trade film for digital?

[nobbylon]

watching a couple of threads here and made me ask myself why i've gone back to film.
for me it was a collection of things, I didn't and still dont like the tiny viewfinders on current none full frame slr's. I like the look that fast lenses give me and the size of fast rangefinder lenses is far smaller than SLR equivalents. I ask myself, like a few others, why shoot film and then scan into digital anyway?
Anyway just out of interest how many would trade film for digital if say the M8 was a lot cheaper? I know I would but the choices seem to me to be large digi SLR's with large fast lenses or smaller rangefinder kit and end up scanning. I for one still haven't found my perfect camera. M8 at half the price, no issues and the ability to use standard battery's with the dependability of a film M would come close though!

 

[bmattock]

I cannot find a 6cm by 9cm digital sensor that I can afford. I'm not even sure one exists (yet, if ever). I continue to shoot my 120 roll film, therefore.

I prefer the look of B&W film scanned over digital images desaturated, at the moment.

But I do a lot of digital work and a lot of film work.

Whatever works for me, I use.

And I don't lose a lot of sleep over my purity as a photographer. Photography is not my religion. I'm a photographer, not a worshipper.

 

[Bobfrance]

If somebody (such as DrLoeb on this site for example) would produce a film back for any 35mm rangefinder I would buy into it like a shot.

I don't care about whistles and bells orhuge resolution. I'd just like a basic rangefinder that captured images to SD card. I can do the rest myself in Photoshop.

Bob.

 

[nobbylon]

what I should have asked as well, are a lot of us still using film only because we can't afford a digital that will give us the same images?

 

[Trius]

For my cost is a factor, but more than that it's the camera itself. I use both film RF and film SLR, each tool for its own strengths. So to go completely digital I'd need both platforms, so there you go with cost. But if cost were not an object, then I'd want a direct analogue (pardon the pun!) to my current RF and SLR film cameras. Same type of controls, sensible layout, etc. Who's going to do that? Still waiting on Maitani.

 

[NickTrop]

The cost and convenience "advantages" of digital are overblown. Film cameras are easier, more fun, more versatile. Digitals come in two main flavors. Point-n-shooters and DSLRs. Point and shooters are out because they don't give me selective focus and most get noisy at ISOs above 200. Digital noise is ugly, unlike grain. And asking anyone who has any interest in taking interesting pictures to give up selective focus is simply laughable.

This leaves DSLRs. DSLRs are big noisy affairs. They are expensive for what they do. They give you selective focus, true, but at the expense of a stop. Not into zapping human subjects with auto focus beams, preflash lights and noisy motorized slow zooms. They have annoying drop-down menus, are battery and software dependent. Frankly they leave me cold. They don't do black and white well, they can't do slide, obviously...

Oh, and as this "pro digital" article sites, the "first DSLR that's better than a film camera" according to Popular Photography tests is the 16.7 megapixel Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, and will set you back around $6500, street.

"...Interesting, as a few years ago Popular Photography predicted that digital cameras would have to reach at least 24 to 30 megapixels before they'd compete against film cameras in quality. But that stance seems to have changed, as they are now claiming the better color and lower noise of the EOS 1Ds Mark II gives digital cameras the winning edge."


http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/popularp/index.html

Ohhhhhhhh... Film-philes were wrong. You don't need a 24-30 megapixel camera to match a film camera. You "just" need a $6,500 street, 16.7 megapixel camera to match a $200 (or less, much less) film camera.

No thanks.

Oh, the third "flavor" are digital rangefinders and they're way beyond my pricer range. Sorry, they're not "that much" better than my little Konica Auto S3 - if at all, to come anywhere near justifying the price differential.

 

[350D_user]

what I should have asked as well, are a lot of us still using film only because we can't afford a digital that will give us the same images?

Digital cameras give the same results as film cameras...?

 

[iml]

This leaves DSLRs. DSLRs are big noisy affairs. They are expensive for what they do. They give you selective focus, true, but at the expense of a stop. Not into zapping human subjects with auto focus beams, preflash lights and noisy motorized slow zooms.

My DSLR (Pentax K100D) with 35/2.8 fully manual old SMC Pentax prime is only very slightly larger than my M6. I use the M6 with a grip as I find it awkward to hold for long periods otherwise, and with the grip the M6 and the K100D are, for all practical purposes, about the same bulk. It is not as quiet as my M6, but quiet enough for street photography, the shutter is very well damped, as is the mirror action. I can get very close to people to take their picture without them noticing, and the camera draws no more attention than my M6, or my Olympus 35 RC or SP. With the kit zoom lens it was cheaper than my secondhand M6 body, although I only use primes on it. I use it fully manually, set aperture using the aperture ring on the lens, and manually focus using the focusing ring on the lens. The old Pentax lenses are ridiculously cheap for their optical and build quality (I paid £15/$30 for the 35mm, and £20/$40 for a 50/1.7, the latter also had a camera attached to it included in the price), and lenses are easily available in a wide variety of focal lengths. I never need to use drop down menus except to set ISO, and I don't change that often once I'm shooting. The meter is excellent, and even using the old lenses which have no electronics to communicate their aperture to the body, the camera works in both manual and aperture priority mode.

