Going fully analog

[Novembersierra]

Hello all, I'm experiencing some bad sleep due to this question..
I used for two years a Canon 40D and a couple of lenses (50mm/28mm), great camera for its price, but in the meantime I started acquiring film cameras and vintage lenses, some come from the family, some from the bay.. the last one is a 2.8 Rolleiflex C, what a beauty.
The 35mm are an AE-1 with two adapted S-K lenses and a Retina IIa.

Needless to say, the aps-c sensor feels small now.
Whats would you do?

 

[noisycheese]

I would put the 40D in the sock drawer and shoot with the Rollei C f/2.8; it is 5000 times the camera that the 40D is. I doubt than many here would disagree.

... an AE-1 with two adapted S-K lenses...

I'm not sure which lenses you are referring to here, but if you shop for a couple of prime (non-zoom) lenses for the Canon AE-1 like perhaps an older Canon 50mm and a 35mm or 28mm, you will have a great 35mm kit - and the lenses will probably be purchased for a song.

The 40D will come in handy for some things, like when you want images without the time lag of film based photography. The AE-1 with some clean, prime lenses will give you a whole new experience in photography.

The Rollei C f/2.8 will give you sublime image quality that will surpass all your other cameras and lenses by light years.

 

[rbsinto]

Me?
I'd just keep on shooting with my Nikon rangefinders and Nikon manual focus, mostly mechanical film cameras, but I'm afraid you'll just have to make up your own mind on what to do.
But if you want a hint, it involves an experiment to see what happens when a ball pein hammer moving at high speed meets a stationary Canon digital camera body.
Hope this helps.

 

[mdarnton]

Don't gey all religious about it. They're all just tools. I find my analog cameras good for some things, and other things they can't do, but the digital ones can.

 

[one90guy]

Keep both, as already said they compliment each other, I think you will regret selling your digital. I was totally film from 1968 till 2010, I started playing with my wife's P&S 4 meg Samsung. I feel my digital has helped my film work. I do a lot of experimenting with the digital and get real time results. Good luck and welcome to the forum.

David

 

[noisycheese]

Don't gey all religious about it. They're all just tools. I find my analog cameras good for some things, and other things they can't do, but the digital ones can.

True. In the end, cameras are tools - vehicles for photography that we use to arrive at our photographic destinations. There are no useless cameras*. They all perform some photographic function.










*With the exception of APS film cameras, of course. 😀

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Why limit yourself to one medium? Film and digital may compete on one level but they are parallel technologies that have their own strengths and weaknesses. If I HAD to choose one, I'd go for film every time - but that's personal choice and there's no particularly logical reason for that choice other than "I prefer it". But that's just me.....

 

[shadowfox]

Relax, no need to lose sleep over this.
Shoot with anything that produces images you are happy with. I also have a Rolleiflex 2.8C and couldn't agree more with other satisfied owners.

Soon you'd realize that it's usually the photographer's eyes and brains that is the limit, not the camera.
If you are one of those few people who are exceptions to this rule, then you can start losing sleep 😀

 

[Novembersierra]

Thanks for your replies and thoughts. I could live with the 40D but somehow feel bad having too many cameras: If it wasn't for the various formats, I'd be a one camera - jack of all trades kind of guy.
So now that I have 6x6 covered, a 35mm and perhaps a 4x5 (christmas is coming, anyone wants to give me their 150 2.8 Xenotar?) would do it.
Am I asking too much?
I understand the medium/tool point of view, but I'm hardly justifying keeping a bulky aps camera. Moreover, it's losing its value every day. I could do with a full frame digital rangefinder (sony?) for snapshots but they're damn expensive!
Ahh, decision times.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Coming from someone who is relatively young and is full fledged film I'll have to say this.

I was in your shoes about 8 years ago. Digital wasn't cutting it and I liked the look and quality I got from 35mm film. Back then processing only was cheap and I picked up an old Canon 4400f scanner and was off.

This was back when I was shooting with an Olympus Evolt E-300. Which I still have. Sensor sizes were small and crop factor was sitting around 2x.

To this day I'm still a film shooter. I can't get in the groove of shooting digital. It doesnt have the same reward as film. There is nothing like walking around thinking, prefocusing, changing exposure. All leading up to ONE shot. After getting a roll finished, developing and hanging the neg and observing the film for the first time since you captured the moment.

You don't get that with digital, and that's part of why I love film.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

There's advantages and disadvantages to both film and digital. I'd stick with both. You'll need the digital to sell on ebay f'instance...

Regards, David

 

[noisycheese]

😀

Coming from someone who is relatively young and is full fledged film I'll have to say this.

I was in your shoes about 8 years ago. Digital wasn't cutting it and I liked the look and quality I got from 35mm film. Back then processing only was cheap and I picked up an old Canon 4400f scanner and was off.

This was back when I was shooting with an Olympus Evolt E-300. Which I still have. Sensor sizes were small and crop factor was sitting around 2x.

To this day I'm still a film shooter. I can't get in the groove of shooting digital. It doesnt have the same reward as film. There is nothing like walking around thinking, prefocusing, changing exposure. All leading up to ONE shot. After getting a roll finished, developing and hanging the neg and observing the film for the first time since you captured the moment.

You don't get that with digital, and that's part of why I love film.

What he said.

Digital does have one benefit that film doesn't, though. It give one an opportunity to do their part to prop up an addled economy through the endless trading in and buying of new digital camera bodies. The benefit of that endeavor to one's self esteem cannot be overstated. 😀

 

[Godfrey]

...
To this day I'm still a film shooter. I can't get in the groove of shooting digital. It doesnt have the same reward as film. There is nothing like walking around thinking, prefocusing, changing exposure. All leading up to ONE shot. After getting a roll finished, developing and hanging the neg and observing the film for the first time since you captured the moment.

You don't get that with digital, and that's part of why I love film.

Um, I get that with any camera I use, since I use them all with pretty much the same intent and methodology. Each camera is different, of course, and sees differently. How I choose to use that fact is the art of it.

Simple advice:

• If you prefer working exclusively with film, do so.
• If you want a smaller or a larger format in either film or digital, buy the equipment that has what you want. And use it.

I get just as much of a kick out of spending a day shooting with a Polaroid SX-70 or Hasselblad SWC as I do pulling out the GXR, the M9, or the E-1. They're all different, and they're all the same.

Think more about the photographs you want to make and how to make them. Don't let thinking about the equipment get in your way.

G

 

[Photo_Smith]

Godfrey the poster is correct. You can't take a digital image and make is visceral and real by hanging up the images weeks after you take them.
Your cameras will shape the way you take images, you can't use all cameras with the same method that's absurd.
For instance i use a 4x5, Rolleiflex, rangefinder, SLR and DSLR and my wife's iPhone. I use each one to it's strength.
I get up before dawn and assemble the Sinar on the beach set up takes half an hour or more; and I'll probably take two-four images normally landscapes then go home.
The Rollei is mainly used for portraits, the flow is quite stilted and deliberate normally studio based.
Rangefinders are used less and have quite a narrow use, people pictures and some reportagé. Film SLR's are used for transparencies general photo's and tele/macro work.
Digital cameras are used when I need fast work good low light colour, mixed lighting and flexibility you'll use the Sinar for a different purpose and methodology to the iPhone.

I can't imagine using all those cameras with the same method, the reason I have so many different types is each one brings something unique to the way I see and record the world around me.
Sometimes the constraints of one camera can bring artistic direction, to say 'I use all my cameras with the same methodology' means you aren't using each to it's own strength, if the camera isn't getting 'in the way' to some degree you can't find creative solutions to the vision and select the appropriate tool for that vision.

IMO of course...

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Hmmm, well, um, I use more or less the same method with most of my cameras; although, obviously, the camera will limit me at times as the pure P&S's do.

I'm looking at the subject and thinking about composition, shutters speed, DoF and so on. Nothing in that list that's only possible in digital or else in film. And sometimes I just take a quick snap and move on, again, nothing specific to film or digital.

And every now and again I take both types with me and repeat the shot with both to see if I'm still capable and to compare. Usually, I end up wishing I had a printer that took black and several shades of grey and no colours but apart from that...

Regards, David

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,

Hmmm, well, um, I use more or less the same method with most of my cameras; although, obviously, the camera will limit me at times as the pure P&S's do.

I'm looking at the subject and thinking about composition, shutters speed, DoF and so on. Nothing in that list that's only possible in digital or else in film. And sometimes I just take a quick snap and move on, again, nothing specific to film or digital.

And every now and again I take both types with me and repeat the shot with both to see if I'm still capable and to compare. Usually, I end up wishing I had a printer that took black and several shades of grey and no colours but apart from that...

Regards, David

Yes: David and I are in full agreement. It's all right if you feel otherwise too, of course.

I think I'll load the Berning Robot II this morning and snap around with it today ... 🙂

G

 

[JoeV]

Well, as per the title of this thread, if you go "fullly analog" I don't expect we'll hear much from you anymore, excepting the occasional postcard in the mail, or a typewritten letter. Best to you...🙂

~Joe

 

[Photo_Smith]

Hi,

Hmmm, well, um, I use more or less the same method with most of my cameras; although, obviously, the camera will limit me at times as the pure P&S's do.

Regards, David

Not my experience at all, of course if you have similar cameras like an M9 and a M7 then yes, you have an almost exact modus that can be transferred almost exactly also a DSLR and SLR are very similar workflow wise.

My point being that although you do the basics in a similar way it would be very limiting on your photography to force that, to actively say 'I treat and use all cameras the same'
This wasn't true in the film days 25 years ago and it is less true now we have more advanced and flexible tools. There is no reason to limit your vision in that way.

I guess if your outlook is limited and your photographic subjects are narrow also you could force yourself to use the same modus but in reality those differences between the many film formats let alone digital is pretty massive.

 

[gudlagoba]

You can use film methodology with digital as well. As others have said, it is all in the mind of the photographer. Keep both, enjoy both. I use my film gear and I have a Canon 5D with manual focus zeiss lenses. I work with a hand held light meter and mostly use the camera in manual mode. Exactly the same way I shoot with the Leica and TLR.

 

[L Collins]

Coming from someone who is relatively young and is full fledged film I'll have to say this.

I was in your shoes about 8 years ago. Digital wasn't cutting it and I liked the look and quality I got from 35mm film. Back then processing only was cheap and I picked up an old Canon 4400f scanner and was off.

This was back when I was shooting with an Olympus Evolt E-300. Which I still have. Sensor sizes were small and crop factor was sitting around 2x.

To this day I'm still a film shooter. I can't get in the groove of shooting digital. It doesnt have the same reward as film. There is nothing like walking around thinking, prefocusing, changing exposure. All leading up to ONE shot. After getting a roll finished, developing and hanging the neg and observing the film for the first time since you captured the moment.

You don't get that with digital, and that's part of why I love film.

Well said. Good to see younger photographers " getting it."