Film cameras vs digital

[froyd]

Much of the film vs digital debate focuses on the medium which records the image, with endless debates about DR, cost of film, grain, ISO capabilities, digital "look" vs analog, etc.

For me, the resistance to migrating to digital is due to a lack of suitable cameras, not doubts about whether CCD and CMOS sensors are up to the job. I want an M4 with a digital back, maybe an M6, nothing crazier than that

Is anybody else in my boat? If so, woe is us because the future does not see rosy.

Right now only an M9 comes close, though, I would prefer if it were married with an Rd1 and had a little baby combining some features from both. Fuji's X 100 and XP1 are trying to hark back to the simplicity of mechanical cameras, but they go to far in my book relying on an EVF.

I would also be happy with a digital Nikon F3, but every Nikon after the F4 abandoned the traditional aperture/shutter control layout for something that does not work equally well for me.

The D40 of the world are very capable cameras, there's little to excite me at the prospect of handling their polycarbonate shells and pushing their plastic buttons.

Then again, I feel even in the film world things started going south with the Minolta Maxxums (save for the fantastic 9000) and the EOS1. I guss I'm just an old fart --at least at heart if not in age!

 

[defconfunk]

I understand your feeling. My digital body is mostly alloy, and the new digital bodies feel too plasticky for me. My biggest reasons for still shooting my Canon AE-1 are the amazing view finder and the feel of it. I want a digital camera with that nice clean mechanical feel.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Much of the film vs digital debate focuses on the medium which records the image, with endless debates about DR, cost of film, grain, ISO capabilities, digital "look" vs analog, etc.

For me, the resistance to migrating to digital is due to a lack of suitable cameras, not doubts about whether CCD and CMOS sensors are up to the job. I want an M4 with a digital back, maybe an M6, nothing crazier than that

Is anybody else in my boat? If so, woe is us because the future does not see rosy.

Right now only an M9 comes close, though, I would prefer if it were married with an Rd1 and had a little baby combining some features from both. Fuji's X 100 and XP1 are trying to hark back to the simplicity of mechanical cameras, but they go to far in my book relying on an EVF.

I would also be happy with a digital Nikon F3, but every Nikon after the F4 abandoned the traditional aperture/shutter control layout for something that does not work equally well for me.

The D40 of the world are very capable cameras, there's little to excite me at the prospect of handling their polycarbonate shells and pushing their plastic buttons.

Then again, I feel even in the film world things started going south with the Minolta Maxxums (save for the fantastic 9000) and the EOS1. I guss I'm just an old fart --at least at heart if not in age!

That's why I've been using digi-Ms since they came out (and I've had all three).

Are they perfect? Assuredly no. Are they better than any of the alternatives? Equally assuredly yes. At least for me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Contarama]

When they come out with a digital back for the F2 I will be the happiest fella alive. Until then I'll keep lugging around this big plastic gas tank of camera.

I confess they have made a digital back for the F3 (Kodak DCS) but I need one a little more updated and with more portability than that one.

Are Kodak DCS's still available how much do they cost and would it be possible to modify one with a modern sensor?

 

[Chris101]

No. The "retro digi-cam" market is gone crazy. I don't care how good a digital camera is, if they put it in a retro-styled body, I won't touch it. I want a digicam to go beyond the slr/rangefinder of the 1980's. That is when the manual focus camera matured, everything since then has been an add on.

My current digicam is the Lytro, not because of its superior photographic capabilities, but because it's something different. I encourage different - and prices we can afford. M9M sounds like a great camera. At a price I will never be able to swing.

 

[Spanik]

I follow you completely. My dream digital camera is a Practika MTL-3: FF, a viewfinder, iso dial, speed dial, focus and diaphragm rings on the lenses. And a standard threaded release button. No need for a display apart from something that says how much battery and card space left. If they made it in 6x4.5 or 6x6 it would be even better. (in other words a Kiev 60 😀)

And don't tell me they can't make it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . And don't tell me they can't make it.

They can make it. But can they sell it? (Consumers vs. photographers).

Cheers,

R

 

[Spanik]

They can make it. But can they sell it?

