Guess I am just an old fart then. I do prepress setup and run digital "presses". I use computers all day. I've got 6 at home I use. 3 at work. PC's and 1 Mac. I shoot both film and digital. More digital than film anymore though. I am pretty good with the Adobe Suite. Well at least good enough they got me to pre public beta test CS5 last year. It's not that digital isn't as good. It has a different feel. Digital is either on or off. (Binary) Yes it can be on or off to really small amount but analog can be "a tad"
As for us film guys: Unless you are truly doing a wet process and it's not scanned it's film quality. If the processing company scans and then prints it is no better than digital. You lose the film qualities as soon as it gets into the digital realm.
Many of the old lenses are better. One thing I've noticed about the generations after mine. They seem to want a lot if things but will accept lesser quality. I often wonder if they realize what quality really is. We are, and have been for a while a throw away society. Just because they tell you it's the latest and the greatest doesn't make it so. The old things were made to last.
I sure can think of some older things that certanly werent made to last but I do set your point. Perhaps your a bit more nostalgic about it than others though.
Since I have only had my entry DSL a bit over a year I can't speak to its lasting dependability but this far it has not fiven me even the slightest hint that if kept well, wouldn't be used 20 years from now.
I would have to think I would fall in the generation after you (29) and will agree some may not be aware if what quality is but I'm not sure that is all our own fault. I personally get a warm felling and am satisfied with myself when I purchase something that I deem to be of high quality and really seek to own only the highest quality objects in there respective genre. I also find myself telling members on these forums to save up for a better quality product (eheim v Chinese knockoff) as it will payoff in the end. One of the most memorable discussions I have had though was with a member from the generation prior to mine though. They actually told me that since the lesser product was so much cheaper that to him the value was found in the fact he could just purchase a whole new cheapo filter (and would happily) if the filter he owned had a component break and that he couldn't just purchase that broken part...
That blew my mind.
Originally Posted by driftwoodhunter
I'd like to say, I miss slide film! I'm relatively new to digital (less than 5 years) and one thing is obvious to me - to nail film photos, you had to know your stuff. Today, anyone can take a mediocre photo, run it through endless post processing, and fix problems the easy way out. Take a thousand photos at a time to get a handful of decent ones? No problem! Do that with film, and you'd force yourself fast enough to learn how to use the equipment...
I belong to a Canon forum, and almost every poster talks more about their post processing more than they take about the experience of taking the photo...
I'm trying to wrap my head around taking pix with a film camera then having the time it takes to develop those shots to see your mistakes. How on earth could you remember exactly what you were doing or what your settings were to know what you need to change?
They more than likely just didn't need the f/1.4 speed. Some people are perfectly content with f/1.8 being the fastest aperture available, and would rather have the $$ difference in their pockets. If you need f/1.4, then you need f/1.4, no way around it...otherwise most people are fine with f/1.8
And yes, I have several lenses that are that expensive, and I too routinely buy lenses on FM. It most definitely is worth it if you're looking for the best image quality possible, and especially so if you're using it for professional use.
Also, f/1.4 does not make it good for macro shots. In fact, there's no macro lens that I know of that goes to f/1.4, most only go to f/2.8...
Actually, the new 70-200 2.8 VRII goes for around $1950 to $2,300 used. Brand news it's a $2400 lens like you said. The older 70 -200 2.8 VRI goes for $1500 used, but its the older first generation model, and it doesn't do so well on FX (extreme vignetting)...
Sweet! You're #017...
#001 - TickleMyElmo
#002 - SkyGrl
#003 - jahmic
#004 - scream-aim-fire
#005 - Moody636
#007 - Da Plant Man
#008 - zainey_04
#009 - AzFishKid
#010 - msjinkzd
#011 - manini
#012 - Nubster
#013 - bsmith
#014 - Minja
#015 - jeepn4x4
#016 - lonnie123
#017 - nvladik
I would also recommend the Nikon SB-600...
From what I read in this post a 50mm f1.4/.8 prime could be used as an excellent macro lens. Did I miss interpret something?