Is there a Rangefinder explosion or is it Cross-GAS between us?

[wintoid]

I think digital is a great teacher. When I was a kid, most men my dad's age would want an SLR, buy it and then not use it all that much because of the cost of film. They certainly didn't experiment very much. What's happening now is that people buy a digital, and then use it lots because they feel they can or have to. Some of those people are learning. Once they learn, and have their eureka moment, the door to other less automated cameras is open.

Because of digital, the whole world seems to be into cameras now. The target audience is just much greater.

 

[jbf]

I came to RF's just last year. Prior to that I had only truly used my Nikon D70s. I had my late grandfather's Pentax ME w/lenses but after the first time I tried shooting with it, I was instantly horrified at my results and faced an incredible sense of failure. Because of that I stopped taking photographs for at least two years probably. Then I got into digital photography and bought my first dSLR and from there took my first film class and got into RFs through FSU cams.

Then onto a Leica M3 and after having my light meter stolen, I sold the m3 and bought a zeiss ikon rf.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Digital gear although becomming cheaper is still expensive for the one with a film gear kit, specially if quality is to be matched at least.

I think this is a misconception. The fact is that the quality will never be matched, because (all the advertising hype to the contrary) the two systems are not interchangable.

Digital cameras are great if you have to transmit, display or store your photos electronically. If you have to scan your film or prints, you are better off with a digital camera, because the scanning process is imperfect and you will lose information. If you start off with a digital camera, less information gets lost in processing.

However --

If you are "old school," and make your prints on an enlarger, and if your images will never see the inside of a computer, then the digital stuff would be a step down for you in both quality and versatility.

1. Every single effect in any image editing program you can find comes from darkroom stuff that people were doing for decades (and sometimes even a century) before anyone had ever heard of a digital camera -- they didn't get them all though. There is still a ton of stuff you can do in the darkroom that the image editing programs can't do. The image editing programs do have a few advantages though. (a) they have a shallower learning curve. (b) you can go back if you don't like an effect. (c) they are cheaper.

2. You only get one sensor. There are hundreds of films, and each is unique.

3. No digital camera can match the quality of a print made from a 6x6 or larger medium format high resolution film negative on an enlarger, if the lenses are comparable. The one that comes closest is the Hasselblad H2D, with Dalsa back, which makes images that can be enlarged to roughly 85% of the size of a comparable high resolution film image before running into trouble. Nothing on earth can come even remotely close to the quality of a high resolution film image from a large format camera.

4. There is no limit on how long an exposure can last with a film camera. In some situations, an exposure can last a year or even more. With a digital camera, the proctical limit on some cameras is as little as 4 seconds. Some can go to 30 minutes.