Does is make sense to build a 35mm "Film" System?

[ShunCheung]

<I>I hate the idea of investing in DX lenses that will surely be obsolete in 3 years.</I>

<P>

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with this comment. It took Canon a little while to figure this out, but they are introducing more and more EF-S lenses (Canon's rough equivalent of DX) that are only compatible with their small-sensor DSLRs.

[fourfa]

Each time you click the shutter with a film camera, you will have that $11/roll in the back of your mind - and that does force you to think more carefully and not just "shoot and chimp." But consider learning technical aspects of photography - when you want to explore multi-flash setups, or macros etc - are you really going to sit down and say "ok, today I want to learn something new, I'm going to burn 200 frames, keep track of the shooting conditions of each shot, develop them right away, and eat the cost ($60?) as a learning expense." I could have, and wanted to, but never did. Digital for me has opened up whole worlds I never would have touched before and I'm a better photographer for it. Just another factor to consider.

[vivek iyer]

I also think that the DX format will become obsolete. I am not sure when though. With Nikon reintroducing a 4 Gpix camera every year as a new camera, it could stay for a longer period than one thinks.

 

Interesting that Nikon comes up with many DX cameras but only a few wide lenses to go with.

[jwenting]

Andy, I NEVER have cost in my mind when shooting film. All I care about is getting the shot.

I've wasted a roll or more to get a single shot, and I don't care.

And no, I don't do it for the money. I've only ever sold 2 shots for a grand total of 110 Euro for the two. Compared to the tens of thousands I've spend in gear and film over the last 25 years that's peanuts.

 

I've seen people suggesting that all "serious" photographers shoot only digital. That's complete and utter nonsense.

Serious SNOBS should only digital (and they'd shoot Canon because Canon has a new line of cameras more often so they can show off new gear more often), serious photographers should what suits them best.

I'd sooner say that truely serious photographers shoot black and white film and process it themselves.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>... I hate the idea of investing in DX lenses that

will surely be obsolete in 3 years. --Robert De Anda<br>

</em><br>

Nikon may release a full frame DSLR in the next three years but

if it does it will only do this in the top model, it will be very

expensive and only a few will buy it. <br>

<br>

If you buy DX lenses youll only need one or two for the

wide end. Many could get by with just a AF 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF DX

AF-S. Reliable sources are saying this is the best 24mm lens

Nikon has ever made, on film. Events photographer will want an

events type lens also. Otherwise you can use AF-S, G,

VR, AF-D, AF, AIS, AI and even AI(ed) lenses on the D2H and D2X.

A full frame DSLR will likely need telecentric super wide angles

anyway.<br>

<br>

Photography is full of compromises. The object is to make then

work for you not against you. My widest lens is a 15/5.6 AI

Nikkor and it sucks on a DSLR so Ill leave it to film. My

20/2.8 AIS makes a good 31.5mm lens. Short and medium

telephotos like the 105/2.5 AIS and 180/2.8 ED AIS work great on

the D2H. Even the lowly 135/3.5 AI works fine.<br>

<br>

Chances that DX lenses will be obsolete in 3 years are almost nil.<br>

<br>

<em>I guess that what I really want is a Digital F100.

--Robert De Anda<br>

</em><br>

Sorry, the D2H and D2X have build quality like the F5 and F6. ;-)<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[loreneidahl]

I started using digital heaviliy because I can shoot 30-40 rolls of film a week. So I bought a D2h to save money. So yes for ME the cost savings of digital are very real compared to somebody who only shoots a roll or two of film a week.

 

For example, I got two main events this week- Total expected shots taken will be around 1500-2000.

 

(At $10 roll with processing the payoff is very quick)

 

I still use my F3's and F2 (and my classic cameras) all the time for my Black and White work and when I dont want to bring the digital. I am still looking for lenses to fill gaps in my MF lens system.

 

I also shoot 6x7 , 6x9 and Large Format film. So even thouhg I have embraced Digital I have never left film.

 

Lex made a comment earlier about having enough MP for a print. When I anticipate enlarging a 35mm or digital shot beyond 8x10 I will shoot a different format to get the smoothness of tones and presence of fine detail that I require in large size prints.

 

I agree with David - the D2h is built like an F5. I am sure Lex would concur.

 

The DX issue for me is a non-issue and I WANT the crop factor, because most of my shots require at least some amount of telephoto. What telephoto shooter would not love to have a 127 f1.4 for the price of a 85 1.4 ? :) I have found that the crop factor makes a few of my lenses perform better with digital than with film. :)

 

If I happen to need a ultrawide - I can still use my film cameras.

