Eric T
Well-known
This is an apples and oranges comparison. The dSLR can do things a rangefinder can never do. The rangefinder is easier to carry to more places, events and is stealthier. It's best to have both.
But if I could only have one, it would be a full-frame dSLR because it can do it all from macro to telephoto to fast action at low light, etc.
Eric
But if I could only have one, it would be a full-frame dSLR because it can do it all from macro to telephoto to fast action at low light, etc.
Eric
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
That piece about the record channel catfish being caught with the Barbie Fishing Rod is the best thing I've seen on the internet in months! Thanks for posting.
As for the question at hand, I'd like to have both. I don't have a FF digital right now, and I find the focal length shift with smaller sensors to be annoying, but workable. About cameras, I've never handled a digital camera that inspired in me anything like the affection a good film camera can. From Leicas to large format cameras, I find something compelling about good film kit. A good digital camera, on the other hand, does it's job, but inspires about as much affection in me as any other handful of plastic- none.
Far and away the worst thing about digital, though, is that you don't get negatives. Digital is great for snapshots and throw-away work like commercial jobs where no one will care about the image in 6 months; but if it's important to me in any way, I'll keep shooting it on film as long as I can.
As for the question at hand, I'd like to have both. I don't have a FF digital right now, and I find the focal length shift with smaller sensors to be annoying, but workable. About cameras, I've never handled a digital camera that inspired in me anything like the affection a good film camera can. From Leicas to large format cameras, I find something compelling about good film kit. A good digital camera, on the other hand, does it's job, but inspires about as much affection in me as any other handful of plastic- none.
Far and away the worst thing about digital, though, is that you don't get negatives. Digital is great for snapshots and throw-away work like commercial jobs where no one will care about the image in 6 months; but if it's important to me in any way, I'll keep shooting it on film as long as I can.
Zenjitsuman
Established
While I love film whether in a RF like my M4 or in my F3hp or F100 or LX, I have to vote for digital. I hope someone will make an affordable DRF soon but digital makes financial sense and allows low light shots even a RF cannot get.
Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.
Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yes, but some orange lovers hate apples to the death, and to them there's no comparison! Or else.
You open-minded silly you
photogdave
Shops local
I'll never understand the "digital makes financial sense" argument.
Canon 10D in 2003: $2500
Canon 40D in 2008: $1200
Trade in value of 10D on 40D: $200 (if you're lucky!)
Leica M4 from 1971 still going strong today: Priceless!
Just having a little fun folks. Don't take it seriously!
R
ruben
Guest
In my view, we should choose between systems, not single cameras. Film systems besides cameras and lens extends to darkroom.
Digital camera systems require, besides camera and lenses, high quality computer, screen, scanner and the best possible printer. All of these, including the cameras, are still subject to speedy research and development, making your purchase of today obsolete within two years.
Therefore let's keep conservative until the dust settles.
Cheers,
Ruben
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I voted FF DSLR here and with my money having got a D700. No regrets going that way and I can use all my old lenses. Never bought into the DX concept so nothing to sell and never had to up grade bodies either. If the M8 was FF and did not have as many foibles I might have gone for it. If I have the urge to use an film RF I still have some to choose from. Let see what Photokina brings this year.
Bob
Bob
PICHA
Established
Film + digital lab.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It isn't hard for me, whether FF or the smaller DSLR. Digital doesn't have the dynamic range or the color rendition that I like. Plus B&W (digital) is Zilch, Nada or 0% of nothing with digital. Therefore, I sit here with 3 digital cameras (P&S and 2 DSLRs) that I use for photographing the kids and the grandkids. As Tomas a Becket said to Henry II: It just isn't the same.
Last edited:
mikeb380
Camera Junky
Gee, I don't understand your statement. I used my Canon RF with KODAK 2475 film shooting in NY bars and way-way-way off Broadway shows and Village poetry readings, etc and got photos no digital could ever get. With the high noise level of digitals and the poor rendition in B&W there is no way any meaningful low light ( Available light?) shots can be made with a digital camera unless you are in a situation where any film would fail due to reciprocity failure although in my over 50 years I've never encountered such. Sounds to me more like a lack of knowledge than an equipment problem. Best hit the books.
As to earning money with a camera(s) I did so for over 40 years before even considering a digital. The only reason for me to use digital now is that I have a small apartment and very little room for a darkroom. That tied to my lesser income mandates a slow gathering of darkroom equipment so I can get the most from film. I don't believe in sending film to a lab as any work done there is a compromise at best.
I also find that the digital cameras are too light. I find that a Canon F1 with motor drive is perfect for hand holding a 300mm lens. The weight adds stabilization. my EOS 350D is so light that a 200 is pretty iffy for hand holding. I now carry a unipod on my walker to help in that area but it is pretty clumsy for walk around. Most subjects don't stand still while you set up a pod. They're too impatient, I guess.
I just "upgraded" my digital camera to gain more MP and boy was that a mistake! I gave my old Canon 300D to my son-in-law and got the 350D (XT) and is it ever a sorry performer. it is noisy at even ASA 400 and above that is useless. I think I'll ask my SIL to trade cameras with me. Who says "new technology" is progress? All the manufacturers want is to sell any junk they can. I'll stick to my film cameras, especially the Zorkiis, the Canon F1 and the Kiev 88. I'd have done better to put the money for the digital into darkroom equipment. Anyone got a 6X7 enlarger they want to ship out? I have a 4X5 view camera but no room for that large an enlarger.
BTW, I am using a 250mm Jupiter lens from my Kiev on my Digital camera as well as a 200mm pentax lens both of which I can also use on my F1. I bought an adapter to use my FD lenses on the Digital but the adapter was a ripoff. The Jupiter 250 gives me an equivalent to a 560mm lens but boy is it heavy! I'm going to train my grandson to carry it for me.
I can rest it on his head with a sandbag for shooting.Michael :bang:
Last edited:
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My way of looking at this subject can be contentious:
The digital camera price premium—a subject of much debate—is really just pre-paying for the recurring film/processing costs up front. If you take pictures—rather than just talking about taking pictures—you must face it, sooner or later.
Whether a SLR or RF depends on what you intend to do, or must do. We all know RF cannot support long lenses—so tout wide-angles? We all know SLR shutters are louder, so some celebrate the soft Leica “clop”? The truth is, if you were a sports photographer, you use a Nikon or Canon, or you are not getting much pay. You wouldn’t care about the shutter noise either.
Some like to think RF users are the poets of photographers. I agree the muse or spontaneity of a poet can be spoiled by camera bulk and weight. If I had a “camera bearer”, I wouldn’t care either…let the poetry flow.
Film v. digital is another subject of much debate. Just remember, film had a couple centuries of development, digital only a decade. However, we do have a choice…going all the way back to char coals, cave man style.
Digital requires computer/software for further artful processing, instead of a dark room. So, how many have dark rooms? A computer is household appliance these days, and costs far less…and needing only desk space. Learning to use a computer is not more difficult than learning darkroom operations and techniques…at least you can see what you are doing, in real-time.
Better yet, bracket (no film/processing costs, remember?) or re-learn how to do a straight shot…thus a straight print, with no need for further processing. Keep the best and delete the rest, RAW, JPEG or whatever had no real meaning anymore.
A new medium begets new display technology. I have recently downloaded a couple D3 samples and examined it carefully on my 22” 1,680 x 1,050 LCD screen. The image quality is impressive…far better than lousy prints I mostly see. And, who has made a 24” x 36” print lately?
[And one day soon, you will have large 1,080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens at home. Imagine a revolving gallery of your prized pictures while you are not watching HDTV.]
What do you care if the chip size is DX or FX? Who says the 24 x 36mm format had to be the standard forever? It was a make-do compromise of surplus movie stock to begin with, remember?
I believe the Nikon FX/EXSPEED image quality had brought the subject to a head. If a DSLR has been achieved, why not a DRF? We all know…deep down…the M8 was a disappointment fringing on insult. If that was all Solms can do then someone should kick its ass, it’s about time. By Photokina ‘08, history might just repeat itself.
Kodak had a painful transition from film to digital while many others simply waiting to die. Kodak’s new slogan should well be:
“You push the button…we [and others] have already done the rest.”
Take pictures.
:The digital camera price premium—a subject of much debate—is really just pre-paying for the recurring film/processing costs up front. If you take pictures—rather than just talking about taking pictures—you must face it, sooner or later.
Whether a SLR or RF depends on what you intend to do, or must do. We all know RF cannot support long lenses—so tout wide-angles? We all know SLR shutters are louder, so some celebrate the soft Leica “clop”? The truth is, if you were a sports photographer, you use a Nikon or Canon, or you are not getting much pay. You wouldn’t care about the shutter noise either
.Some like to think RF users are the poets of photographers. I agree the muse or spontaneity of a poet can be spoiled by camera bulk and weight. If I had a “camera bearer”, I wouldn’t care either…let the poetry flow.
Film v. digital is another subject of much debate. Just remember, film had a couple centuries of development, digital only a decade. However, we do have a choice…going all the way back to char coals, cave man style.
Digital requires computer/software for further artful processing, instead of a dark room. So, how many have dark rooms? A computer is household appliance these days, and costs far less…and needing only desk space. Learning to use a computer is not more difficult than learning darkroom operations and techniques…at least you can see what you are doing
, in real-time.Better yet, bracket (no film/processing costs, remember?) or re-learn how to do a straight shot…thus a straight print, with no need for further processing. Keep the best and delete the rest, RAW, JPEG or whatever had no real meaning anymore.
