Good Ol' Film Cameras

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
12:05 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
One thing about film cameras, the variety that has accumulated over the years is huge compared to the relatively few camera types available for general photography to the digital shooter. I have an old Speed Graphic with some very new lenses and an elderly 8x10 view whose lenses are not quite as new. For considerably less money than the $43, 990 Phase One IQ 180 digital back, they can deliver an exceptionally sharp picture. Two very well worn pocket cameras, a Zeiss Contax T3 and a Leica Minilux, when used with high-speed films, like most 35mm film cameras, don’t have the image sharpness of some of the pocketable digitals. But, they have the features (decent optical viewfinder, easy scale focusing, the inherent exposure latitude of negative film, relatively rapid shutter release response, e.t.c.) that can pay off for a street shooter.

I’m 99% digital. But I still keep a darkroom stocked with chemicals and a refrigerator stocked with film because there are still some film cameras that can do things digital can’t. Wondered if any other digital shooter had a few film cameras that they can’t let go of?
 
Bill Pierce said:
One thing about film cameras, the variety that has accumulated over the years is huge compared to the relatively few camera types available for general photography to the digital shooter. I have an old Speed Graphic with some very new lenses and an elderly 8x10 view whose lenses are not quite as new. For considerably less money than the $43, 990 Phase One IQ 180 digital back, they can deliver an exceptionally sharp picture. Two very well worn pocket cameras, a Zeiss Contax T3 and a Leica Minilux, when used with high-speed films, like most 35mm film cameras, don’t have the image sharpness of some of the pocketable digitals. But, they have the features (decent optical viewfinder, easy scale focusing, the inherent exposure latitude of negative film, relatively rapid shutter release response, e.t.c.) that can pay off for a street shooter.

I’m 99% digital. But I still keep a darkroom stocked with chemicals and a refrigerator stocked with film because there are still some film cameras that can do things digital can’t. Wondered if any other digital shooter had a few film cameras that they can’t let go of?
Click to expand...



You can't be serious ... asking a question like that at one of the most film centric photography forums on the net? :D

Digital has definitely swayed me more of late ... particularly since getting a D700 then an X100 but I couldn't imagine photography without film cameras and the associated niceties that go with them.
 
For me it's not a question of which film cameras I can't let go of; it's which film cameras I have aquired. The brutal truth is that I had completely abandonded film up until about a year ago.

When I was younger I had a darkroom, shot a Pentax MX with several lenses, had an Olympus XA, and shot quite a bit of film. As my kids entered middle school I bought a Nikon DSLR and a couple of nice lenses and never looked back. I shot digital for a number of years without missing the hassle of film.

As my interest in photography matured I started to recognize that there were still some images that I can make with film that I can't make with digital. I have reached the same conclusion you have from the almost polar opposite position. I realize this is not a film vs. digital debate but rather a thread about film cameras. So it's interesting for me that I have more film cameras now than I did when film was the mainstream medium.
 
I went to 99% digital and found that I have a computer/external hard drive full of photos but very few prints. Love my M9 but found that I really wanted to get back into a darkroom situation and convinced my business partner that out toilet at work was being underutilised :D so set up a darkroom. Loving it, been 10 years since I had a darkroom and I am making all the rookie mistakes but am making progress. Have the Fuji GF670, Canon P + 50/1.4 for B&W and Kodak Retina 11a for colour film. Have an offer in for a Fuji GSW690 for that big neg. I feel like a photographer again now I am in darkroom.
 
Last edited:
There are 14 film cameras I can't get rid of, and one digital I can't get rid of either. The reasons are I use them for different things and I feel different things when I use them.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'm still film based but I think in another 5 years I will probably look into pro quality digital cameras. So if I give up anything it's 35mm cameras not the MF or LF
 
Bill,

For me its the tactile experience of a film camera that keeps me interested. I love thesolid feel and heft of my Leicaflex SL or my Nikon F. I love winding the film after I shoot. I also love the big, bright viewfinders.

msinly though, I love having a negative I can sleeve and store. Having nothing but a digital file somewhere on a hard drive gives me pause. I think that the digital generation is going to discover the downside of digital media in the future when they try to figure out how to archive their work. A lot if it is going to simply vanish into the ether,
 
Keith said:
Digital has definitely swayed me more of late ... particularly since getting a D700 then an X100 but I couldn't imagine photography without film cameras and the associated niceties that go with them.
Click to expand...


That was extremely fast, the "my D700/D3 is better etc..." answer.


Anyway, yes, I have quite a few film cameras, and there are many situations where film is far better than anything (even digital Nikon supergods!), for example, a night long-exposure involving a mix of lit/semi-lit sky and land, or indoors strong contrast or contre-jour, where you do want to preserve shadows (although that's solved with digital by extreme high-pass + curves in PS).

