SCL

<p>If you were using the same lens on both cameras, you would probably observe the following. Since your digital body uses a cropped sensor, it uses only the central portion of the image created by the lens. Most lens designs are such that the central portion is sharper than the periphery, especially at wide apertures. Using the same lens on a film body, you would incorporate much more of the periphery. So probably, your digital picture would be sharper at a given image magnification, as it wouldn't have to contend with the edge falloff in sharpness. If you likewise cropped your film picture to eliminate the area your digital camera did, AND you had an excellent scan, AND youused the same image magnification, they would probably be about the same, with the film version of the shot exhibiting greater dynamic range. From a cost standpoint, since you raised the issue initially, your digital body has the advantage, as you don't have to pay for the scans.</p>

<p>Actually resolution is a direct function of the design and quality of your lens (es) at least, if not more than, your sensor or film. Some lenses can outresolve almost any sensor or film on the market. I am curious if you are using the term resolution and thinking it is interchangeable for "sharpness", of which it is only one component. Anyway, back to your question, without all details of what lenses you would use on each, as well as what film and development you would use, it is impossible to answer your question.</p>

<p>Nice shots....aren't these lenses a lot of fun?</p>

<p>Oh yeah...I really need it for my Brownie....I'm not sure how I managed to take pictures without it. Same for my Minox...maybe James Bond was light years ahead of us and had it on his. My Leicas seem to do well without it.</p>

<p>Cheap and high quality are diametrically opposed. The search function will give you lots of information from others' questions about processing your own film, both b&W and color, depending on the type of film you anticipate using. Unless you purchase a dedicated film scanner, you are still going to have to use a lab to do high quality scans from your negatives/positives.</p>

<p>I owned the 80-200L for about 7-8 years, it saw frequent use, but not as much as it should have. It was a truly superior lens, very comparable to its Leica R equivalent, but with a little greater saturation. If I needed a lens in that focal length range for a project, my first choice would be the FD L, almost regardless of cost. IMHO it is one of Canon's all time best lenses. Almost everybody who has used this lens is in complete agreement that it is head and shoulders above almost anything else Canon offered in the FD line. Here's a ref. to some old data in Photozone (you will need to scroll down) where people rated the lens (along with hundreds of others), you will note the high ratings in each category of evaluation: http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The MSC II 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 was the 2nd version, better than the 1st, less wobble. You can often find them for $60 or so on Ebay. Very versatile and easily sharp enough for everyday work. I use the E-PL2 with this lens and a bunch of legacy lenses via adapters, haven't printed any enlargements greater than 9x12, but the ones I did, looked fine as long as I wasn't pixel peeping. Great for web usage.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>This is one I have used for years, designed by Tim Jackson. The first 14 pages of the PDF are instructions, helpful hints and illustrations of how to set things up, the last page is the test chart itself. http://www.kscameraclub.org/docs/pdfs/focus_test_chart_edited.pdf<br> As Ellis mentions above, it is really critical to get everything properly oriented for accurate results. This chart is angled at 45 degrees from the sensor plane. I have my copy mounted on a piece of foam mounted on a 45 degree triangle I cut out for this purpose. When using, I ensure the camera itself (on a tripod) is exactly 90 degrees from the floor and that the rear edge of the triangle with the chart is 90 degrees from the floor. Additionally, I measure to ensure both the center of the camera lens and the center of the chart are the same distance from the floor, and that the chart is also properly aligned sidewise (left and right edges).</p>

<div></div>

<p>The 35/f2.5 Color Skopar is a sharp lens at all distances especially when stopped down to f/4-f/8. Either your lens needs adjustment or your camera body needs adjustment. Do you have another lens you can try on the body? You don't actually have to shoot pictures to check sharpness out if you have a few tools: put the camera on a tripod and using a cable release open the shutter at the Bulb setting. Open the camera back and place a piece of ground glass, or an old viewfinder screen, or even a piece of matte scotch tape firmly across the film rails. Now view the image with either a loupe or even a 50mm lens as you turn the focus ring on the lens. When the far distant (think infinity - at least 300 ft away) image comes into sharp focus, check the rangefinder to see if the images coincide. If they do, your camera is fine, if not, you need to align the rangefinder. If you don't get a sharp image, your lens needs attention.</p>

<p>It depends on the shade of red. Not necessarily used on a tripod or bright light - depends on your film ISO and the effect you are interested in achieving.</p>

<p>It is a phenomenon typical of underexposed negatives when light hits the emulsion in a certain fashion. If you underexposed a whole roll and viewed the negatives so light reflected from them at a particular angle they would appear as positives. Nothing new or unusual or related to your developer.</p>

<p>Rajath - Just basic online research would confirm for you that the camera needs a battery to operate the shutter. It operates on an aperture priority system - you select the aperture and the camera electronically selects the shutter speed. There are readily available substitutes for the original battery...but you either have to buy a little adapter or "roll up a paper tube" to hold two batteries in the proper orientation and connection...not a big deal. As far as scanning....the DSLRr method is about the worst of the options....you could do better in many cases by having your processor scan the negatives, and if done at a high enough resolution, they will match the best output of your DSLR.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I think you are thrashing about, and need to really narrow your focus. In a film camera, what film do you want to use....35mm, 120 film or another format. If you don't know, then don't even think about looking for a camera at this juncture. 35mm film cameras will be the most prevalent, and the most convenient, both in terms of potential repairs and availability of film and processing. 120, as Dave mentioned is excellent, but if you aren't doing your own processing, it quickly becomes expensive. Forget other formats, the films are either no longer available, or highly expensive, or you have to respool or cut and/respool your own after getting the right alternative sizes. When the Yashica Electros are working properly and in good shape (rangefinder well adjusted, lenses clear and free of haze, cleaning marks, etc), they deliver excellent sharpness and contrast. You can find much better deals in film bodies than the prices you mentioned. My local charity stores routinely carry working 35mm film cameras for $4-10....some are really good, like the Olympus Stylus I picked up for $8 and the Canon Sure Shot Megazoom 105 which went with me in my car for several years, and cost me all of $7. If you learn to do your own processing, the costs of operation of any camera diminishes after the initial investment in equipment and chemicals. Whereas local processors used to be in every drugstore and grocery chain, few handle film any longer.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Probably a useful thing for you to have is a ND filter which would effectively reduce the ISO of your film. They come in various strengths, I usually keep a 1 stop and a 3 stop on hand.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Jesper - Yes the Rangefinder Forum.</p>

<p>Yes there is a crop factor as the sensor size is not the same as a 645 negative. I noticed in the RFF that this issue was discussed at length.</p>

<div></div>