Slr vs. dslr

[jpa66]

Thanks KS. I dont have GAS, really I don't. No desire whatsoever for another camera....Ok, maybe just an R3M and that sweet little 40 1.4 and that would be it, I wouldn't want any other gear after that, really, no kidding!!

I have also been considering one of those same Bessas. Not sure that I want to spend the dough on one just yet, though.

I've been enjoying a couple of rangefinders of late, especially the Canonet 17, with a shutter so quiet that I sometimes wonder if it actually fired.

It's good to see that I'm not alone in my "re-awakening" to film.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I sort of did the same thing with my D200. I would shot in BW then PP with DXO film pack 2, to make it look like Tri-X then one day I remembered that if I just shoot Tri-X film it would look like Tri-X better than the digital way.

Well, the D200 is not a D700 in the VF department or high iso department. I did not buy a DSLR until I got a VF and FF that I wanted and see no difference between using it and my F90x. No it is not the same experience as using any of my MF Nikon bodies but perfectly acceptable to me. If you are a B&W enthusiast I could see why you may possibly prefer certain films. Me, I do not do much B&W and digital conversions are just fine for my purposes. I am just quite happy with digital and would buy a DRF if there was a FF model at the price point I thought was close to reasonable.

Bob

 

[PaulW128]

Guys, don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-digital, it's more of a sensory preference for film cameras. I think it started when I bought a 50 mm 1.8 Nikkor for my D90. I put it on the camera and at that moment realized just how big and heavy the camera was when I had the 18-70mm kit lens mounted on it.

And then after spending time here, I started to like the idea of using a smaller film camera, maybe an slr or maybe a rangefinder. Helen's $46.00 OM-1 post got me all jazzed up about OM's and then Frank Petronio put his mint OM-1n in the classifieds and I pounced. I also had placed a half-hearted bid on Ebay for an OM-1 with a 50 1.8, a 28 3.5 and a 35-70 3.6 and actually one it for $166.

Still not sure if I will take the plunge with a rangefinder but for now, the OM-1 will be a good starting point

 

[chippy]

One day I was looking for my OM. I just couldn't find it. I looked everywhere around the apartment, and finally I went through all my photo equipment only to discover it was simply hiding behind my Canon 40D. The point of this is to say that the DSLR is so very very massive compared to something like an OM. And don't even get me started on the viewfinders of the 40D vs the OM.

I know where your coming from (the old OM are nice), but its kinda like comparing apples and oranges, two different class of camera from different era's. To be fair you should probably compare the OM-1 to the top of the line dslr's camera's; the OM was a top of the line camera in its day. if you looked through the viewfinder of the canon 1 series cameras you would love the viewfinder, they are awesome, their as big, and brighter than the OM-1, more in line with the OM-3Ti and 4Ti with their brighter screens installed, the OM-3Ti was issued standard with the brighter screen. Even though the 40D isnt a cheap camera its not a top of the range model, the viewfinders get less desirable as you progress down the line of dslr models

 

[Rico]

My DSLR and SLR systems get equal airtime. In general, I use the Canon 1Ds in the studio, the Nikon D300 for events, the Contax RTS3 for walkabout, and Aria for travel. Film is particularly nice when I want slides for projection. I now request digital scans of my film from Wolf, so the digital divide is barely discernible.

 

[Merkin]

I recently switched to digital because I was missing too many paying gigs because I was only shooting film. I went with a D700. The high ISO performance alone makes the D700 worth it. ISO 12800, in Black and White, looks like pushed Tri-X or one of the 3200 speed films. Here is a sample shot:

f/2.8
155mm on a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D
1/500
ISO 12800
No noise reduction in post, edited with Aperture 2 and Nik Silver Efex

In color, I try to stick to ISO 3200 as a max:

f/2.8
1/250
200mm, same lens
ISO 3200
Edited in Aperture 2, noise reduction (a poor job, I need to work on this some more) with Noise Ninja.

Film still has a certain je ne sais quois that I prefer to digital, but the D700 will do things that are simply impossible to do with film, and once you take the few hours necessary to custom tailor all of the myriad menu options, it is incredibly fast and intuitive to operate.

 

[Armoured]

Count me in, same problem. Dug my FM out from under the pile of other stuff, enjoyed running a few rolls through it - after years without film. Then tried an old Fed2 I'd bought for $10 on a lark and never really got a roll of film through (works fine, it turns out, has some nicer lenses on the way).

The real turning point was when a kind friend told me to get my junk out of his basement (living abroad most of the time). My old fixed lens rangefinders (HiMatic 7 and a Ricoh 500RF, just about the most underrated lens I've ever used). A mutant Rolleicord. And that sweet, sweet, under-utilised Mamiya C330.

And as mentioned, I had to try the superwide 15 and 21 from CV on the Fed. In the mail. Oh, and I got offered an F100 for a song.

That said, the dSLR is still the go to camera for events, kids, family, etc. And it takes great pictures - but so does that Mamiya, and the others are fun.

I agree with all the points above, but would add that now film cameras are such an oddity, that using them provokes an interesting bemused reaction from people. Big digitals get that annoyed, tired reaction more often.

The biggest issue I see with digital right now is that the ones that get results I really would use for almost anything (d700, for example) are just too big.

Biggest issue for film, of course, is that convenience and cost are both getting worse as quality of digital is getting better. In most places I visit and live (Eastern Europe), I'm not impressed with speed or quality of film processing; Toronto absolutely fine except for medium format. And travelling with film and getting it while abroad is increasingly dicey.

 

[pete63uk]

The most striking thing for me when I dragged an SLR out recently was the way the whole thing shakes when you fire the shutter. Seems to move a lot more than a DSLR. That's what I found. Still nice to have the best of both worlds though 🙂