Would you give up film if?

Like many, I'm not sure I would ever truly give up b&w film. But, since this is a "describe your ideal camera" thread in disguise, I will answer the question.

I want the impossible: a digital camera inside a mechanical body. I want a digital M3. I want a digital Pen F. I want a digital T3. I want the camera and its operations to still click, and hum, and whir, and spring, like an old watch. I want its images, however, to be saved on a card. I don't need a screen. I don't need autofocus. I just need a heavy, substantial, attractive, largely mechanical camera with the minimum electronics necessary to make digital storing possible.

That's it. That'd make me happy. I haven't found a single electronic interface yet that has come close to the user experience of a mechanical camera, and I have to assume it'll never happen.

I guess the closest we've come to this so far is the M9, and I guess I probably will own one someday... but probably not soon enough. ;)
 
I don't really miss 35mm film all that much, but I still like to shoot medium format. Now, if they ever come out with an affordable digital back for a view camera, I'll be all over it and chuck the larger film formats into the bin.
 
I'd give up film if somebody invented a sensor cartridge I could use in my Pentax LX and in my Bessas -- in any of my 35mm film cameras. Image quality would have to be equal to or better than Kodak BW400CN.

Hmm, no, I then still would use my Mamiya C220f. Unless, of course, there were also sensor rolls in the 120 format.

So it's very likely never going to happen. They want to sell cameras, not sensor cartridges.
 
If I could get a digital RF for the price of a film RF AND it was repairable in the long term AND I could have a 0.85 viewfinder. At the moment an M9 body costs 10x more than an M3 body and the VF magnification is useless for a 90mm lens.

If I were forced to go digital, i.e. film production ceased, I would go the Nikon D700 route because that is vaguely affordable and full-frame. However, I hate the clack of an SLR mirror, the huge blobby design of the thing and I can't use my old Leitz lenses on it, although buying a replacement set of MF Nikkors would be very cheap.
 
thegman said:
/...) I still feel digital is safer (...)
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, I do, too, since we all know that negatives from time to time just self-destruct, and hard drives, SSDs, DVDs and CDs never ever do so. Books are also dangerously unreliable, since they're made from light-sensitive material. Scan them and save them on your cellphone.
 
shadowfox said:
The image is not secondary to anything.
It is *equally* important as the process to some of us.

Gear is secondary. But gear is easy to talk about, hence this forum (and any other fun forum except the really pretentious ones).

Don't get cynical on us, Keith :)
Click to expand...



I'll try ... I promise! Already enough cynics around here I guess. :D

I was developing a roll of Rollei Retro the other day and for some reason my dopey system 4 Paterson tank decided to leak constantly during inversions ... some days it's fine, such a mystery.

I guess I would miss this little treat ... and the smell of Rodinal on my hands for the rest of the day wasn't such a bad thing. :p
 
Keith said:
I'll try ... I promise! Already enough cynics around here I guess. :D

I was developing a roll of Rollei Retro the other day and for some reason my dopey system 4 Paterson tank decided to leak constantly during inversions ... some days it's fine, such a mystery.

I guess I would miss this little treat ... and the smell of Rodinal on my hands for the rest of the day wasn't such a bad thing. :p
Click to expand...



Keith,

So, it's not just me...it's hit & miss if and when they leak...

I'm thinking of developing a few rolls today...I'll have to check how many shots are left on two rolls of 120...
Rodinal concentrate makes me itch...I gotta wash it off as soon as it gets on me...after 30+ years its the only chemical I've had a reaction to...:bang:
 
Last edited:
I'd give up film if there was some type of universal fitting digital full frame sensor that I could use with any of my 35mm bodies.

It would need at least a high enough dynamic range that I wouldn't be able to see a difference in everyday use. I could care less about an lcd screen, seeing my pictures on my computer when I get home is fine with me.

This is really the only way I can imagine giving up film and being completely satisfied: Same controls without any additional menus or annoying buttons, film bodies would hold their value, and as technology continues to advance you simply buy the new sensor rather than an entire body.

Something like this: http://www.re35.net/index.html

That's my dream.
 
I wouldn't give up film as I have just come back to it in the last year. I was using 100% digital before, and it is still the workhorse for me. I shoot film now for the same reasons some people paint - I enjoy the process. It's not all about gear, I actually enjoy the development process. For me, film changes my approach to photography; it has made me much more thoughtful about what I am trying to accomplish. That's a good thing.
 
I think the question "would you give up photography if film disappeared tomorrow?" might be more revealing?

I'll use b&w film 'til it is six feet under. Colour film I don't really use because digital is so easy and good. I think the whole process of using film keeps me more involved- there is more at stake, has more weight, as it were. This could a rationalization, of course.:angel:

If film dropped off the face of the earth I would be sad I didn't get the chance to sell my film cameras for a decent price! But I would head out the door with whatever digital I had.
 
If film dropped off the face of the earth, I'd start learnig about home made emulsions on glass plate.
 
I'd make digital pictures of scenic touristy places or people in their homes, and paint them, fantasy style, with saturated colors:

RedRoofs.jpg


or

womanpettingcatdaydreming.jpg
 
I also think the M9 has came the closest for me but the price is way out of my league.
All of the EVIL cameras fall far short in one way or another. Currently I use my E5 for all of my landscape work and my M6/M3 for most everything else. I have owned a EP-1, EPL-1 and am now trying a Nex 3 but have yet to feel either one would cause me to give up film.
With some of the software on the market and the quality of digital files I think digital has come of age and if done right a certainly can't tell the difference between film and digital.
But I am far from an expert.
 
This year I moved 90% away from film. I purchased a Hasselblad CFV39 back for my Hasselblad system and a Linhof Technikardan 23 with a set of super wide lenses to use the back on also. This may shock some but I sold a load of film gear including several Leica M bodies and lenses. I parted with my 35 asph sum micron and 50 asph summilux.

The CFV39 is amazing with 12 stops dymic range, 16 bit capture and sharper than anything I've ever used.

I still have a nice film system including one MP, one M2 and a mixed set of Zeiss and Leica glass. No regrets.
 
An affordable full-frame digital "all-manual" camera, preferably a rangefinder so I can use my lenses. But I'd also be willing to pay for a Nikon FM2-style digital SLR.

Purely because of the hassle of film though. Here in NZ, it costs a LOT for film/developing/scanning. I'd much prefer to take the shots and put them on my computer when I get home.

That said, I prefer the image aesthetics of film. Digital images all look flat to me, unless heavily processed, which is something I don't care to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom