Strange Bedfellows

[Nando]

I got a lot of different lenses but I use 35mm and 50mm focal lengths primarily. I'm not a pro photographer and my current job/family situation is such that I don't have much free time for shooting. So, as a relative new-comer to photography, it took me a while to get myself to the point where 35 and 50mm seem completely natural. I really fear that the crop factor will throw me off when it comes to positioning myself for a shot. I also fear that I would have to reinvest all the time I've spent getting to know my 35's and 50's instead of building on what I already know and improving. Would I just get used to the crop factor on my 35 Summicron and 50 Summilux or would I end up wanting to switch to something like a 24mm and a faster 35mm? If a digital M was offered with a full-frame sensor, I wouldn't have to worry about that stuff. I don't really have any beef with the quality or 'look' of the M8's digital files.

Have no problems in using less expensive glass on my Leica bodies. I make a good living but I still have to be careful with money. I used a Soviet 50/f1.5 Jupiter-3 on my MP for a very long time until I saved enough for the current Summilux. With necessary repair work by Brian Sweeney, the cost of the lens was only around $120. Once repaired, I found it to be a real gem and I won't be getting rid of it any time soon because of that classic Sonnar look that it gives.

 

[charjohncarter]

Digital photos only look plastic if you use too much noise reduction. Shooting JPEGs in a digital camera gives the plastic look too because most cameras use too much noise reductions to make jpegs. I shoot RAW only in my Kodak 14n and never get plastic looking images. They look nice. I agree that the controls on digital cameras suck, but I think that about most 35mm SLRs made since 1990 too. I hate the control-wheel and LCD control systems, that's why I like my old Olympus OM-system stuff.

Raw does help, but I don't want to spend my life reading/learning manuals both for digital cameras and software, and spending my time away from photography playing with editing programs. So as I'm not a pro and can do what I want, I shoot film 95+% of the time. Opps, got to go some 6x7 negatives are though washing.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Raw does help, but I don't want to spend my life reading/learning manuals both for digital cameras and software, and spending my time away from photography playing with editing programs. So as I'm not a pro and can do what I want, I shoot film 95+% of the time. Opps, got to go some 6x7 negatives are though washing.

All that time spent in the darkroom is taking away time you could be doing "Photography" too. If you do your own processing instead of going to a lab, then I don't see much difference between doing darkroom work and doing Photoshop work. Your 6x7 negs will beat any digital camera that most of us can afford, and if you prefer film that's the real reason.

 

[charjohncarter]

All that time spent in the darkroom is taking away time you could be doing "Photography" too. If you do your own processing instead of going to a lab, then I don't see much difference between doing darkroom work and doing Photoshop work. Your 6x7 negs will beat any digital camera that most of us can afford, and if you prefer film that's the real reason.

I guess you didn't understand my OPPS, that being photography takes time and patience. In my case, it is a matter of how I want to spend my time. I don't want to sit in front of a poorly designed program like PS and dink around. I would rather have my Zen moment pouring fixer in and completing a simple task. You are right, film, that is the real reason. But I still think it (film) is better than the big D. At least for now. When that changes I'll be there with my money.