Originally Posted by
philbob57
Sooo...do you mean the Contaflex beats the Canon SLR? There was an article in one of the mags (US Camera?) in the late '50s-early '60s comparing SLR photos to Leica or Nikon or Canon interchangeable lens RFs. The conclusion was that locking the mirror up made the differences in sharpness disappear. I think they enlarged prints to 16X20. OTOH, if you think the Canon SLR photos are better.... I used a non-quick-release SLR for years, and I never missed the QR, though I didn't do sports. I could do kids and college parties, though.
I went through several 100' rolls of 35 mm film during high school. I never liked 35 mm photography - I much preferred the thought required when dealing with 12 shots on a 120 roll.
On the bench, one can quantify "sharpness/contrast" in a definitive way, but in the real world there are a lot of variables that are involved in drawing conclusions.....shutter speed, film speed, aperture, frontlight/ backlight and so on......
Me too........Film processing and printing costs money, so does slide processing.....On the other hand digital images are free until they are printed. I am always conscious about this and take the time to compose my images as much as possible in the viewfinder whether 35mm or my 6x7.....
IMHO, With todays digital and frame rates, many shots are often made without considering these simple elements of design, cropping after the fact in the computer more than one can with emulsions.. Firing off 15-30 shots on digital costs nothing, doing so increases ones chance for at least "one" keeper.
I shoot digital and when shooting, I still shoot like I am using film....composition and so on, I do appreciate what digital brings to the table.
In action, wildlife and sports one can plan, but in the end, much will still be determined by luck.
JM2C's, Ben