I hate digital

[akptc]

I just looked up the lenses, not cheap :bang:

I bought the Pentax 50/1.4 AF for $209 - $50 rebate from B&H. The 77mm I got from henrys on ebay for under $500. Now if only the 31 mm Limited could be had at a decent price

 

[Andrew McK]

I came to this whole thing via digital so can I say I don't like it.
Digital has alot of plus points. I find myself needing to take shots for websites on and off and it makes no sense whatsoever to use film. The timescale involved requires the pics to be up five minutes ago, not to spend however long developing them, scanning the negs etc.

But saying that. one of my personal pet hates in black and white digital. It's horrible. I hate it. It's so lifeless. Give me film everytime. I've become quite good at spotting the difference. I can't say that every pic I can tell apart but there's a high percentage that I come across online that I can see are faked b&w.

I also find it strange that people sell their film cameras to 'upgrade' to digital.
Recently I've seen people selling things like a Minolta Dynax 7 or Nikon f100 to buy a d70 or Eos350 which I find utter madness.

 

[nemjo]

As I went through this thread again I found it interesting to make a probe.
I put a 55/3.5 Nikkor on E300 and looked for my wife in the garden.
O.K., I like to develop my negs sometimes. It's a different process...
BTW, can anybody develop a single frame?
And it's hard to say that good glasses don't work on digital bodies.

nemjo


ps. is it possible that I made my new avatar???

 

[sf]

You sound like the marketing department for the Epson RD1.


Rex

I don't understand what these companies are thinking. Every camera I research has numerous lethal issues. Noise, fringing, slow lenses, no manual control, cheap build, shutter lag, blah blah blah. There honestly are no pocket sized digital cameras on the market that appeal to me. Or they appeal but are worthless on close inspection. Very irritating.

actually. I might sway on the retractable lens bit. Check this out :

http://www.samsungcamerausa.com/nseries/productdetails.asp?No=2

yummy.

I'm a naughty boy. I spent the day at a local Celtic festival (Skagit), and think I really do need a digital camera. There are things I won't waste film on, but which I wouldn't mind shooting - and having little vids is nice too.

I'm not a hypocrite, I'll never sell my RF645.

 

[Chuck A]

That's the argument I don't understand. Why do they get in your way? Besides size and weight that is.

I have my dSLR for some time now and I just preset it to something sensible and then stick to that. Just like choosing a film with which you have to live until it's finished.

And to size and weight, very early this morning I ended up for a Mojito in a bar and a guy saw my D60 with batterie grip and Sigma 17-35 and said "This looks like tenosynovitis"

I suppose it is a personal thing. I much prefer to see my shutter speed on a dial and aperture on the lens. It is what I am used to I guess. I photographed that way for 24 years.

It's not that I don't use the digitals. I have some and have tried many. I have even gotten some really nice shots from them. But to me the interface with the camera is important and I feel much more comfortable with the film rangefinders. I am not opposed to digital as a medium. An R-D1 or the new M8 would really intrigue me. I will just have to save up.

 

[Aurelius]

:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.

There is some other nice lenses to try though. I am very impressed by the 50/2.0 Macro. Sharp, compact and the price is not so bad either.

When I need some Oly E-sys inspiration I turn to this site:
http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/pro_e/

including Mr Meyerowitz ...

I think digital photograhpy is a different art form. Can they even be compared?

 

[PeterL]

:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.

Oh... Error. Error. Error.

The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts.

I read good stuff about the kit lenses, though for best performance, you should give the f2.0 and f2.8 lenses a try, they're fabulous (I hear). And anyway, like somebody already mentioned, lots of other manufacturers' lenses can be used with convertor rings.

I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...

So true, all these fiddly digicam thingies are the main reason I don't want yet. They can do a lot, but they don't have the good old big buttons like the cameras I like.

I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.

Since I can see the grain of Kodak Portra 160VC on a meagre 3MP scan, I'd be very very very very surprised if any 8MP camera gives you less image quality when printed by a decent lab. My theory is that you're either disappointed by the feel of the camera and no longer objective about the image quality, or you have studied the pixels of your photos on a screen and confuse the result there with a good print. Darn, I've seen plenty of el cheapo digicams with less resolution and smaller sensors than the E500 generate far less noisy results than film. When I compare pushing ISO on a digital camera to underexposing film, the digital side holds itself together much better. A retired photographer I know swears by the 3200ISO mode of his 6MP Pentax *istD (using a zoom lens).

This "comparison" is done without any darkroom work, of course, because that would be comparing apples and oranges. I drop my film off at the lab which develops & scans for me. I don't consider photoshop to be a disadvantage of digital, because I hardly process my photos. Rotate, crop, contrast and perspective are the edits I do in descending order of frequency (probably around 20%, 10%, 2%, <1%).

I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.

True, the software cycle is also a pain in the proverbial. I guess computers are the main example of how engineering for quality turned into producing for money in the last half a century. But, again, this has nothing to do with image quality IMHO. My extremely unscientific comparison above included digital P&S cameras.

EDIT: 2 small tweaks after reading the whole thread. Plus, I'd like to add that I don't currently have a digital camera. I'm waiting for a model like the Fuji F11 that allows me to use aperture priority mode in a simple way. But not having a digital camera doesn't stop me from shooting all I want: film is cheap, the opportunity is expensive.



Peter.

 

[Ronald M]

You are of course right, but is it not nice to just let the computer suck up the pics with no scanning?

Disadgantage is not having a neg and having to find a way to archive the pics.

Learn the buttons, it will get easier.

I just got a Power Shot 610 and it does a damn good job and only 5MP. Nice for a carry all the time and the ability to do one two color shots and get them in the computer. Got scads of options, but just pick a few and use the camera and learn the others later.

Don`t forget, the digi file can be sent any number of places to have a print made. I use File Transfer Explorer and Ritz has a proprietary program.

 

[morgan]

I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing situation. I have my pana fx01 that fits in my pocket. It's small, easy, fun, and takes reasonable shots (except in really low light). It has a few cool night modes, macro mode, etc. It does it's thing (which definitely doesn't include b&w). I have my film gear which provides a lot more emotionality, in both the taking and the viewing. I love the gear, I love the grain, the life of film. But both have their uses. Right tool for the right job I guess.

 

[Socke]

I suppose it is a personal thing. I much prefer to see my shutter speed on a dial and aperture on the lens. It is what I am used to I guess. I photographed that way for 24 years.

Ok, I had to get used to the EOS way of operating a camera, too

Believe it or not, I miss a film transport lever! From time to time I dig out the Contax RTS and use it without winder just to advance film with my thumb.

 

[Ted Witcher]

Has anyone ever done or posted a direct film/digital a/b test? Take the same picture with a film camera and a digital camera, assume a digital workflow, and compare the dig capture to a well-scanned film capture. I can imagine that black-and-white might show a difference, but I wonder if all those subtle differences between color film (slide, even) and digital get eclipsed by the time you scan it and print from the scan -- or, heaven forbid, post on the web.

 

[Socke]

Ted I did something close to that. I shot the same scenes in comparable light with a Contax G2 and a Canon D60.
I can say that I like Fuji Sensia exposed through a Zeiss lens and scanned with a Canon FS2710 scanner better than a Canon CMOS exposed through a Canon EF 24-85.
But put a Canon 50/1.4 on the D60 and shoot raw I'm hard pressed to see the difference.
It's more in the lenses than in the medium.

 

[James Brannan]

Has anyone ever done or posted a direct film/digital a/b test? Take the same picture with a film camera and a digital camera, assume a digital workflow, and compare the dig capture to a well-scanned film capture. I can imagine that black-and-white might show a difference, but I wonder if all those subtle differences between color film (slide, even) and digital get eclipsed by the time you scan it and print from the scan -- or, heaven forbid, post on the web.

1. You can find countless comparisons various places across the internet. It's so hard to equalize that most of them are pretty meaningless IMO. How many different ways can you develop and print your negative? How many different ways can you process and print your RAW file?
2. The RD-1 uses the D70 sensor does it not? Is it just the interface that folks love so much? Frankly I'd love a digital RF but think the price of the Epson is nothing short of insane. How much should a Cosina body with a D70 sensor really cost?
3. Anyone that can't get the same look from digital (assuming a capable body) that they got with film is simply encountering a processing issue. Nothing more.

