I am thinking of selling off the film gear. For good.

As much as I LOVE my cameras, I love taking pictures more. And money and time

are getting tight enough that I don't have capacity for dealing with buying

film, developing it, scanning it, editing dust, etc.

 

I own an RF645 with 45/65 and a FLAWLESS Rollei 3.5F 12/24. My intent is to

sell the Bronica setup and buy a Canon 40D/lens combo.

 

I have a Konica Minolta DImage Scan MUlti Pro that would also go for sale. I

figure the camera and scanner should produce about $2K to spend on something

digital.

 

Heresy, I know. But I think the time has come. And that knew 40D is a beautiful

creature.

 

I see no use in buying the 5D.

 

Ideal end result: keep the ROllei, buy a 40D. Sell the scanner and the RF645

setup.

 

ANyone want to smack me around a bit?

please forgive my vile spelling. Yikes. "and that NEW 40D is a beautiful camera"

Do you shoot exclusively in colour ?, if yes, and you don't need to print big, then digital could be an option, but FWIW the only really high quality sensor DSLR on the market is the Fuji S5.

If you shoot B&W, forget the digital for at least few more years.

No, after 40 years of film I finally "bit the bullet" six months ago switched to digital and have never looked back. It's just so much quicker, easier and cheaper to shoot digital. I've spent about $2,200 so far on my camera, lenses and accessories and have taken around 3500 pictures (in SIX months--unheard of when I shot film) that I figured I've already paid for the camera in savings (I shot 120 and 4x5 slide film for the past 20 years). The only drawback is that nothing looks quite as good as a big transparency on a light table.

I've been using digital a lot recently but I find I'm having even more fun with film. I recently aquired a Graphic Century miniature press camera and am able to buy short dated film for it at $7 (actually 3.50GBP) a roll. That seems pretty cheap to me - just a little more expensive than a pint of cider!

 

My policy is always to carry a digital camera but to take a film camera with me, when the conditions are right.<div></div>

Oops! Forgot to mention that the $7 is for Velvia 50 and includes the cost of processing - Black and White film works out at the equivalent of $4 a roll processed.

With the current low prices on used MF gear, you will be better off keeping it.

Keep the Rollei? Then it isn't "for good".

 

 

It's hybrid photography like a lot of shooters these days.

 

 

If I were you, I'd also keep the scanner if it can do the Rollei films. If not, dump the

scanner and get a Epson V750 flatbed for the Rollei films which also gives you a nice way

to scan in prints you've made in the past and get them into digital format.

 

 

A few observations from a long time "hybrid" shooter:

 

 

Digital photography is a blast, it'll consumes you at first ... and any film camera will just sit

collecting dust. Then the novelty eventually wears off ... and the drudgery you felt about

scanning will also creep into digital processing ... especially after a nice set of vacation

pics takes you 2 days to process properly.

 

People swear to God that they won't become promiscuous with digital capture ... but

they're lying ... it's a highly contagious disease born of ease.

 

Then for some "converts" comes the Photoshop phase ... where pretty decent

photographers put on their "Bozo the Clown" glasses and proceed to tart up their work.

Horrible, simply horrible.

 

My favorite observation is how fast some people who go digital forget what the hell a good

print looks like. It's like some sort of selective memory or amnesia ... and they'll argue to

the cows come home that their waxy looking pic with the artificial grain added back in

looks better than film.

Thank you and Amen, Marc.

Hybrid shooting is certainly the answer. If it really matters I still shoot it on film..

Can't agree with Marc more.

 

After at least several generations of digital cameras (starting from Kodak's 1.6meg digital cameras) I have since been shooting less and less of digital and have started acquiring MF cameras. In my arsenal, I have Bronica SQA, Pentax 67 and Yashica 124G -- I love these film cameras -- they are just much more fun. I even went back to my Canon 1VHS... I use a Epson 4990 for scanning... looking at drum soon.

I purchased a DSLR about 1 1/2 years ago (D200). Yes, it is an excellent camera. But I'm still shooting film, both B&W and color, and printing in a darkroom.

 

Negative film handles highlights so gracefully - I rarely end up with blocked up highlights. Digital, on the other hand, requires constant vigilance to avoid clipping highlights. And the dynamic range of film is excellent. So I'm actually considering selling my D200 and going back to my F100. And my Bronica RF645 and Crown Graphic will continue to get a great deal of use.

 

I would stay with digital if I were to shoot professionally. But, for now, I'll print B&W with my enlarger and will scan color film.

I reluctantly bought my first DSLR 3 or 4 years ago intending only to use it for business. Today I'm selling off the film cameras I can bear to part with, and recently decided to shut down my BW darkroom (been running for 15+ years). I'm hooked. I think most DSLRs are providing quality generally superior to 35mm, and many are giving medium format a run for it's money. There is digital gear out there that's rocking 4x5. Sure it costs almost as much as a house, but prices will come down. Look at the computer you are using: compare it's power and cost to the power and cost of the first computer you bought. Future cameras will be amazing, and even affordable.

 

I hated dropping my color film off at the lab. Two days of post-processing in Photoshop is easy for me; to do the same number of film photos in my darkroom would take me weeks if not months. Techniques such as unsharp and contrast masking that were reserved for my best 4x5 landscapes because they took all day can now be applied to my family snaps in seconds.

 

I don't expect digital to look like film. It's the look that everyone is used to, but just as film looks different from daguerreotype and colloidion, digital has it's own look and it's more versatile than any process that has come before. The only limit is the photographer's imagination. Some say it's blurring the line between illustration and photography, but I could care less about labels. I create images to please myself and my clients, not to satisfy photography cliques.

 

Be prepared to relearn some skills; not everything transfers. It seems to me that some folks who spent years learning film techniques, processes, and printing expect digital processing and printing to come easy. My digital knowledge seems to be coming along faster, but it still takes concentration, effort, and time to learn. Again and again you'll hear "digital can't do this or that", but what they really mean is "I can't achieve this or that with digital." Chances are someone else has figured it out.

 

When you get your 40D treat yourself to some low light shooting at ISO 1600, and see what you think. I never use film faster than ISO 400 because I'm not a fan of coarse grain. I have no qualms shooting my Canon DSLRs at 1600; it looks better to me than 35mm Fuji NPH ever did.

"My favorite observation is how fast some people who go digital forget what the hell a good print looks like. It's like some sort of selective memory or amnesia ... and they'll argue to the cows come home that their waxy looking pic with the artificial grain added back in looks better than film."

 

Thank you, thank you!!

I have a friend that does photography for a living, he uses or rather used a pentax 67II, his results were awsome, he has a gallery in the city i live in, he has been talking about going digital for a while, i tried talking him out of it. i kept telling him, he wouldnt get the results with digital that he gets with the pentax, nevertheless he sold his pentax the other day on the auction site, i asked him what he was shooting with now, he said "my new digital is on its way, what did you get? i asked. ,,, he hesitated.. XTI. The canon xti? i asked. yes, 10.1 mp,, he defended. i just kind of walked out of his gallery in total shock.

BTW, I have nothing against Canon's,, the rebel xt and the xti, are both fun to play with, if you can see through the view finder. He was better off buying one of those little square flat sony camera's with the big screen on the back, those are in 10mp now. sorry 10.1mp... my bad

I could't agree more with what Marc and others have written. After several years of shooting

digital with Canon 1D Mark II cameras, I've rediscovered the joys of my Pentax 6x7 and the

more contemplative approach it requires. Using it, I've also found, has improved my digital

work with the Canon equipment.

 

Like you, I have the Konica/Minolta Multi Pro scanner. It, along with the 6x7 trannies,

produces wonderful images.

 

I had thought about selling both the Pentax kit and the scanner. I'm so very glad I didn't.

Although I much prefer film, both MF and 35mm, I probably shoot more digital for convenience. So, FWIW, my advice to you, who seems to have thought this out, is do it! End enjoy the ability to use film or digital as you see fit.

I came from the other end. Rather than coming to digital from film, I started with digital and evolved backwards into film. I started trying to take photography seriously about the time I got a Canon S1-IS. I quickly wasn't satisfied and went through an FZ20, a Rebel XT, and landed on KM 5D with anti-shake in the body so all my lenses are "IS". That led me to Maxxum film cams (compatible with my Dslr lenses) and seeing the quality there, I later branched into the Pentax 645 system for even better quality (who could resist a lke-new Pentax 645 with lens for $300?) Lastly, I added a Fuji 645Zi for travel and that rounds out my current collection -- KM 5D, Maxxum 7, Pentax 645N, and Fuji 645Zi.

