Full Frame Digital or a "Full Frame" Film Rangefinder

Full Frame Digital or a "Full Frame" Film Rangefinder

  • Full Frame DSLR

    Votes: 53 29.3%

  • Film Camera

    Votes: 128 70.7%
  • Total voters
    181
Gabriel M.A. said:
By "FF" you do mean "full-frame", right? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes,
Another question? With Digital you have less tonal range than print film. Digital seems more like shooting slides. But then you have RAW which allows one to open the range. Problem is then I am not a photographer, I am a computer person. With film, the development is more forgiving, but requires physically riding my bike to Costco, etc. (actually a good thing). other thoughts?
 
I shoot lots of slide film. I used to shoot it almost exclusively in the film era (80s and '90s). So, the dynamic range of digital is not a big issue with me. I have lots of film cameras already, so I don't need another. I'm toying with the idea of getting a D700. Also toying with the idea of getting an M8 now. Can't decide. So, I didn't vote. I'm also toying with the idea of leaving well enough alone. I love my R-D1. Why mess things up with another girl friend?

/T
 
I'm really not convinced that digital has that much less dynamic range than film. But then digital (liek film) is a very variable feast. My daughters G7 shoots jpeg only and hasn't much dynamic range really. My 5D and 1Ds3 both have very high dynamic range in comparison - but I shoot raw as a matter of course and understand how to expose with those cameras. Both far exceed any slide film I've ever used and in practical terms don't seem that different and certainly not worse than colour negative film. B&W may offer a little more in the right ircumstances though - I've not really put that to the test.

(With no intent of starying a war - I use both)

Mike
 
Both. I have both, and I use both for the applications that each of them is best-suited. They are two totally different styles.

Since I shoot professional editorial though, what I would REALLY like to have is a full-frame digital version of my Zeiss Ikon. Now THAT I'd pay good money for, as I could use it on assignment, and it would nicely replace my aging R-D1.
 
Hi
I voted for the rangefinder because it's a completely different way of shooting.
Owning a Zeiss Ikon and a 35 F/2 would be really a dream. I realized it was better the 35 after a short street test in Modena.
However, I'd need also an excellent FF DSLR to pair with my F6 and don't bother on two sets of lenses.
Rather, I wonder why the OP didn't included also a FF DRF in the options...
 
Last edited:
This is a great question. I have been toying with the idea of buying a second hand Canon 5D now that they are obsolete but despite it having fantastic image quality it does not give me what film gives me which is the ability to use different "sensors" whenever I please. With film I have so many different films to choose from and each has a different "fingerprint" with a digital you are stuck with one size fits all.
 
kshapero said:
Simple question: Money aside for now, would you rather have a Full frame Digital Camera, like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D or would you rather have a quality Film Rangefinder like a Leica, ZI or its ilk?
Click to expand...

I do have Leica and ZI film cameras, and I would rather shoot with them than with one of the large DSLRs you mention. But if the choice were a full-frame digital rangefinder (even if a little physically larger than my Leica M), then I would rather have that. I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.

What I really wanted this year was a way to get a second digital M body for less than the price of a second M8. Leica perhaps knows what it's doing bringing out the new mammoth S-2, but I was hoping their photokina surprise would be a Panasonic-built body that took M lenses.

Most of my prints on the walls here are from film images, but really--film is just getting to be more and more of a hassle
 
As someone who started with digital but is getting increasingly into film (*cough* can't wait for the field camera to arrive *cough*), I'll go with the film camera option. Apparently I'm a sucker for process.. but the results are fantastic as well. The top-end DSLRs are outstanding tools as well, but film rocks for my current needs. Interestingly, I felt that my early learning curve was greatly aided by digital due to the instant feedback cycles. But as I progress, film and wet darkroom work is forcing me to improve my skills further and paying dividends for the time invested. Even when working with digital, film work has substantially improved my photography.

Taking "full frame" film camera to mean 35mm.. a Zeiss Ikon would fit the bill perfectly. But I'm really aiming for the Fuji/Voigtländer folder right now.
 
I do vote FF film camera, nevertheless I could indulge myself with a FF digital rangefinder - when and if any.

sniki
 
Tom Diaz said:
I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.
Click to expand...

Your M lenses cover a 35mm film frame yes? A "full frame" digital sensor is the same size as a 35mm film frame, so to answer your question, yes it would fill a "full frame" digital sensor, it would not work with larger sensors such as the one found in the S2

//Jan
 
I would like to have an M7 period. Only camera left I want. I will not waste money by paying those high prices for a digital. I love my digital camera but didnt pay much for it. just a user here and dont need the expense of big camera cause Im getting no return.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom