kshapero
South Florida Man
If I were to go digital, here's why...it really sucks when shooting say 100 ISO and during the roll you wish you could change the film speed to say 400 or 800, etc. and then back to 100, etc. Anybody have a workaround? Or other ideas? I have no money to make any changes anyway, plus I oggle over my R3M.
I have borrowed a Nikon D70s and a Pentax K100D. Nice for what they do and I love changing the ISO whenever but they are way too clunky for me.:bang:
I have borrowed a Nikon D70s and a Pentax K100D. Nice for what they do and I love changing the ISO whenever but they are way too clunky for me.:bang:
kshapero
South Florida Man
I guess I am saving up for an M8 or an RD-1, so I can stay a rangfinderer. That would work. Maybe a rich Uncle will leave a bundle.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Tri-X or that Ilford C41 B&W film both have really decent latitude, in that you can shoot at a bunch of different EIs and still have useable negatives. Granted it isn't ideal, but it does work...
kshapero
South Florida Man
You mean changing film speed during mid roll and back again? What do you tell the devloper or must you develop on your own?erikhaugsby said:
R
ray_g
Guest
A second body may be a less expensive alternative.
dostacos
Dan
I have digital for those distant times, or when speed is paramount [when I was offroading and wanted to post after a run that night] [my oldest son has used my Canon digital more than me, as a back up for his wedding photography 
yet I grab my film camera all the time. I load it with C41 B&W usually ISO 400 regardless so I guess I don't have a problem with changing ISO mid roll. [If I really want to go super slow or fast it is a planned shoot and I will kill the whole roll.]
I guess the real answer is to SHOOT more
yet I grab my film camera all the time. I load it with C41 B&W usually ISO 400 regardless
so I guess I don't have a problem with changing ISO mid roll. [If I really want to go super slow or fast it is a planned shoot and I will kill the whole roll.] I guess the real answer is to SHOOT more
kshapero
South Florida Man
Second body, hmmmmm. Need money, GAS Attack!
MadMan2k
Well-known
It's just a roll. It takes a while to rewind, load and advance a manual RF, but with an electronic SLR it's literally press a button, wait 2-5 seconds, pop a door open, grab the roll, slip in another, close a door, wait 2 seconds, shoot.
pvdhaar
Peter
If I were to stick with film, here's why.. it really sucks when shooting say 50mm and during the shoot you wish you could change..kshapero said:
Biggest discomfort with digital is them dustbunnies. You can't just change lenses without their rearing their ugly heads. Cleaning the CCD is like the same hassle as doing a midroll rewind.. It kills the flow..
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
See the "Flash" thread. Roll your own film and use 12 exposure rolls (one of the GREAT benefits of bulk loading). Buy faster lenses.
Roll your own film and use 12 exposure rolls (one of the GREAT benefits of bulk loading). Buy faster lenses.
R
RML
Guest
pvdhaar said:
For that they invented (oh, horror!) zoom lenses.
sf
Veteran
bottom line: when you need to get the shot, you need to get the shot.
If I have a roll of Neopan 100 Acros in my RF645, and I find myself in a bar at night and want to get a shot that requires some actual DOF and shutterspeed, I'll just kill the roll of Neopan and switch to Delta 3200. SOmetimes you have to bite the bullet.
Of course, I just bought a Contax T3 for those occasions, and will load it with whatever is NOT in the RF645. They'll be happy playmates.
If I have a roll of Neopan 100 Acros in my RF645, and I find myself in a bar at night and want to get a shot that requires some actual DOF and shutterspeed, I'll just kill the roll of Neopan and switch to Delta 3200. SOmetimes you have to bite the bullet.
Of course, I just bought a Contax T3 for those occasions, and will load it with whatever is NOT in the RF645. They'll be happy playmates.
pvdhaar
Peter
And the "digital zoom" button of courseRML said:For that they invented (oh, horror!) zoom lenses.
Of course this too is a kludge, for why didn't they invent the "digital unzoom" button as well?
sf
Veteran
pvdhaar said:And the "digital zoom" button of course
Of course this too is a kludge, for why didn't they invent the "digital unzoom" button as well?
Oh, the digital zoom button. I feel dirty every time I brush it with my thumb.
Anyone who would use digital zoom instead of merely cropping an image...subhuman. Goes to show what Canon and other makers think of their markets...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Digizoom - have you ever looked at the 800x digital+optical zoom of a cheap digital video camera? amazing (and it sucks big time).