[vivek iyer]

That is precisely my point, Loren. If you want to use wides/ultrawides, go for film or to Canon (and use Zeiss distagons on them!).

[ShunCheung]

<I>

Nikon may release a full frame DSLR in the next three years but if it does it will only do this in the top model, it will be very expensive and only a few will buy it.

<P>

If you buy DX lenses you?ll only need one or two for the wide end. Many could get by with just a AF 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF DX AF-S. Reliable sources are saying this is the best 24mm lens Nikon has ever made, on film ....

</I>

<P>

This is precisely what I have been saying for over a year. I am glad that Dave Hartman is now saying the same. Since I would rather not getting accused for repeating myself so often, it is better that someone else makes the same point.

<P>

Personally, the 12-24mm/f4 DX pretty much solves all of my wide-angle needs. As Ellis Verner once pointed out, in the film days, very few people needed wide than 20mm. A 12mm DX (18mm film equivalent) should be more than sufficient for 90+% of us.

[rdeanda]

12-24 DX for $900?

 

That's one of my points. When DX becomes obsolete I will also have to upgrade these cropped lenses that will not work on full frame.

 

There also appears to be a misconception regarding "extra reach" with telephotos and the 1.5 "magification" factor. It is a crop not a magnification. When I crop 3000x2000 from my 5000x4000 slide scans,

I get the same view that my friend gets with his telephot and D70.

[francois_gauthier]

There are 2 ways here :

 

first, to build a system for BOTH digital and film, meaning a body of each and a set of lenses fitting both.

 

Yes, it makes a lot of sense because the extra cash in the used film body is not usually too much and bring a complementery approach like those very fast films (over 800 ISO) for low light conditions. In a combined kit the film will have a wider view with the widest lens and the sensor a narrower one with the longest lens.

 

...second, to buy an unrelated film system.

 

Here, it depends. The best values are obviously in lenses that won't fit on any digital system or that are neglected for those. For exemple, the used Zeiss Distagon are still pricey because of those expensive adapters for Canon DSLR but most of the same mount Yashicas goes for much less.

 

Why would someone with a DSLR would also want a film based kit ? Could be for the different experience but could also be for different conditions like real cold weather, night shots or maybe just to have something afordable for risky places where it might get broken or stolen.

 

The film world also offers rangefinders, TLRs, medium and large format, a huge variety.

[loreneidahl]

Robert-

 

Good point about the crop factor. I am usauuly the one saying this , however I tend to get shot down in flames because "everybody knows this".

:)

 

However for ME and how I work it is a major factor in how I shoot, as very often in the concert pit I have no ability to move much, so the extra reach can make a bad situation a very profitable one.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When I had my Exakta 35mm system; there were worries about "the bomb" ; fall out shelters; flash to bang distances. IGY ; shooting photos; were fun. I think a bigger worry was our cars tail fins being obsolete; than worrying about cameras being obsolete. Our Heathkit Conelrad monitors; drinking out of garden hoses; no bike helmets; kept us alive.

[johnmarkpainter]

Robert,

 

What Lex said....

 

Basically, the D70 and D100 kind of SUCK :) (I have the D100 myself). Bad

screens...difficult to Focus manually etc...

 

You can however, get great results with them and they allow you to shoot Digitally which

has it's advantages.

My main Nikon before getting the D100 was an old F2. GREAT viewing screen. GREAT for

Manual Focus.

 

If you like shooting Film, just get an F100 and don't spend too much money on it.

 

If you NEED Digital for specific work applications than that is a different story.

 

jmp

[johnw63]

I guess I'm too cheap for the current technology. Film or Digital. I buy used but clean MF stuff, now. Someday, I'll buy used but clean digital, at a MUCH lower price ! I think, as some here have said, the digital gear will not hold it's price as well as the quality film gear. At some point, I'll get a great used D2x for pennies on the dollar and be happy with it.

[rob_landry]

Robert,

 

Buy the F100 used and forget the "budget" DSLRs. I own both an F100 and a D70 and I will tell you that the D70 is a dog in comparison. Sure, the image quality is good, but using it is not a pleasant experience at all. The F100/MB-15 combo is just that much better. Unless you really have a hankering/need to go digital, forget it unless you can at least spring for a D2h or better.

 

The best thing you can do is focus on building your lens line-up.