 

[ernie]

We often shoot the same photo with film and digital but many of the film cameras we use are from our collection of vintage cameras. Some of the shots on film are close to what the digital gives and there is a subtle something about the film shots which I find hard to describe. Whatever this "something" is I find it very appealing.

Here are a couple of shots taken recently in Wells Cathedral; one digital on a Canon 1DS Mk2 with a 24-105 L lens and set at 800ASA, the other with a Bronica 645RF with some old 160ASA Agfa film and a 65mm lens.

Both cameras were hand held in low light using very low shutter speeds so the results are not as good as one could get in better light.

However the third shot is a crop from the Canon shot..........can't do anything like that with the film cameras.

Results have been "saved for web" to reduce file size and hence quality.

 

[sf]

comparing the two is like comparing E6 and C41. Or even worse than that.

I hate digital because it isn't quality driven. It has nothing to do with artists. It is sales, marketing, cost driven. So, as much as I'd love to find a wide dynamic range B&W fixed lens Digital RF, I know I'm not going to see one for probably a decade. That depresses me. So, I stick with film out of necessity and love.

 

[nrb]

The hard fact behind digital systems faulty design is that optical companies found they can milk customers several times, in any case many more times than technology would allow. In doing this they also expect to turn camera market into a sellers market, where we the customers will buy whatever they put up for sale.

 

[Socke]

Postprocessing is important with digital, that's why I still use the D60 despite its size and weight and wasn't tempted by the digital P&S cameras.

Thanks to digital I can postprocess scanned film and digital pictures which I couldn't do with film alone due to several reasons.

I nearly never shot slides until after I had a digital and one of my PJ friends told me about the exposure tricks with a digital which are close to exposing slides, now I shoot mostly slide film for colour in all my film cameras

So IMHO digital has a steep learning curve but it's worth it and benefits my film shooting too.

Here is a digital shot from a fourtnight ago on which I still work. First what I started with and the second were I'm now.
I could have done that with film and a rangefinder, but I had a digital SLR at hand

 

[James Brannan]

comparing the two is like comparing E6 and C41. Or even worse than that.

I hate digital because it isn't quality driven. It has nothing to do with artists. It is sales, marketing, cost driven. So, as much as I'd love to find a wide dynamic range B&W fixed lens Digital RF, I know I'm not going to see one for probably a decade. That depresses me. So, I stick with film out of necessity and love.

I agree with you about the usefullness of comparing them generally but disagree with the remainder (mostly).

The market isn't driven by artists, agree. It shouldn't be though. The unwashed masses far outnumber the artists and are what keep the major manafacturers in business. Digital is quality driven though. The increases in resolution, the increasing focus on color accuracy, the growing focus on dynamic range, the generation by generation improvements in noise, all of these things are quality issues. For a long time the average consumer was too stupid to think about anything other than megapixels. Now the other (more important IMO) issues are being worked on. Is the average P&S there yet? Not from what I've used/seen. That doesn't mean it never will be though.

 

[Nachkebia]

Lifeless.....

 

[James Brannan]

:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.

Oh... Error. Error. Error.

The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts. I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...

I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.

Stupid digicams.

I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.

Give me slides!!!:bang:

I wanted to address your post directly.
1. I think you made a big mistake in selling your film gear before finding out first hand if you were going to like the output of the Oly E500 first.
2. You bought the two cheapest lenses (if I'm not mistaken) in the Oly lineup and expected what?
3. You are experiencing noise issues at 400ISO? How bad? You are shooting RAW and dealing with the noise in post how? Maybe some research in the Oly SLR forum at DPReview might be in order.
4. You didn't know what the output would be before you bought the body? I never buy an SLR when it first comes out. In a few short weeks of release I have no problems getting full resolution examples so I can decide better how I feel about the look of a particular sensor.
5. I'd suggest a little more research next time.
6. If others are getting output that you can't then you've either got a bad body (it happens) or need to work on your technique. It's that simple.