If I was to switch to digital, it only would be for the white balance feature.
That's the only real advantage of digital versus film, in my oppinion.
Now, if you don't shoot colour stuff at all...
If I was to switch to digital, it only would be for the white balance feature.
That's the only real advantage of digital versus film, in my oppinion.
Now, if you don't shoot colour stuff at all...
sf
Veteran
Pherdinand said:Digizoom - have you ever looked at the 800x digital+optical zoom of a cheap digital video camera? amazing (and it sucks big time).
If I was to switch to digital, it only would be for the white balance feature.
That's the only real advantage of digital versus film, in my oppinion.
Now, if you don't shoot colour stuff at all...
but you can white balance come scanning time. You can't increase or decrease ISO for better DOF and sharpness. The way I see it, that is why to buy a digicam. I own one because i wanted soemthing pocketable that would take great video. Soon, I'll be shooting my snapshots with a Contax T3 and the SD700is P&S will become merely a pocket videocamera.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Nope. Not on the same level. Once you shot a daylight balanced film at tungsten light, you never get it back right.shutterflower said:
You can tweak it and get reasonable results...but far from the real stuff. The blue channel is just waaay underexposed.
The only way would be to use filters, but a strong blue conversion filter used in tungsten light cuts at least three stops of light, usually more. Not to speak about the accuracy of a "manual"white balance feature versus the rough correction of a filter that has normally only two levels (80A and B - or is it the 81?)
sf
Veteran
Pherdinand said:
you're right. I knew that...I was just practicing my mad cow (sponge brain).
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Going digital vs.film...
Going digital vs.film...
Hi... there's some great comments & ideas above. I myself, carry a small Canon digicam, when I'm going to meetings or into situations, where I want to be very unobtrusive.
I like to believe that most of our members are committed to film photography, for its own sake, and just for keeping film photography alive! Sure a 350D is great for shooting in bright light by day, and at ISO 1600 at the theater. One of my main reasons for NOT going the way of dSLR is the expense. Once you have the body & the kit lens... then 'the party' begins. How about a good 17-70, and a good 70-200... both in AF. Then, it seems to me, the basic dSLR system is just starting at $2,000-.
With an M2 & two Leitz primes [CV 25/4 on the way], OM & Nikon systems, I've got a lot of good gear. Development of Superior 200+CD is a little under $6- per roll here in Jerusalem.
My RFF buddy Ruben does what many of us do; carry one camera with slower, fine grain film, and another at 800 or 1600. Another option mentioned above, is a 400 film with wide latitude on both ends.
IN CONCLUSION: There are some compromises we all make from time to time. Let's be who we are and stick to film whenever possible
Will I ever go dSLR? It could happen, but not just now. And, how about the M8 & the glass to go with it? That would be great, but there are no rich uncles on the horizon, leaving me big bucks.
Ciao, mike
Going digital vs.film...
Hi... there's some great comments & ideas above. I myself, carry a small Canon digicam, when I'm going to meetings or into situations, where I want to be very unobtrusive.
I like to believe that most of our members are committed to film photography, for its own sake, and just for keeping film photography alive! Sure a 350D is great for shooting in bright light by day, and at ISO 1600 at the theater. One of my main reasons for NOT going the way of dSLR is the expense. Once you have the body & the kit lens... then 'the party' begins. How about a good 17-70, and a good 70-200... both in AF. Then, it seems to me, the basic dSLR system is just starting at $2,000-.
With an M2 & two Leitz primes [CV 25/4 on the way], OM & Nikon systems, I've got a lot of good gear. Development of Superior 200+CD is a little under $6- per roll here in Jerusalem.
My RFF buddy Ruben does what many of us do; carry one camera with slower, fine grain film, and another at 800 or 1600. Another option mentioned above, is a 400 film with wide latitude on both ends.
IN CONCLUSION: There are some compromises we all make from time to time. Let's be who we are and stick to film whenever possible
Will I ever go dSLR? It could happen, but not just now. And, how about the M8 & the glass to go with it? That would be great, but there are no rich uncles on the horizon, leaving me big bucks.
Ciao, mike
markinlondon
Elmar user
Even with one body I'm happy to end a roll and reload if I find I'm in radically different light. I can usually plan this and will reload if I've used less than half the roll. A pocket full of ISO400 film and a marker pen is all it takes. All the arguments for "going digital" are compelling but I like working with limitations, it keeps life challenging. Bear in mind that I don't depend on getting the shot for my living.