What Is A 35 Millimeter Camera?

[QUOTE=breal101;417759​0]

buzzyrabbit wrote in post #4177563
They had to buy back the polaroid knockoffs, I don't know about the disc cameras. It sure cost the film labs a bunch of money to buy special processors and adapt their printers to that format.

I seem to remember in the uk, kodak offered a different format camera (110 ? ) when they stopped producing this disc film?

110 preceded disc, I was out of the lab business before the well deserved demise of the disc. I don't know what Kodak did as a remedy. My guess would be the same as they did with the instant camera recall. They offered a coupon towards the purchase of another Kodak camera. Seems there was a cash option too.

Not too bad, had a real nice old old feller ask me, when I worked at Ritz, if I had one of those cameras that stored pictures on it. The ones where you put a stick in it and it can take multiple pictures.

I believe that's how he described it. I just went along and talked to him and showed him what was being made, like they're the first ones ever.

olz wrote in post #4177456
Show the op some respect wiseguys and use your knowledge to answer his question - isn't that what this forum is for?

Sorry, if you were referring to me I was talking about 75 people with the same answer, not the OP.

Tumak wrote in post #4177844
Sorry, if you were referring to me I was talking about 75 people with the same answer, not the OP.

I were referring to no one specific. But I think the OP asked a question that by no means is simple if youre new to SLR's or photography in general. The way his question was answered (by some) is not in a way that he could use for anything. If we want the forum to be open for everybody and not just sore backed well equiped veterans then such questions should be treated with respect.

Well, there were a lot of OT comments on this thread but most were meant to be humerous and not disrespectful to the OP. IMO if we expect everyone to be stiff-necked and white-jacketed and post nothing but straight-up technical facts (rather than opinons) then I think the experts in this forum will expect to be paid

Jimmer411 wrote in post #4174124
.....
I dont completely understand the crop factor. Some people refer to it like its has a teleconverter effect (extra zoom) where others say that it is no zoom, but the image is cropped.

Im leaning more towards the 2nd opinion...

I would agree with you on that.
Imagine that for any given lens, the camera in question has this smaller sensor (approximately 22 mm x 15 mm), and that the 35 mm camera has a sensor (film) that is 1.6 X as big. That means that the digital camera with the smaller sensor delivers an image whose size is just as if you cropped the film image.

The lens is the same, but the amount of the image projected onto the sensor plane is much smaller than it is with the film camera.

WaltA wrote in post #4178049
Well, there were a lot of OT comments on this thread but most were meant to be humerous and not disrespectful to the OP. IMO if we expect everyone to be stiff-necked and white-jacketed and post nothing but straight-up technical facts (rather than opinons) then I think the experts in this forum will expect to be paid

It's not about being stiff necked at all - you could answer a question in a humerous way and still help the person asking a question. It just the "hey - I know the answer to that silly question" attitude that irritates me. And again - it's not a simple question.

Here's a scan of an 8x10 glass negative.
Lots of detail, but kind of slow.
Like 1 pic per hour or something like that.

http://www.damphyne.co​m/gallery/POTNPics/02_​G?full=1

DAMphyne wrote in post #4178239
Here's a scan of an 8x10 glass negative.
Lots of detail, but kind of slow.
Like 1 pic per hour or something like that.

http://www.damphyne.co​m/gallery/POTNPics/02_​G?full=1

Couldn't see it. I got this:

The album or photo that you were attempting to view either does not exist, or requires user privileges that you do not possess. Log in and try again.

-js

number six wrote in post #4178697
Couldn't see it. I got this:

The album or photo that you were attempting to view either does not exist, or requires user privileges that you do not possess. Log in and try again.

-js

I'll see if I can fix that

OK, I'll try again.

http://www.damphyne.co​m/gallery/8x10-Negs/02_G?full=1

http://www.damphyne.co​m/gallery/8x10-Negs

I can see them now..

20droger wrote in post #4174479
You're leaning the wrong way.

And your 50mm explanation is wrong on two counts.

50mm is the focal length that, with a full-frame 35mm camera (or equivalent digital camera) has a field of view most resembling (sort of) that of the human eye. But that is not why it's considered a "normal" lens.

Viewfinders vary widely, and should be left out of it.

This is wrong too, although less wrong.

The "normal" in lenses can't have any less to do with human eye.

A normal lens is one which focal length is equal to the image circle it creates. So a hassy "normal" 80mm is still a normal even if you mount it on a crop camera.

It just so happens that these lenses are designed easier and there is a number of optical aberrations that get cancelled out even in simple designs.

DAMphyne wrote in post #4178239
Here's a scan of an 8x10 glass negative.
Lots of detail, but kind of slow.
Like 1 pic per hour or something like that.

http://www.damphyne.co​m/gallery/POTNPics/02_​G?full=1

I thought this was a link to the full resolution scan. All I seem to be able to get is a few kilobytes of thumbnail.