A new medium begets new display technology. I have recently downloaded a couple D3 samples and examined it carefully on my 22” 1,680 x 1,050 LCD screen. The image quality is impressive…far better than lousy prints I mostly see. And, who has made a 24” x 36” print lately?
[And one day soon, you will have large 1,080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens at home. Imagine a revolving gallery of your prized pictures while you are not watching HDTV.]
What do you care if the chip size is DX or FX? Who says the 24 x 36mm format had to be the standard forever? It was a make-do compromise of surplus movie stock to begin with, remember?
I believe the Nikon FX/EXSPEED image quality had brought the subject to a head. If a DSLR has been achieved, why not a DRF? We all know…deep down…the M8 was a disappointment fringing on insult. If that was all Solms can do then someone should kick its ass, it’s about time. By Photokina ‘08, history might just repeat itself.
Kodak had a painful transition from film to digital while many others simply waiting to die. Kodak’s new slogan should well be:
“You push the button…we [and others] have already done the rest.”
Take pictures.
ederek
Well-known
"OR" questions can be interesting... maybe there's a way around this one....
Already had a 5d and wouldn't give it up, so picked up a Kiev for a song. Hello manual. Hadn't used film in 8 years. Gossen DigiSix to help with exposures.... Uh oh, the Kiev is having mechanical problems! Hhmm, what to do? Adjust the g.a.s.!
So, it was an 85 1.2L for the 5d, OR an M4, 50 Summicron, 135 Elmarit and a Microtek M1 Scanner.
Well, the M4 is on its way!
To feed the scanner, will need to add a setup for developing B&W film. This shouldn't cost much more than a couple filters for that 85 would have. Wanted a film scanner anyway, and to Ruben's point, the rest of the digital darkroom is common for both systems.
Looking forward to the best of both worlds...
Already had a 5d and wouldn't give it up, so picked up a Kiev for a song. Hello manual. Hadn't used film in 8 years. Gossen DigiSix to help with exposures.... Uh oh, the Kiev is having mechanical problems! Hhmm, what to do? Adjust the g.a.s.!
So, it was an 85 1.2L for the 5d, OR an M4, 50 Summicron, 135 Elmarit and a Microtek M1 Scanner.
Well, the M4 is on its way!
To feed the scanner, will need to add a setup for developing B&W film. This shouldn't cost much more than a couple filters for that 85 would have. Wanted a film scanner anyway, and to Ruben's point, the rest of the digital darkroom is common for both systems.
Looking forward to the best of both worlds...
Last edited:
blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
A full frame DSLR with the capability of a D700 but with the size of an OM4 please, and with fast <f2 glass available between 15 and 90mm
Last edited:
JonasYip
Well-known
I have both poll options, but I voted FF DSLR since I rarely use any of my film RF bodies since going (non-FF) digital RF.
(I purposely avoided reading the rest of the responses because I can only assume it quickly devolved into the same old same-old: digital/film, RF/SLR, apples/oranges...)
EDIT: Someone else probably said this, but if the other option was FF digital RF instead of film then my answer would be RF.
(I purposely avoided reading the rest of the responses because I can only assume it quickly devolved into the same old same-old: digital/film, RF/SLR, apples/oranges...)
EDIT: Someone else probably said this, but if the other option was FF digital RF instead of film then my answer would be RF.
Last edited:
urban_alchemist
Well-known
MP and full-frame digital M...
Why discriminate?
Why discriminate?
MaxElmar
Well-known
Man I hate to "Me too" - but - Same here. Not so much "brain off," but different, more relaxed part of "brain on" with Bessa.....
Oh, and since I'm a Nikon guy from the heyday of film, no lens issues with FF (FX in Nikon speak) for me.
Last edited:
stuken
Established
Until digital enlargers become more commonplace, I will shoot film.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I voted FF digital - I am fortunate, but a 5D/1Ds3 is more versatile than an film RF. But I love using the RF and so do that as well. It would be nice to split it work/pleasure, but really it's more need/mood.
Mike
Mike
S
Socke
Guest
I'll never understand the "digital makes financial sense" argument.
Canon 10D in 2003: $2500
Canon 40D in 2008: $1200
Trade in value of 10D on 40D: $200 (if you're lucky!)
Leica M4 from 1971 still going strong today: Priceless!
Just having a little fun folks. Don't take it seriously!
Hm, Canon D60 2400 Euro in April 2002 and now in the hands of my nephews. Inbetween I shot some 60.000 frames.
Some 5500 rolls C41 incl. development are around 33.000 Euro, good deal as far as I'm concerned
Edit:
My math has left me! It's only some 1700 rolls and 5100 Euros
Still a good deal
Last edited by a moderator:
narsuitus
Well-known
Since I don’t need another film rangefinder, I would select a full-frame digital like the Nikon D3, Nikon D700, Hasselblad, or the rumored Fuji S6.