Did they try? It's not like this asks for more or a new sensor or other cutting edge technology.

I think Fuji could pull the stunt.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Did they try? It's not like this asks for more or a new sensor or other cutting edge technology.

I think Fuji could pull the stunt.

Quite possibly. So try to persuade them...

Cheers,

R.

 

[froyd]

No. The "retro digi-cam" market is gone crazy. I don't care how good a digital camera is, if they put it in a retro-styled body, I won't touch it. I want a digicam to go beyond the slr/rangefinder of the 1980's. That is when the manual focus camera matured, everything since then has been an add on.

My current digicam is the Lytro, not because of its superior photographic capabilities, but because it's something different. I encourage different - and prices we can afford. M9M sounds like a great camera. At a price I will never be able to swing.

Hi Chris, I wanted to clarify that I'm not particuarly interested in the retro look, as you desribe it. I am guessing you would agree that Nikon F4 would sooner desribed as contemporary in styling, than retro.

What I like, is a solidly built camera with manual controls arranged in a traditional layout, so I agree with you that many cameras circa 1980 fit that bill, though several in the 90's did as well.

Regarding the Lytro, I am very curious about the system and new paradigm of photography, but I imagine that if i owned one, I would still like to hang on to a tradititonal type of camera.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm a dinosaur or neo-luddite. When I started photography in earnest, I was a big fan of Minolta because their endless innovation, always ahead of the curve...honeycomb metering, cameras with porst for cards that changed the machine's behavior, ultra-fast AF (for the time), 1/12000 of a sceond shutter...crazy stuff. However, along the path, I started a process of "devolution" toward simpler cameras and I've not felt the urge to evolve again since then.

 

[defconfunk]

What I like, is a solidly built camera with manual controls arranged in a traditional layout.

For me it also comes down to the sensation of using the camera. I'm one of those people who has been using an IBM M keyboard since the early 90s (same one) because I just like how it feels to type on. Similarly I just like how a mechanical (fully mechanical, or electro-mechanical) camera feels. When you hit the shutter release and feel the camera doing its thing. That's special to me. And frankly, it is lost on most digital cameras.

I've got mixed feelings on all the options a DSLR gives you. On one hand, I want to be able to easily set my ISO, WB, and all those things that mean extra buttons (or worse, menus). I wouldn't buy a DSLR without OCD levels of control for all those things. But then I pick up my film cameras with a single dial up top for shutter speed, focus and aperture on the lens, and that is all. And I suddenly that is all I need.

I've played with an OM-D, and while it looks nice (I prefer the reto to the futuristic), and really is an amazing piece of kit, it utterly lacks the feel I look for in my camera.

 

[Chris101]

Hi Chris, I wanted to clarify that I'm not particuarly interested in the retro look, as you desribe it. I am guessing you would agree that Nikon F4 would sooner desribed as contemporary in styling, than retro.

What I like, is a solidly built camera with manual controls arranged in a traditional layout, so I agree with you that many cameras circa 1980 fit that bill, though several in the 90's did as well.

Regarding the Lytro, I am very curious about the system and new paradigm of photography, but I imagine that if i owned one, I would still like to hang on to a tradititonal type of camera.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm a dinosaur or neo-luddite. When I started photography in earnest, I was a big fan of Minolta because their endless innovation, always ahead of the curve...honeycomb metering, cameras with porst for cards that changed the machine's behavior, ultra-fast AF (for the time), 1/12000 of a sceond shutter...crazy stuff. However, along the path, I started a process of "devolution" toward simpler cameras and I've not felt the urge to evolve again since then.

Devolution - I can certainly get behind that! In fact, I do have other cameras available. The Lytro is fun, and it does push the envelope significantly. However it does not take the place of other cameras primarily because the pictures are so small. There are also artefacts that, while they may be useful creatively, are quite a distraction.

I do like the minimal control layout. There is a combination "on" and shutter button, a zoom bar that you rub your finger along, an "on/off" button, and a touch-screen that lets you selectively focus, adjust the exposure and chimp previous pictures. It will focus close until the subject bumps the lens.

As for the retro-status of the F4, that is a tough call.