 

In order to assist you further, you may wish to tell us what subjects you like to shoot and how many rolls of film you would be shooting over the course of the year. If your shooting volume is low, there really isn't much point to getting a digital. It seems that you are over the learning curve and you do have a 4 MP digicam already. Actually, depending on your shooting style, have you considered moving to a larger film format? There is life outside of 35mm and digital.

[rdeanda]

I shoot urban landscapes and night scenes...<div></div>

[rdeanda]

I shoot portraits of family...

[rdeanda]

I shoot a bit of everything as you can see by clicking on my name (I uploaded 5 pics)

 

I would really like the speed that the 5 fps of the F100 offers and the superior focusing since I will start to go out and shoot wildlife with my "digital buddies". I love the "noise free" images of the Digital Rebel and the D70. However, I would prefer a bit grainy shot of a bird in flight over a "noise free" shot of just the sky due to a missed shot from a low end DSLR. (This is just for illustration).The ability to "instantly view" your results may be besides the point, if you don't get a second chance to get the shot.

 

I shoot about 8 rolls a month and may increase it. I shoot both chromes and negs.

 

I may be beating this into the ground. I am leaning towards the F100, but may wait a few weeks to see if Nikon has something for me on the digital end.

 

Thanks again to all.<div></div>

[RaymondC]

Many of these questions, you already know the answer. You may or may not want pple to make that decision for you, maybe that was why you posted a question in a forum.

 

Ask yourself honestly do you want film or digital? They both take beautiful pictures.

 

I bought my D70 first then got a used F100. You have a N80 and a prosumer digicam, which one do you use more often?

 

I got my D70 a yr ago and had my used F100 for about 6 months. I have used one roll of film when the D70 was at service. My next cam I don't think I want a D2x or D2h or F100 digi version either, if I do get another I think I would get into the world of medium format and 4x5 large format, no I won't use it much but its good when the time comes for impt fotos and its an enjoyment. Having a D70 I have no apetite for a better digicam. Your mileage may vary thou.

[peter_martucci]

THe d70 is a great camera...I just bought one and have felt so much freedom as far as

experimentation, muti-flash etc. If you don't have that $11 a roll cash register clicking in

your head while shooting PERSONAL work, you must be crazy or extremely rich. Not to

mention trips back and forth to the lab. The d70 has rekindled my interest in

photography now that I can view / print my images so quickly after shooting...

 

Plus- with digital, you don't lose sleep while your film's in the lab trying to figure out

whether or not you accidentally bumped the f-stop before or after the shoot :)

[lex_jenkins]

"There also appears to be a misconception regarding "extra reach" with telephotos and the 1.5 "magification" factor. It is a crop not a magnification."

 

============================

 

There's no misconception. It's simply irrelevant. There's a "crop factor" involved with 35mm compared with medium format, with MF compared with 4x5, with 4x5 compared with 8x10, and so on.

 

My Yashica 635 TLR has a 35mm adaptor. With it my 80mm Yashinon becomes, miraculously, a short telephoto!

 

The "normal" lens on my Pentax auto110 SLR (cute li'l thang) is a 24mm f/2.8. If only it had a large enough image circle it'd make a helluva great, fast, cheap ultra wide angle for a Pentax 6x7 SLR.

 

There is no such thing as a "crop factor" unless we apply it equally to every film format. All that matters is image circle. Either it's enough to cover the film/sensor or it ain't. Hence the DX lenses.

 

If DX lenses are a "dead end", then so must be lenses for my baby Pentax auto110, lenses for the Nikon rangefinders (darn that Cosina for waking the dead!), lenses for Leica enlargers, and so on. Yup, what we need is one standard. Everyone should be forced to use lenses designed for 8x10 format film cameras. No, better yet, aerial camera lenses. No, wait, Rodenstock reprographic lenses will be the standard. We'll buy expensive Zörk adapters and hang 10 pounds of glass off our D70's. Nikon better beef up those lens mounts.

 

I think the reason why so many folks get hung up over this "crop factor" non-issue is because they're still thinking in terms of the 35mm paradigm.

 

Time to get over it an move into the frightened new world. That's why I think Olympus had the right idea in abandoning the 35mm paradigm with the E-1. It looks more like a Mamiya or Pentax 645 medium format camera than anything else.

 

I suppose we *could* ask Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, et al, to redesign their dSLR bodies to conform with sensor size. There could be ISO standards dictating maximum dimensions for dSLRs using an APS sized sensor, etc.