 

So far I'm loving the hybrid approach. If I'm in the car, I usually have the DSLR and two MF film cameras with me. I shoot more shots on the digital, but if it's a shot I think is worthy of a large print for the living room wall, I take it with film too. My volume? For a week-long cruise to the Caribbean, I came back with about 160 digital shots, and 40 film shots.

 

A couple of years ago, I wouldn't have thought I'd need 4 cameras for this hobby, but I can't imagine letting any of them go. They each have their uses and are a pleasure to shoot with in their own ways.

When I bought my RZ67 kit from KEH a couple years back, one of my co-workers who shoots for a couple horse racing magazines asked me why I bought it instead of a digital camera. "It's like everyone buying a DVD player and you went and bought a Beta player" he said. Funny thing his he's still a film shooter himself but he keeps saying he's going to be forced to go digi soon just to stay competitive due to films slower turn around time.

 

I say keep your old film cameras and shoot both. It's always nice to have options available. Just don't get caught up in thinking you have to own every new digital camera your brand puts out. Then your savings vs film goes right out the window. My father I think owns about 5 or 6 digital cameras. In his film days he owned one or two cameras and kept them for years.

First I'm no professional, even not an amateur. I went from 35mm slides to digital to MF.

 

Previously I came back from holiday with 10 rolls Kodachrome. Spend a weekend mounting and sorting them. You could then project them 1.5m accross and they would be gloriously sharp and have wonderful contrast. When the camera began acting up I went digital.

 

Came back with 1200 shots over the same period. Spend more than a month going over them, converting, sharpening, adjusting balance etc. And then you can look at them on a TV. Ever done that? You just start crying. Horrible, absolutely horrible. No dynamics, hardly any contrast and or not sharp or oversharpened. If you take a look on forums about digital photography you turn away. Once you know how an oversharpened pic looks like, you see nothing else anymore.

 

So next year I'm going for MF slides, 35mm slides (there is still Kodachrome I found out) and the digital. The digital for pics for my hobby and when there is not enough light for the others.

If you make your living from shooting then I would go ahead and get the best digital camera I could. If you shoot for fun, kids, grandkids, birthdays etc I would get the Leica 10mp p&s digital camera for about $500: Takes great pictures that can be enlarged and they look great. If you shoot for the wall, take an occasional portrait and do some "love to be a pro landscape shooter" work I'd keep one of the film cameras. As a non-pro shooter if your output is under 3 rolls a month just get them processed and have the best pictures enlarged. I use two local labs and picture prices are so good it doesn't make sense sometimes to do you own work. So sell the scanner, one camera, buy the Leica and put the rest of the money into a a savings account to pay for processing. Oh, and btw, owning a digital camera will produce a great amount of crappy photo's, and you will eventually loose photo's cause you forgot to back them up; Over and over and over again till your dead, your kid is dead and his kid is dead. Meanwhile my box of negs will survive. Funny that.

"Came back with 1200 shots ... Spend more than a month going over them ... And then you can look at them on a TV. Ever done that?"

 

Try a different workflow.

 

Download the 1200 shots. Spend 30 minutes looking them over on the computer (contact print equivalent, no?) Pick out the 20 worthy of closer examination. Start the serious digital darkroom on the 10. Finish with 8 gorgeous 16x20 prints in a couple of evenings.

 

Unfortunately, there's no practical current equivalent to film projection. The highest resolution technology available to consumers, HDTV, is still only around 2MP. Since the image is being down-sampled for display, there's no reason to sharpen. However, the display does need to be color calibrated, and that's another set of headaches.

 

Alternatively, the digital files can be printed out to film with a film recorder. This is a bit esoteric, so you'll have to find a pro lab that offers this service. It won't be cheap.

I tossed my Oly 8080 off a four story balcony after using it for a year and a half because I

found that I didn't like the way it made images. They were properly exposed, color was right,

but it didn't match what I liked about 6X6 images I make with my 500 C/M. And I enjoy the

darkroom and the silver print. I did pick the Oly up and place it in the dumpster though...

Yeah, you're all right. I'll probably just sell one of the cameras and keep the scanner. I'll just have to cough up the dough for the digicam the hard way...from the bank account.

 

I just get into these things when I want to get rid of my giant workflow and have one camera. Of course, well, you know.

Hey, George, you know you'll just replace one giant workflow with another. You'll end up with many more images and more time in Photoshop.