what really stops me from going digital

hipsterdufus said:
It's all about the cameras for me. I love vintage cameras.
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
 
For me it's about having a connection to the camera. I'm not necessarily pro-film or anti-digital, but I do find more film cameras that I can connect with. I find that most digital cameras have too many menus, and multifunction buttons and dials. All I really want is easy access to aperture, shutter speed, and maybe exposure compensation. Therefore I tend to gravitate to older, manual focus cameras, or cameras that mimic those features.

I do find myself interested in the FujiFilm X100 and the Leica M9 for those reasons; however, the Fuji's fixed lens and the M9's cost rule them out for me.
 
Ben Z said:
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. If anyone ever figures out how to drop digital sensors in old cameras, the market will make Leica lens prices look stagnant. ;)

I love the digital process and love that I can do the whole process in my home. A color darkroom in a studio apartment can be done, but it has more compromises than its digital counterpart.

I had to splurge and buy a M9 to be truly happy in digital rangefinder land. However, I'll never spend $7,000 on a camera again... so I'm hoping we continue to get rangefinder like cameras with dedicated knobs and optical VFs. The X100 is a good start.
 
Last edited:
I just got a Sony NEX 5N and I have to say it is a technological baby powerhouse, but I much prefer using my M3 or my Nikon F. You know the reasons and I have said it before. It's mystical.
 
I'd probably have an M9 if it were the price of a 5DII or D700. I'd still probably shoot mostly film, but it would be nice to have digital as an option. Not for that price though.
 
kshapero said:
I just got a Sony NEX 5N and I have to say it is a technological baby powerhouse, but I much prefer using my M3 or my Nikon F. You know the reasons and I have said it before. It's mystical.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have heard of anyone mentioning digital and seductress in the same sentence....:p The M3 OTOH... is definitely a seductress, and I image quite a few other RF bodies.:angel:
 
I just developed 2 rolls of HP 5 this morning, one of them I finished off that had been in my M3 awhile. I have a fresh experience for the love of vintage cameras, the tactile feeling, simplicity, and simple fun of the process that the prior comments mention came strongly to mind reading this thread. I throughy enjoy the whole process especially printing my negatives and even scanning them.
 
Ben Z said:
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Click to expand...

I assume that you are not implying that all who do *like* the look of film is saying so because they feel the need to make up something.

Did I assume correctly?
 
I'm in exactly the same situation as the OP, except I'm happy with film as long as I can still get Neopan Acros and Reala. The M9 is the only palatable alternative to my M2/M3 and it's just too expensive for most people trying to support a family, pay off a mortgage and save for retirement.

The current plan is to save - over a period of many years - for an M9 or its successor in case the sky falls and film disappears completely. I have enough b/w film in the freezer to last until then. I haven't bothered to stockpile colour film as I don't know about the availability of C41 commercial processing. I'll just buy and shoot colour as long as I can.

It will be a sad day if I ever press the shutter on the last frame of my last film but the Leicas will get a good run before then. Who knows - someone might even make a digital back for the M3!
 
f16sunshine said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well said.

The M8 is fun and the images at low ISO are brilliant.
 
when i want simething quick and easy an NON-ARCHIVAL, I shoot digital.

When I want something PERMANENT, I shoot film.

For those really important subjects - family and friends - I always shoot film.
 
Teuthida said:
when i want simething quick and easy an NON-ARCHIVAL, I shoot digital.

When I want something PERMANENT, I shoot film.

For those really important subjects - family and friends - I always shoot film.
Click to expand...

Digital is non-archival only if you have poor data management skills. Images I took 12 years ago still look exactly as the day I tripped the shutter. By contrast, I have film images as old and far, far older that I wish I could say the same thing for.
 
I'm young so I figure that I might as well enjoy film while I can. In 20-30 years, who knows if film will still be around, and if so, will it be such a niche market (e.g., Polaroid --> The Impossible Project) that a roll of film will cost $30?
 
I have not taken a decent photo for about 20 years, when I owned an Olympus Trip 35. I thought my sight was too poor to focus properly and to see the little LCD on the back of the camera. Then I saw a documentary on the Leica camera and learned that there were 2 basic types of focusing mechanisms.
Checked out the Leica M8, M9, M10m way too expensive.
So I bought an Olympus 35 RC and all the accessories for about $200 on ebay and have just shot my first film. So we shall see.
I must say I have enjoyed the tactile feel of the camera and the focusing, setting and shooting of it.
John Fenn
York WA
 
Ben Z said:
It's refreshing to hear someone say that unashamed, without feeling the need to concoct all sorts of excuses like the "look" of film is better or some convoluted economic argument.
I do miss using the vintage cameras. I do not miss film.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.

This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
 
Barring EMP, if you keep the digital files on a network-connected drive you should have no problems. Even optical discs are a pretty safe medium-term bet since the 12cm disc is well-entrenched and all new players (Blu-Ray) read old formats like CD.

EMP certainly would mess everything up, though, and (oddly) probably wouldn't fog unexposed film to a great extent.
 
Teuthida said:
Fair enough. But In 20 years, when you can't retreive a single digital file you've ever taken between 2005 and 2020, you'll be missing film a lot.

This is the digital elephant in the room. Archival permanence. begatives will be there long after you are dead. Digutal files? I seruously doubt your current files will be retreivable in 10 years ( absent herioc constant viglence on your part) let alone in 50.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep harping on this when it's total BS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom