also, perhaps have a look on some photo hosting sites such as Flickr, etc. at some results from Kodak Portra 800 ISO film and let me know what you think. It's probably down to personal taste, but I hope this is of at least some interest to you. :)
Click to expand...

I did go take a look at the Flickr group. Things are better than they used to be, in that the graininess didn't soil every image as used to be the case with a 1000asa film in 35mm, but they were still very grainy and lacking in detail. Grain was less of an issue where I would judge images to have been over-exposed. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top