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

[david_h._hartman]

If and when Nikon releases a full frame DSLR they will almost

surely release telecentric super wide angle lenses. The AF-S 12~24/4.0G

ED-IF is a telecentric lens (I believe). Maybe advances in

sensors will make then unnecessary maybe not. Digital is the same

and different than film. Who knows what challenges and exploits

lie ahead. Oh No! Only 30 seconds left of April Fools Day.

Oh its past. My slow typing. Well I guess a fool can post

any day of the year here at PHOTO.NET. ;-)<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[wayne_cornell2]

"35mm film cameras are now obsolete"

 

 

And the digital model you buy today is obsolete before you get it out of the store.

[lex_jenkins]

Yeh, and thank goodness for that, Wayne. It's the only way I could afford to buy a D2H.

 

My darned obsolete D2H has twisted my arm into taking an average of 300-500 photos a day since I bought it. I can't wait 'til it's obsolete so I can take a rest.

[janvanlaethem]

Does it make sense to build a 35mm film system ? Yes. My suggestion, based on 20+ years of interest in photography, is to get the best lenses you can afford and spend relatively less on the camera body. I shoot mainly landscapes, macro and travel and for my type of photography I don't care about AF speed, matrix metering, etc. I find I take the same pictures with my F801s and my FM3a, coupled with the same lens. After all, it is the lens that will provide a quality photograph. A cheap lens on an expensive camera will most probably not. If you're into sports photography, then yes, spend more on the camera and go for one with top AF speed and a high frames-per-second rate.

 

As far as film vs. digital, I think it's better to get a top of the line film camera like the F100 than to settle for a medium digital camera. The digital camera will be obsolete within two to three years. Have you considered getting a good film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan V and scan your images ? I get excellent results with fine grained slide film like Fuji Provia 100F. Scanning at 4000 dpi will get you a digital file that you can print at A3+ size (48 x 32 cm) at a resolution of 300 dpi.

 

Some other advantages over a DSLR: if you like to use wide-angle lenses, there is no conversion factor, this means that your 24 mm lens will still give you an 84 degree angle. No need to buy a 17 mm to get approximately the same coverage with a DSLR. Also consider size and weight: I'd rather carry an FM3a + 24 mm than a D2H and 17-35 mm zoom lens. I can always buy AA cells for my F801s and the FM3a still clicks when the battery is dead. Try that with digital.

 

It's funny to see so many posts saying that digital is less expensive than film. Wrong. Most of my cameras and lenses (except the FM3a) are over ten years old and still give me entire satisfaction. A roll of slide film costs me 7-8 Euros, processing included, to give me 36 high quality images. If I were to go digital, I would need to get at least one new wide-angle lens, a new external flash, a big memory card, spare batteries, a battery charger and either a laptop computer or one of those storage discs. Take into account that you?ll most probably want (need ?) a brand new camera every 2 to 3 years, this is a lot of money.

 

I agree with Lex when he suggests to only buy the best lens you can afford, or to save up for it and buy it at a later stage, better than to get an inferior product. Camera wise, I?d suggest to get a camera with only the features you want or need for your particular style of picture taking. No need for 8 frames per second if you only shoot landscapes or travel.

 

I wish we would all stop worrying so much about getting the right equipment (myself included) and concentrate more on taking pictures instead : a basic set-up with one wide-angle, one normal lens and one short telelens is all you need to get into photography and will cover 90% of your needs. In my opinion, attention to composition and some good ideas are a better garantee to good pictures than a flashy new camera with loads of features that you will most probably never use or need anyway.

 

Someone said it?s a pain to wait for film to get developped. This is not really an issue, unless you are a professional photographer who needs to get a picture published and is running against a tight deadline. But for an amateur ? On my latest holiday, everyone using digital (the vast majority) was constantly taking a picture and inmediately putting the camera on playback to check composition and exposure (although I?d bet a lot of them wouldn?t know how to alter the exposure to get a good photograph on the spot). I wonder why these people have a viewfinder or screen on their camera. It?s dead simple: you compose your shot and press the shutter when you?re happy with the result you see, there is no need to go checking again. Only in very difficult light (strong backlight, very contrasty scenes) could digital be a help.

 

Most digital pictures I?ve seen look good on a computer screen at 72 dpi or when you print it at 150 dpi on a home computer. It?s a whole different story if you need to publish your picture in a magazine at a resulotion of 300 dpi on a double-page spread or for a billboard advertisment. I?ve had pictures blown up from a 35mm slide to a size of 4 x 3 meters.

 

I?m not anti-digital or against progress, but for me there are just too many drawbacks to digital at the present moment. If you need optimum quality, nothing can beat a well-exposed slide on fine grain film and scanned with a professionel scanner. Period.

 

A lot of people are making the same comments, saying that shooting with a digital costs nothing. This may be true to some point, but I think this can be counter productive. A friend of mine came back from a trip to South America with over 1600 pictures, most of them were not even worth looking at. He projected them on a screen with a digital projector, he himself admitted he was disappointed with the quality. This same friend has gone through four digital cameras in approximately three years : Olympus, then a Canon D30, then Canon D60 and now back to Olympus with their 4/3 system. He now told me he will use slides on his next trip.

 

Ansel Adams had to toss around a heavy camera with glass plates and some of his best pictures were taken on the last glass plate of the day. Don?t confuse quality with quantity. Taking 20 pictures of the same object is not a garantee to a successful photograph if you don?t have the skill and experience needed. The trick is to see the picture in your mind before you shoot it. Composing, focusing and tripping the shutter is just a routine to get that final result you have previsualised.

 

Medium format for beautiful black and white prints is a good suggestion. With second-hand equipment being so affordable these days, you can build a great system with one camera and 2 or 3 lenses.

 

The bottom line of this post is: I personally don?t need digital, I?m perfectly happy using what I have, so why should I be spending big bucks just to be fashionable ? Buy a camera system for yourself and use it to take pictures, not to impress someone else.

 

[john_liu5]

I've looked at the D70 in stores, and am always disappointed by the small, dim viewfinder.

I don't think I'd be happy looking through it very often.

 

I'm also suspicious of DX lenses. Even if they aren't a flash in the pan, the biggest

selection of new and used lenses is going to be in conventional format - for years or

decades to come.

 

The digital vs film debate - why bother rehashing - I think the posts above make it clear

that for some people's needs digital is better, for others' needs film is better. (Personally, I

shoot a couple rolls a week, mostly B&W with some color, develop the B&W myself, and

print the B&W and the color myself, so film makes more sense.)

 

Seems to me a flexible approach might be to buy a used high end AF film body and good

AF lenses that can be used on a DSLR body later. You'd want to research the Nikon lens/

body compatibility issues though.