I prefer film to digital for most of my shooting, I prefer film b&w to digital b&w, and I much prefer rangefinders to SLRs in general because of the quality of the viewfinders and lenses, but I think the disadvantages of digital and SLRs are often overstated. Ergonomically speaking, the Pentax is a manual photographer's dream. If I only shot colour I'd have no problem using it as my main camera.

Oh, and as this "pro digital" article sites, the "first DSLR that's better than a film camera" according to Popular Photography tests is the 16.7 megapixel Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, and will set you back around $6500, street.

Resolution isn't everything. I get great colour prints up to A3 with the 6MP Pentax and don't spend a lot of time looking at them imagining what they would look like if I'd used film or something with more megapixels instead. It is possible to enjoy photography with a relatively low resolution digital camera if you don't get too hung up on the kit and concentrate on the picture taking.

But mostly I think this whole film v. digital thing has been done to death on this forum recently.

A couple of examples of how this small, quiet DSLR can be used to make intimate candids without drawing any attention to itself.

Ian

 

[Doctor Zero]

For me, it's about the process of taking the picture, as well as the end result. And for the time being there is no digital camera (that I know of) that has essentially the same controls as my R2 or my FM2n. Aperture, shutter, speed and focus are all I want/need. Like Trius said a few posts back.

Suppose that camera existed, would I go digital then? I am not sure. The apparent immediacy is sometimes appealing. It might work out cheaper too. And I wouldn't feel guilty staring at the pile of pictures that needs to go in albums, I would just need a clever directory structure. But then - do I really want to spend my evenings sitting behind a computer, as I do during the day? Not at all. And would I ever hold a picture, frame a picture, look at an album again? So I don't know. 😕

Doctor Zero

 

[Peter_Jones]

Just a question of preference for me, I prefer the "look" of trad. B&W film, and prefer the whole process, loading the camera, using a full roll before seeing the results etc.
I cannot justify a DSLR/DRF (even if more affordable) as it would just be used for on-line auctions and gathering dust.

 

[Axel]

... do I really want to spend my evenings sitting behind a computer, as I do during the day? Not at all. And would I ever hold a picture, frame a picture...

Hi,

that is also an important point for me to use (more / most) film.

Regards, Axel

 

[pvdhaar]

what I should have asked as well, are a lot of us still using film only because we can't afford a digital that will give us the same images?

No, not because they don't give the same images, but because they don't give the same handling for the same money..

400 Euro or so buys a brand spanking new Bessa-R with a spiffing good lens to boot. There's nothing in the digital world that has the same handling and viewfinder quality for that money.

 

[mfogiel]

From my experience, digital is still lacking in the following aspects:
- resolution
- bit depth
- dynamic range
- full frame coverage (except for Canon)
- pleasant colour rendering (except Fuji)
Only top MF digital backs are up to the task, but for a price well beyond what I would call an amateur's budget.
I have settled on a Fuji S3 with Zeiss ZF lenses, and I use this combo prevalently for colour portraits, where the relative problems related to resolution, dynamic range, bit depth and ful frame coverage are for obviuos reasons less important.

I believe it is only a matter of time when we will get better digital options, but for the time being digital is only one of the tools to consider for a specific job, not a universal solution.

 

[amateriat]

In the course of a day, I negotiate menus while working with my (and others') computers, negotiate menus to manage schedules with my PDA, negotiate menus to work with my cell phone, negotiate menus to get through to some of the people I'm trying to contact via my cell phone, negotiate menus to to get to (some of) my money.

I don't like negotiating menus to take a picture, at least if I can avoid it.

I can fly most digital cameras with little trouble, and they're just dandy for when I have to get a fast snap of something to show someone with little thought or care about the creative process; sometimes, I just need to grab the lil' old Olympus for a quick picture to e-mail somebody (or, if that's somehow not fast enough, send a snap from my cell phone to somebody else's cell phone...galfriend and me both have camera phones now, so we'll really be off to the races in terms of practical uses for the things).

When the photography itself is front-and-center in my head, I want nothing to do with scaling menu trees, at all. Save it for when I'm scanning and printing. To mangle a line from Bull Durham: I load the film, I shoot the film, I soup the film (or, in the case of C41 and E6, have someone else soup it). The camerra controls I work with normally are elemental, and direct, which means they don't get in my way when I'm working. To further papraphrase – Ralph Gibson, this time around – most digital cameras are great at things that have little relevance to the way I prefer to work. Cost is a factor as well, but no bigger than this.


- Barrett

 

[ruben]

Oh Barret...., sometimes you leave me speechless, both by contents and they way you express yourself (*), with the manners having a lot of contents behind. I have noticed through your posts you are a man of contents first of all.

Now, with your permission, I am curious about some detail. Why do you use the word "negotiate" for menus. Where is the negotiation factor there, or the association?

Cheers,
Ruben

(*) Your "with all due respect" is still being celebrated in my memory, and borrowed from time to time.

 

[ruben]

BTW, I wouldn't feel so sorry to spend some money to have an additional LCD screen on the back of my Kievs, enabling me to see what have I done, instead of waiting for my rare Processing Day.