NickTrop
Veteran
Welp - sniped me a Fuji F30 pretty cheap last week on the big auction site. On its way. We'll see how she does...
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
VERY nice.... and VERY convincing! As soon as the right ergonomics are built into a digital camera, I'm leaving film. I recently calculated that I spent roughly $1500 on film processing last year alone. I can buy some serious software for that kind of money!
Nh3
Well-known
With digital there is no pride in workmanship.
There is no craft, no need for careful and methodical approach and no sense of personal achievement.
So, for me to bust my behind and walk for hours in all sorts of weather, take all the risks and finally have no sense of pride in what i do and no sense of workmanship - to me that is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot fool myself, if that is a flaw so be it.
There is no craft, no need for careful and methodical approach and no sense of personal achievement.
So, for me to bust my behind and walk for hours in all sorts of weather, take all the risks and finally have no sense of pride in what i do and no sense of workmanship - to me that is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot fool myself, if that is a flaw so be it.
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm not a digital luddite... I taught classes in Photoshop and digital photography. My other digital is a Panasonic FZ 12X super zoom. I would rather shoot digital, hand held f2.8 throught the zoom range with this little camera than have a giant super expensive zoom lens attached to a tripod. That makes no sense...
I shot film because I wanted fast lenses, high speed capabilities, and selective focus and the ability to shoot good black and white. I also prefer prints to digital web stuff.
I view my cameras as tools. Each of my collection has a purpose. Panasonic - hand held zoom capabilities. Film SLR - that's my interchangeable lens system, which I think is better on the whole than rangefinder systems. Lynx 14 - that's my low light shooter. Iskra - MF in your pocket camera...
Now a digital line FINALLY gives me high ISO capabilities for natural light shooting. I was aware of the camera but I'm frugal and waited a bit to let someone else eat the depreciation like I do with most other things. I can - literally, put this camera in my pocket and always have it with me. I can't do that comfortably even with my Konica Auto S3 because the lens doesn't collapse. A trade off is in-camera selective focus... I can get that now with a software tool, possibly. I won't stick with old technologies just for nostalgia or the sake of sticking with them. Film has some clear advantages, digital has some clear advantages. One is cost. I just bought 10 rolls of Neopan 1600 - $35 shipped, a decent deal. It will cost me over $100 to have these rolls processed (I've been using a lab more and more recently, just pressed for time to develop my own). This is about 2X what I paid for the used Fuji F30 for the cost of the film and processing. The film "look" can now be emulated. I gave up shooting Kodak HIE recently because it was a pain in the arse... PS'd infrared ain't too shabby. It's ultimately just an effect. So is the look of certain emulsions - just adjustments in some curves - that's it really.
Film has better dynamic range, and I wouldn't expect digital to come anywhere near the beauty of medium format. But for casual shooting? My latest tool will augment my shooting, and allow me to take more pics and experiment more. Its ISO capabilities along with some software has narrowed but not closed the gap, but closed it enough to warrant a purchase of a new tool. In other words, that 10 rolls of Neopan will last a lot longer. I have no intention of selling any of my other film tools.