How many have stayed with there old film cameras & didn't get a dslr. Some photos.

<p>It's a <strong>pleasure</strong> to use an old film cameras made of metal and glass. Not to mention the <strong>quality</strong> of a well scanned film. I don't need a DSLR camera.</p><div></div>

<p>If did not have all these old cameras which I have to buy film for and have processed I would<br>

have enough to buy a pretty decent dslr but having just one camera would not be much<br>

fun.</p>

<p>Rod</p><div></div>

<p>Girl in Costco which processes my film always teases me to get a DSLR. I told her that I have one and she advised my to learn how to use it. I actually do occasionally use my Nikon D50. Mostly on family travel and mostly when my wife is tired to carry it around. </p>

<p>I currently use a Canon EOS 7D as my primary DSLR, with a 40D to act as a backup body. This past week I bought a Canon PowerShot G11 to use as a compact camera for those days I don't feel like toting around the 7D/24-105L rig. To be honest, these cameras fascinate me to no end and I thoroughly enjoy shooting each of them, especially the 7D. Their performance is simply amazing and what they help me to do photographically is equally amazing. At the same time I'm currently in love with a Miranda Sensorex that I bought recently, and I'm having a ton of fun using my Konica Autoreflex T with the beautiful 135mm lens that Patrick gave me a few weeks ago. I simply love cameras and I'll use whichever one is best suited for whatever I'm about to shoot, and that could be film or digital, quite often both.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I wasted a couple of years and £1600 using a Nikon D100 before I realised I preferred film. I now have about thirty film cameras.</p>

<p>I have eight film cameras I'm not a collector I use them all, I have no interest in digital imaging, I don't own a digital camera except in my cell phone, and I've never used that.</p>

<p>I did it the other way around: I started with digital compacts, jumped to DSLR and started then with film because I wanted to learn the nitty gritty of photography.<br>

Now I'm happy with both and I wouldn't dump either.</p>

 

<p>I bought my first 35mm camera in 1975. Bought my first digital, a Canon S45 compact, in 2001. The S45, for those who may not know, was back then what the S90 is to the G11 today. A more compact, slightly less versatile version of the same thing. Returned the camera after a week or two, and abandoned digital photography altogether until 2010. For the price of that S45, I instead bought a brand new Nikon F80 and lenses to cover what I wanted.</p>

<p>Nothing has changed 10 years later. It's still pay big money today for the pleasure of owning obsolete technology tomorrow (and tomorrow in digital is never more than a matter of weeks away, if that). Yes, I do think I can come pretty close to faking a digital image so that it looks like a fine art black & white photograph, but, if I have to fake it, I may as well use the real thing to begin with and get the satisfaction of doing real photography, and keep doing it without having to become a slave to computerization and the never-ending upgrade madness.</p>

<p>That's not to say I don't have fun with the digital camera, just like I use to with Polaroid. I most often end up imitating a toy camera photo with it, because frankly, I don't really like any of the images I see on any forum. They all look artificial. Sharp as heck and everything, sometimes very creative, but still artificial. Then, thanks to my little digicam with raw files, I got to see just how right I've been. Raw files further opened my eyes to the fact that digital imagery is totally fake from the second the shutter is pressed. We end up with perfect images that never existed. They are nothing but Wizard of Oz fakery that reconstructs from scratch every time it's opened an image of what we saw when we took the picture. It may be an extremely good imitation, but it's still a fake reconstructed picture, no matter how little computerized editing we do to it. What is fakery worth to you 10 years later? I found that I have great love of my past film pictures, but the digital ones from 10 years ago, and even those from last week, have little meaning to me. They are just images, rather than photographs. With my photographs, I feel like I'm still actually looking at and seeing the real scene I took the picture of.</p>

<p>I've often thought, over the decades I've been doing this, that the best photographers are unconcerned about equipment except to the extent that it does what they need it to do. It's impossible to practice this philosophy in the digital world, because things get out of date too quickly, and contrary to what people say, with digital, it <strong>is</strong> all about the equipment. The better and more expensive the equipment, the better the imitative fakery.</p>

<p>Now, thankfully, I've decided to once again abandon my latest adventure into digital la-la-land. The expensive little digicam is up for sale (it's too late to return it, unfortunately), and I'm going back to the real world. Meanwhile, a Nikon FE is on its way to supplement my 1965 Nikon F and the nice little collection of all glass and metal, manual focus Nikkors I have to mount on them. With that equipment, a complete new upgrade to the latest sensor is just a new roll of film away. For a different look and experience, I also have a few medium format cameras, which, like the Nikons, are just a roll of film away from being like brand new to me.</p>

<p>I may be an idiot, I may be a mental case... but nobody can say I don't practice what I preach. I've handled and used a few DSLRs, but I've never owned one, and I'm fairly sure I never will.</p>

<p>It all depends on what I'm doing. I have lots of film cameras that I shoot regularly. Howver, for macro and work for hire, I shoot with a DSLR. It's not really a question of replacing one with another, it's really about what I need to do at the time. They are tools, and like any tool, some are better suited for some jobs than others. Yes, I love my Nikon F3HP, My Canon A-1, my Rolleiflex, my Haselblad, my Penatx 6x7, my little Rollei 35SE, my Nikon FM2n, my Dianas and Holgas, etc. But, until you have shot macro with a DSLR, you don't know what you are missing. If I had to shoot slides for color macro work (which I had done for over a decade), I guarantee that in this current climate of reduced access to E-6 development, that I would probably not bother. I think that if one is happy with their medium and camera and it does what they need, yes, you can shoot film for a long, long, time. But to be realistic, it's all too easy to naysay the other side of things when you have little experience with it. Just as some Nikon fanatics pooh-pooh Canon without ever having used one, and vice versa; I see a lot of digital bashing based often based upon one's use of a crappy digicam. I've bought DSLRs for less than what I have paid for film cameras, and despite the perception that it's a constant upgarde cycle, a 6 to 10 MP DSLR will not be outmoded for a long time. I use my D70s with Wratten 87 filter for astounding IR shots, and now that Kodak's no longer making IR film, it fills a niche very well.<br>

In short, we all love our film cameras, and yes, they elicit quite a different response in terms of mechanical immediacy and aesthetics from the digital cousins. Film has unique qualities that really make it an amazing medium. A $30 crappy camera can take shots that are not easily duplicated by digital processes. But don't deny that some amazing photography is done with digital cameras (ignore all that post-processing crap), and a camera like a Canon G11 will show what can be done with a well-made digicam. I know this is the Classic Manual Cameras forum, and I like them, otherwise I wouldn't be shooting with them, too. </p>

<p>99% Film for me. I've worked in computers for too long seeing too many hard drive failures, unreadable discs and file formats become obsolete to trust my photos to going digital. I enjoy knowing I can take a piece of film shot in the 1900s or one I shot last week and be able to view it, enlarge it, print it, etc. The technology of film remains essentially unchanged over the past 100 years whereas digital photography seems to change every other week, leaving you feel left behind every time the next new thing comes out. I chase the technology dragon's tail for my job, why would I want to do the same for my hobby? I don't think film is going away anytime soon. Sure the variety of film out there may decrease (which is sad), but I am confident there are enough enthusiasts to keep the industry alive.</p>

<p>Additionally, shooting my Nikons are a joy knowing that I am not reliant on being near a power source to keep shooting. Now if someone gave me a Nikon D700 or a Leica M9, I certainly wouldn't turn it down and I am sure I would use it from time to time. But I would probably get more joy shooting a Nikon S3 or a Leica IIIc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>unless I am not aware of it, there is nothing that can be done with digital that cannot be done with film and/or scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark O'Brien's got it just about right in terms of seeing digital and film as complementary rather than rival. I suspect that in his remarks about macro with a DSLR, he's thinking about the technique of focus stacking, and that's definitely digital territory. I don't see how you can do that with film.<br /></p>

<p>Why stick with film? Ain't never had the loose cash to buy a good grade of digital SLR. They've always been just out of reach, even when I've accumulated enough to buy a used 35 Apo Grandagon.</p>

<p>Now that my 2x3 kit is -- I say -- more-or-less complete maybe I'll be able to accumulate enough unspent lunch money to buy one. Maybe. Just the other day I tried to buy one more lens for the 2x3 kit, missed it because I was slow to respond to the ad. Oh, well, didn't really need it anyway.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I adhere to the heresy that image quality in the final print is limited by the size of the sensor. So I keep hoping that sooner or later there'll be a full frame 2x3 digital back that I can use on, if it comes to that, my 2x3 Cambo SC. And not a scanning back, either, I've seen trichromy done with film and with Betterlight backs; many are the color artifacts due to subject motion. Until then, 2x3 film is it for me. And 35 mm 'cos for some subjects/situations an SLR is the camera type of choice.</p>

<p>About obsolescence. I don't see it as a major handicap. All of my film gear is obsolete.</p>

<p>Cranking the film advance lever is like racking a shotgun; a very satisfying sound and sight.</p>

<p>I mentioned this in other similar posts. I have very nice classic gear and it's paid for. I would love to have a high end DSLR and lenses but I can't afford them and do not have the computer or software to support it.<br>

I don't even have a digital point and shoot. My wife has one I use for posting things on craigslist though.</p>

<p>Pierre, what a nicely composed and written piece regardless of whether one agrees with it or not. I liked this one "We end up with perfect images that never existed." On top of that, the mere suspicion that the picture may have been manipulated to look the way it does is enough to take away from its impact.</p>

<p>I don't own a digital camera or a scanner and am a 100% film user, I'm perfectly satisfied with the cameras and lenses I have, and hope some day to to be able to create with them images that does the equipment justice, because I.M.O we photographers worry far too much about the hardware and far too little about the pictures we take with it and what they say, because who ever asks what sort of pen Shakespeare used or what type of brushes Rembrandt used. I've been a photographer long enough to know by bitter experience that creativity isn't a problem that you can throw money at to solve and that great photographers were/are great not because of their equipment but their creative vision .</p>

<p>I use and enjoy the results from both digital and film cameras. It's impossible for me to ignore the considerable benefits of digital photography though. </p>

<p>I stuck with film SLR's exclusively, because I couldn't afford a digital one. For what I want to do as an amateur, this situation is no problem. If I was doing action photos for money, a digital would be very desirable.<br>

On the other hand, my family members are very happy with point-and-shoot digital cameras for their uses, especially because there is instant feedback and because the images are easily shared.</p>

 

<p>My first camera in 1971 was a Yashica TL Elektro rangefinder. Shortly thereafter, I bought my first Nikkormat (I've since had 5 or 6). In 1992 I bought a used Calumet 4x5 w/21" rail. I recently added a Nagaoka field. Call me old school if you like, and yes digital has its place (advertising, people who know more about computers than photography,etc., etc.), but it really is not credible as photography.<br>

Irrespective of the current (marketing success) popularity of digital, nothing can replace the purity of a negative. In short, F*#@ digital!</p>

 

<p>I got my first camera in the early '60s. It took 127 film. I bought my first SLR in 1971. It was a Canon FTb.</p>

<p>I built my first darkroom in 1975. It was also the year I took my first college level computer course.</p>

<p>I really liked working with B&W in the darkroom. Color, not so much. The control you had when making color prints was so limiting compared to B&W. I tried a Unicolor system, a Kodak Ektaflex system, and Cibachrome to try and make decent prints from my slides. I was unhappy with all systems.</p>

<p>In the 1990's I saw my first glimmer of hope in digital processing. It wasn't until the mid to late 90's when it all started coming together. I could take my slides and scan them into the computer. I could do many of the same things with color prints that I could do in the film darkroom with B&W.</p>

<p>In the last ten years we have probably seen the peak times for this method of slide to digital print. I am so happy that I purchased a great Nikon scanner. I am sad that they have pretty much stopped production of them. They not only provide a great way to make prints of your slides, they also provide a way to transition into a partially digital process. Fear of digital is a terrible condition.</p>

<p>I really think that for color work that this is the best way to go. You can use almost any camera that you like, including all the ones we love. You can take pictures with and of your favorite cameras. You can then share those images on this forum.</p>

<p>My next project will be to start a small collection of SLR's that were available in the 1971 era. I have always wondered if things were better on the other side.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not new to film and I'm not the person to reject novelty just because I don't understand it. This being said, by the time I bought my first DSRL in 2006 I had 25 years of shooting and developing BW film. <br>

I needed to try for myself and make a decision whether to go with the flow (digital) or stay with film. I'm not a pro so whatever route I take it will not impact my life but will definitely impact my soul. I learned the ins and outs of digital shooting and post-processing. I got some good results but I must say I felt empty inside. <br>

I understood quickly that film and digital are very different tools to get to the image that you envisioned. For me film makes more sense and gives me the reward that keeps me going. Many people actually mix-up the tools with the goals but hey, what can you do... we run after best digi clunker because it is in fashion and will supposedly make the artsy pictures I could never take on film. <br>

So, here is the reason I turned back to film a year after I started my digital adventure. I feel again like home, I feel again that I have a say and produce something that people can relay to and be moved by it.<br>

Last Sat I went with couple of photogs from APUG to shoot in the U of T campus in Toronto. For the first time I felt that people are looking at us with respect, we shoot film and use cameras that are totally unfamiliar (4x5, Bronica, Hasselblad). They ask questions, we talk to them. No "digital is better than film" attitude. I feel good. Couple of shots here<br>

 

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p> </p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>I'm not new to film and I'm not the person to reject novelty just because I don't understand it. This being said, by the time I bought my first DSRL in 2006 I had 25 years of shooting and developing BW film. <br />I needed to try for myself and make a decision whether to go with the flow (digital) or stay with film. I'm not a pro so whatever route I take it will not impact my life but will definitely impact my soul. I learned the ins and outs of digital shooting and post-processing. I got some good results but I must say I felt empty inside. <br />I understood quickly that film and digital are very different tools to get to the image that you envisioned. For me film makes more sense and gives me the reward that keeps me going. Many people actually mix-up the tools with the goals but hey, what can you do... we run after best digi clunker because it is in fashion and will supposedly make the artsy pictures I could never take on film. <br />So, here is the reason I turned back to film a year after I started my digital adventure. I feel again like home, I feel again that I have a say and produce something that people can relay to and be moved by it.<br />Last Sat I went with couple of photogs from APUG to shoot in the U of T campus in Toronto. For the first time I felt that people are looking at us with respect, we shoot film and use cameras that are totally unfamiliar (4x5, Bronica, Hasselblad). They ask questions, we talk to them. No "digital is better than film" attitude. I feel good. Couple of shots here<br />

<p>

<p>

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Pictures not uploading. One more attempt...<br>

Giving up</p>

<p>Mihai: Have you tried to resize to 700 pixels or smaller? Curious to see your campus shots (great location). I agree with you on your comments about DSLRs vs. vintage. They are both simply tools to capture images. In the right hands, both can produce memorable and captivating images. I use both -- but my preference has shifted back to clockwork cameras. In fact, even when shooting digital, I take my time more in capturing the light rather than photo-shopping the results later on my laptop. Frankly, it's made me a better photographer. </p>

<p>Marc: You make some excellent points colour vs. b&w darkroom development. I've never really been happy either with the degree of control over my colour developing as opposed to my b&w processing. Agree that fear of digital is silly; we would be seeing nothing on these forum posts if we all feared digital. Start your 1971-era SLR project. Start now. But I will bet you a Canon TLb or a gently used Spotmatic 500 that the collection will not remain 'small'. Famous last words...</p>

<p>Capital Q,</p>

<p>You are so right. I actually laughed to myself when I wrote it. Several years ago I was laid up with a bad back. I started a small collection of photography magazines. It is now huge. For some reason it is hard to have a small collection of anything photographic. Even those with small budgets can find their niche and acquire too much stuff.</p>

<p>One of the great things today is having so much gear available. A search of Ebay will find you almost anything you desire. Then there is the great films available. While we are sadden by the loss of Kodachrome, I remember using High Speed Ektachrome ASA 160. Grain was noticeable in an 8x10.</p>

<p>I just have to learn to narrow my focus. Tonight I bought 20 Modern Photography magazines from the mid-eighties. They cost $2 + shipping for the lot. I keep telling myself that I have enough. Well you know how that goes.</p>