Of course, this is all sillyness to the "whocares!"-ists.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
That was extremely fast, the "my D700/D3 is better etc..." answer.
Click to expand...

Has anyone given such an answer? I must have missed that post.

Anyway, I take more digital shots than film but enjoy using film mostly because the mature design of the cameras is unmatched in any digital cameras I have used. There is no small yet beautifully formed SLR to best my Contax Aria and no affordable rangefinder to match my wonderfully tactile G2.

Yet convenience means that my most frequent carry anywhere camera is a Samsung NX100. And the consistant quality for long-lens wildlife photography I get from digital mean I never use film for that subject.

With the single exception of long-lens work, the quality issue is moot for me. All the cameras I use make images I like.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
That was extremely fast, the "my D700/D3 is better etc..." answer.


Anyway, yes, I have quite a few film cameras, and there are many situations where film is far better than anything (even digital Nikon supergods!), for example, a night long-exposure involving a mix of lit/semi-lit sky and land, or indoors strong contrast or contre-jour, where you do want to preserve shadows (although that's solved with digital by extreme high-pass + curves in PS).

Of course, this is all sillyness to the "whocares!"-ists.
Click to expand...



I don't get you sometimes Gabriel.

I'm not singing the praises of Nikon or any brand ... what I'm saying is having competent digital options whether they be via Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax or anything else for that matter is obvioulsy not going to cause me to bail out of my film cameras! I wasn't brand selling I was just mentioning what I happen to use and am happy with at the moment ... sheesh you're a tough crowd, of one! :D
 
The only film camera I have left is a Nikon EM since it was given to me by a relative. Outside of that, I'm all digital.
 
I have not shot film in a long while but the only film cameras that I have let go of are duplicates given to a friend. Still waiting for an affordable digi body that gives me the same feeling as the old film bodies. So far the X100 seems closest to what I want.

Bob
 
I could equip two classrooms of students with film cameras. I've given away several to the younger generation interested in trying them.

Leica M3, Nikon SP, Nikon F, and Nikon F2AS will be with me for life.
 
I've got quite a few film cameras which I will probably continue to use until they die/I die/film has disappeared, mostly because I enjoy the process. I did recently sell a Pentax 645 which I rarely used, but I will probably hang on to all the others and will, almost certainly, acquire a few more, if truth be told.

Essentially I only ever use my DSLR (an 'ancient' D200) for the very occasional paid photographic work I do, when speed of results and the ability to chimp are helpful; I use my iPhone for snapshots of this and that; and I use film when taking pictures for my own pleasure.

I've said this before, but I suspect that the commercial market for consumer digital cameras modeled on 35mm cameras is going to go the same way as the 35mm cameras themselves. My iPhone 4 takes excellent pictures - as good as a digital p&s from three or four years ago - plus I can process them, post them onto the internet, order prints (and do all the phone/email/text stuff with it). Why on earth would Joe (or Josephine) Average want much more than that from a camera?
 
Keith said:
sheesh you're a tough crowd, of one! :D
Click to expand...

I guess I'm the only one paying attention. :angel:


But going back to the film issue, without bringing up brand names within the "digital" realm...

There is something about film that cannot be replicated within digital, just like there is something about digital that cannot be replicated within film: some people are just happy with those results. Comparisons are really pointless unless you wish that digital would behave exactly like film (different emulsion responses notwithstanding).

There is something in the older film cameras which you just simply cannot get with the digital cameras: that physical feedback of the shutter firing off (curtain, cloth, diaphragm...you name it), the resistance of film advancing (or the changing of the film sheet)...you do not get that with digital.

Another thing that film cameras "do" that digital cameras "don't" is slow you down in a good way. Of course, if you're shooting a wedding, for example, that just may not be a very good thing. But for crafting an image (whatever that may mean to you), it is comparing apples with crabapples.

And look, ma!: no name-throwing! :p
 
I have kept all my film cameras and the most versatile digital camera in the world, my Iphone4.
 
On a recent trip to Montana my iphone was used for the majority of the pictures. It is quite something to take a picture and then email it immediately after. Ah, technology. The HDR function was also damn useful!

I did, also, shoot 7 rolls of b&w...:)
 
I just realized that Bill was asking "digital shooters" :)
Although I started using digital, my heart goes to film photography and its processes.

Today, I'm a film shooter, who uses digital technologies with all its benefits.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I could equip two classrooms of students with film cameras. I've given away several to the younger generation interested in trying them.

Leica M3, Nikon SP, Nikon F, and Nikon F2AS will be with me for life.
Click to expand...

Brian - You should see the expensive selection of M7's and high speed lenses that I gave my son. Don't know whether to be happy for him or sad for me.

Pierce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom