Digital or film body

[tri-x1]

Yep. I hope folks just keep snapping up those new digital models coming out ever six months. Makes all those high end film Nikons and lenses cheaper. And when the digital slr market is saturated to where prices drop to keep people buying, I should be able to get a digital model that will meter with my older Nikkors for half of the current prices. I love the free market!

[nilanjan_sen]

Great thread. I have a similar dilemma myself, as a hobbyist who enjoys taking pictures with a fine precision instrument.

 

I own three lovely Nikon film bodies (F3, F5 and N8008S) and a raft of manual focus lenses. I do not own any autofocus lenses other than a 28-105, 50/1.8 and two old Tokinas. I also have a few digital point-and-shoots, with a Sony DSC-F717 being the best.

 

I am thinking of getting a DSLR but am a little conflicted. A lower end Nikon body is nowhere near as nice as my film bodies and cannot meter with my manual focus lenses. And having played with a D200, I appreciate its features and ruggedness but as a hobbyist, cannot bring myself to pay $1700 for the body, plus the cost of a wide-angle zoom and external flash - given that 1) we are in the early stages of digital camera technology, and the cameras of today will be obsolete in a couple of years; and 2) the same money would buy an F6, which is arguably the zenith of film SLR development.

 

I am pondering my options, including starting with a new digital platform based on the Olympus E1 which is being closed out at sharply reduced prices.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> it's getting questionable for me to continue investing in analog gear yet the prices for what I would like in digital are out of my budget

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

You've answered your own question, haven't you. For your personal needs, stay put and don't buy anything else except film. <p>

 

Enjoy your photography.

[StuartMoxham]

What about a D50 and a light meter. Stick some more ram in your PC and you will be good to go. You don't need the latest and greatest PC to get started and enjoy digital. When I got my D70 I still had an old 433mhz celeron based machine with 198mb ram and a tiny 6gb hard drive. Shooting RAW was out of the question with my machine but the 1.4ghz machine I have at work did a great job with the RAW files and was just about fast enough so I would say that your 1.8ghz machine with some more RAM would keep you going for a while.

[greg s]

A lot depends on how often you do photography and what type of subjects, etc. But generally, if it is not obvious to you that you need/want to go digital, then you may as well wait. It sounds like film is still working for you well enough.

[janvanlaethem]

Jim,

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Film gear is so cheap nowadays there are some great bargains to be had. I bought an F3HP in EX+ condition from KEH for $ 465. I had always wanted it, but couldn't afford it new.

 

I also picked up a Nikkor 135mm f:2.8 for $ 150 and a Bronica 250mm for $ 245.

 

Keep those DSLRs coming, I'm having a great time.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I own a D200 and medium and large format gear. The D200 is great for shooting my kids' soccer games and such. But my yield of good shots shooting sports isn't fantastic (it's new to me, but I'm learning). But I still reach for my film cameras most of the time beacuase I really enjoy B&W and printing in my darkroom. For me, it's a matter of choosing the workflow that I enjoy the most. YMMV.

[alexander_gisoldi]

Thanks again to all of you that responded. I agree that with low prices on film gear it is very appealing to pick up more stuff--even though I earlier stated it would be counterproductive to invest more in film gear. It's kind of like an addiction I guess and I've got to exercise a little self control! I also look at the low prices of film cameras that I could only dream about 15 years ago and say I'd like to have that--kind of like that F4 at KEH. In the end I'll probably cave in and end up buying it and some more Bronica lenses, but I too am happy with B/W and enjoy developing and scanning. In some sick way it seems to make more sense to me because the prices are reasonable and within my grasp--unlike higher end digital stuff. I'm sure all the naysayers in the digital camera forum would tell me film is a thing of the past and to catch the digital wave--I need to learn how to swim first. Hope to upgrade to a film scanner eventually, but for the time being I'll stick with what I've got and some Tri-x! Thanks for helping me see the light--no pun intended!

[michaelchristensen]

I have a D200 and a vast assortment of film-based cameras. I never intended to shoot pro -- but things happen, a few weddings here and there, a gazillion model shots .. and film was getting expensive to process and the throw-away rate high for models. That said. It's digital for shots that I give/sell to other people .. for my own use it's a mixture of film and digital.

 

I don't care what they say, a good film shot beats a processed digital shot for me. And the dollars I thought I was saving with digital really is not that significant in that I'm spending too much damn time on the computer. I'm more careful with film and it shows in my work .. less photos, better photos vs. lots of photos, lots of throw-aways to get a comparable handful of shots to send to the model agencies.

 

Yes, I shoot both film and digital for wedding work, but only digital for models .. and yes, it's always a new photo editing program, special plug ins to those programs to tweak the post processing production ... and other computer headaches.

 

Both have advantages and disadvantages. Don't think for a minute that you'll be saving money on digital .. you're not. But I guarantee that digital will definitely make you a better film photographer as you'll be exploring shooting situations you'd not chance with film to save money.

 

Film cameras are a real bargain at this time as there is always the photographer out there who thinks a high-tech camera is going to snag the better shot. The truth is that consumer digital pretty much sucks, and pro-digital has just barely become as good as film always has been .. my advice, keep the film camera and supplement with a pro digital model of your choosing .. use film for you personal stuff, and digital for practice and experimentation .. you may or may not find yourself shooting more digital than film .. makes no difference. What is important is that you gain experience with each system that transfers to the other. In the process you will find that both have their advantages and their problems .. and you'll have two different "hammers" to drive the nail.

 

For my purposes, I need both mediums .. for different reasons.

[Mike_R1664876643]

I think the D80 will be a great DSLR to move to digital from 35mm, and, while expensive, at least it's $700 less than a D200. I've shot nothing but 35mm for nearly 30 years. My only digital cameras have been a small Canon A85 and a Panasonic that I lost. The D80 will be my first serious digital camera. I hope I get the same feeling when I get that camera as I did when I got my first 35mm. One thing's for certain, there is no money to be saved with digital. I hear people saying how shooting digital is free, but they must not do anything with their pictures. I just had 30 small prints made from my Canon at Sam's for about $10. I used to be able to get 24 double prints from my 35mm film for less than half that. Of course, with film there are a lot of wasted shots too that still get processed.

[janvanlaethem]

Mike,

 

You don't necessarily have to get all your pictures printed. When I use negative film, I just get the film processed without copies. You can easily pick out the best shots on a light box and then ask to print only your favourite images. This approach takes a little longer, but you'll save a substantial amount of money in the long run. There's always the underexposed or shaky shot that you don't want on print.

 

I mainly use slide film, where I only have to pay approximately 3 Euros to get it developped. Not a big expense for 36 images.

[Mike_R1664876643]

Thanks for the idea on just getting film processed and only print the good shots. I should have done that years ago! I mostly shoot slide film too. I pay only about $5.00 (US) for processing, and I actually get photos back and not just a bunch of files. The slides I've taken over the years are priceless to me.