 

I'll bet that would make everybody just stinkin' happy.

[jwenting]

"There's no misconception. It's simply irrelevant. There's a "crop factor" involved with 35mm compared with medium format, with MF compared with 4x5, with 4x5 compared with 8x10, and so on. "

 

There IS a misconception.

People are under the impression that simply because it's a digicam their lenses suddenly have 1.5 times the focal length.

 

Those lenses still have exactly the same focal length. The image you get from them is exactly the same as an image you get from a larger medium using the same focal length and then cropped down.

 

It's NOT the same image you get from mounting a longer lens on a camera with that larger medium.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I am glad that Dave Hartman is now saying the same.

Since I would rather not getting accused for repeating myself so

often, it is better that someone else makes the same point.

--Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

Actually Ive been saying this for a while. Perhaps since

the D2H was announced. Anyway I wrote this some months ago...<br>

<br>

<em>David H. Hartman , Jul 22, 2004; 09:17 p.m.<br>

Longevity of DX lenses?<br>

<br>

About the same as the typical Canis Familiaris: nine to fourteen

years.<br>

<br>

Sorry,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

</em><br>

I have quite a tendency to favor the underdog (pun intended) so

when folks were implying that DX lenses would be unsaleable

overnight I came to their (DX lenses) defense. Im like

Janus looking both forward and backwards at once. I also play the

fool too much. Here is more of the same thread...<br>

<br>

<em>My advice is buy the bloody DX lens if you want, just

check the weather each morning. If the wind starts blowing the

wrong way sell it quick, if not keep it, use it, enjoy it.

DHH<br>

</em><br>

Thats sarcasm, risky on a forum as it may be misunderstood.<br>

<br>

Nikon still has not abandoned the AI and AIS lenses and barring a

major break though in manufacturing a full frame sensor will only

go in The top model and it will cost. About nine

years ago I wrote to Nikon for a brochure on the E2 and E2s. It

wasnt until the release of the D2H that I saw a DSLR with

basic features and performance I could really like. It been a

long wait on everthing Ive wanted in computer graphics. Its

not that my positions never change. I probably said Id wait

for a DSLR until Nikon made a full frame model. Who knows how

long that will be? Three years, five years, more?<br>

<br>

Anyway I said it. I just don't think the market for DX lenses

will go flat suddenly.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[lex_jenkins]

Argghhh! It's like banging my head against a cyberwall.

 

==============================

 

"It's NOT the same image you get from mounting a longer lens on a camera with that larger medium."

 

==============================

 

Jeroen, did you actually read what I wrote or did you just deliver your standard response to any discussion of the "crop factor"?

 

Are you trying to claim that the 200mm focal length that is roughly a "normal" lens for the 5x7 format is *not* a telephoto lens on a 35mm camera? If so, I give up. Because if you can't accept that simple fact, you'll never accept the fact that the same focal length on a Nikon dSLR is an effectively longer telephoto than on a 35mm camera.

 

I don't mean to seem irritable about this, but it gets tiresome having to reiterate it.

 

Two words: Image circle.

 

All else is irrelevant. That includes the 35mm paradigm. Despite the fact that this is the Nikon Forum and that traditionally Nikon has made 35mm cameras, it is no longer the *only* format.

 

Perhaps the folks who've suggested splitting up the forum into film and digital forums are right. There may be no hope for reconciliation as long as people are stuck on the 35mm paradigm.

 

Of course, then we'd have to hope that those of us who use both Nikon film and digital cameras can shift intellectual gears between forums.

 

Maybe that's the real reason why Nikon introduced the DX lenses: to get people unstuck by making them use lenses with image circles too small for 35mm. Maybe they realized it was a mistake to make dSLRs compatible with 35mm film SLR lenses. All it seems to accomplish is debating the vacuous.

 

It almost makes me want to start using my Pentax auto 110 SLR again. At least nobody argued that the 24mm normal lens wasn't a "real" normal lens, that it was just a dumbed-down DX equivalent that wouldn't work as a wide angle on Pentax 6x7 cameras.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think Nikon would have no more market than Olympus if they had abandoned the F-mount. There is no mistake there and no obvious disadvantage. The quality and price level of DX format cameras is pretty ideal. And DX lenses reportedly give excellent image quality for wide angle shots. I think it's very nice that we only have to buy 1-2 new lenses for the new format. It's certainly cheaper than buying 500 mm f/4 type lenses for use with 35 mm.