what really stops me from going digital

[sanmich]

Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).

So...

Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.

The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.

In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.

So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?

 

[Moriturii]

Reason I use film is my very small lightweight full frame rangefinder camera that I can slip into my backpack easily. No alternatives for that in the digital realm except for M9 which I'll never buy. And I don't want to lug around a D700 camera either, I'd rather stop photographing. X100 is cool but I don't like or use 35mm lenses or FOV, strictly 50mm, what else? Nex7? Perhaps...

 

[Keith]

For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days! 😀

 

[cosmonaut]

Not me. With digital as it stands now it is no real benefit to be full frame. There are lots of cameras on the market that comes very close to ff quality. I shot film because I like doing it and with an enlarger my film pictures are sharper and better dynamic range than a scan. But I shoot digital because it is easier to shoot things like my daughters soocer games that would be costly and impossible with an RF. I use both.

 

[dave lackey]

Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).

So...

Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.

The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.

In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.

So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?

Count me in! I would love to do certain projects in digital but I have had enough of DSLRs over the years and am only interested in digital RFs, of which there are only three options, the M8/8.2/9.

My last photo documentary was done with the M3 and my Leica R4 (SLR) because I cannot afford even one M9 used or new. Total out-of-pocket cost for film/developing less than 20 rolls of film was about $400+.

In addition to that, I needed an image character that matched the town's character. Film matched the town's character wheras any digital conversion I did failed. The town is very happy with the results and have requested a gallery starting next month.

http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1

 

[Jamie123]

I don't use any Leicas and even though I imagine an M9 would be fun, I have no real desire to have one.

The reason I stick with film despite the hassle of scanning is simply that I cannot afford a digital solution that would satisfy me, namely some large sensor digital MF back. Until I can I'm 'stuck' using MF and LF film.

 

[Vics]

I've been shooting film for nearly sixty years, and I don't see any reason to switch. Also, I really don't like automatic exposure/focus. Remember the Maxxum scare of the '80s?

 

[thegman]

For me it's a simple matter of preference. I like the results I get from film, and recreating the look with Photoshop etc. is just not for me. Instant gratification is not a thing for me, and I'm not fussy about full-frame/crops etc.

I don't move to digital because it does not appeal to me on any level, except maybe the low on-going cost, and compacts can get really tiny, waterproof etc. For photo trips when I'm going out with the express purpose of taking photos, I just don't see any advantage to digital.

 

[gavinlg]

For me it would come down to not being able to use my OM-1 ... I don't have too much rangefinder lust these days! 😀

So much truth in this! OM's are so pleasurable to use they actually keep me using film!

 

[pobe]

I'd love to have an M9 but even if I did my M4 would probably get some regular exercise. I've fallen in love with the process of film and working in the darkroom. The tactility, the smells...

I've tried scanning as a substitute for contact sheets but it's not my cup of tea. Handy for sharing pictures online, but imho it doesn't compare to a traditional print.

 

[hipsterdufus]

It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).

Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.

 

[dave lackey]

Film FF RF....
Buddha: "It is better to travel well, than to arrive".🙂

Harley Davidson: It's the journey, not the destination".😉

 

[dave lackey]

It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).

Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.

+1 on that...😛

 

[Austerby]

I have an M8 but I'm thinking of selling it. My NEX-3 enables me to use fast glass on a digital and whilst you lose the form factor of the lens there's a lot of lens character retained. Digital is useful and can be fun but I've no intention of stopping using film.

I have too much kit at the moment but am definitely contemplating a move to a combination of M3 and Zeiss Ikon for my 35mm, my NEX for the digital (and I may upgrade from the 3), plus my Hasselblad and Agfa 6x9 folder for my MF needs.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Lately, the scanning process have driven me crazy, and I was rethinking the reasons to stick with film (and sticking with film I am).

So...

Even if I was willing to move to digital...
I am not ready to give up on RF
I am not ready to give up on my fast primes for, say, a tri-elmar.
I am not ready to give up on a backup camera, and a second camera to be around with two lenses ready.

The price for this is... two M9, 14 K$.
I can't afford that, even one M9 is beyond reach and as I said, I would never be with only one camera.

In the SLR realm, I would definitely be content with a D700.

So I wonder: How many stick with film, because basically they stick with FF RF?

Well, I live without a second M9, purely because I can't afford it, so I carry an M8 as a backup. Sure, the M9 is vastly more convenient, but the key word is backup: I have to use it only if the M9 packs up, or to give it a little exercise occasionally. I seem to have less trouble with changing lenses than some on this forum.

Besides, I cheat. My wife carries one film M as a main camera and a second as a backup. Sometimes I use her 'backup' camera as a second body, and sometimes she uses mine...

Cheers,

R.

 

[SteveM(PA)]

It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras. The only "vintage-style" (with direct shutter speed and aperture control) digital cameras that I know are the Digilux 2 (too expensive for 5mp and small sensor), X100 (no interchangeable lenses), RD-1 (would have to buy new lenses to deal with crop), M8 (too expensive/crop), and M9 (WAY too expensive).

Yes, you can adapt vintage lenses to some digital cameras, but there are too many compromises (ergonomics, crop factor, etc.) for me to bother. The only compromise-free camera that would do is the M9. And I just can't justify that cost. But that's okay; I just do photography for fun anyway. Maybe by the time film dies, an M9 will be within my reach. Until then, I'm having fun with film.

Yeah man. Old cameras are fun. Pure and simple. (Does anybody remember laughter? 🙂) The more expensive the camera, the more I feel that I have to justify the cost through taking a good picture. But more often when I'm asking for nothing from an old camera, I tend to get something. Relatively.

 

[paulfish4570]

because of space and plumbing, i am stuck with a hybrid print process. that is a key reason i am looking at buying a "prosumer" grade fixed lens digital cam, mostly for color snapshots, and reminder subject shots for MF to be shot at another time.

 

[alexnotalex]

I've started developing my own BW film, and strangely, with the scanning workflow, I feel like i've gone more digital. And after the jpegs, curves, luminosity, cleaning dust and sharpening, I feel very very far from when I loaded the Tri-X and shut the back. Hmmm.

 

[andredossantos]

I recently sold off my digital kit because I decided that I love color film, especially slides, and I want to shoot as much as I can before it either becomes too expensive or disappears. Secondary to that, yes, my preference is to use a "FF" Leica RF for 35mm film (along with my Rolleiflex for which there is no equivalent in digital that I could ever possibly afford).

Ill have plenty of time to shoot digital in the future.

 

[f16sunshine]

M8/8.2 is absolutely workable. I don't think M9 is an absolute must for a digital jump off. I miss the corners and flaws of my lenses sometimes. Certainly not often enough to spill the extra shells for a camera that has output so very similar to one costing 1/3 the price. I suggest searching photos of both the M8 and M9 printed or on screen. If you think you can tell the difference than go for an M9. If you can't, why spend all the extra dough?