I tried digital & I'm back!

[BelaMolnar]

<p>". . . . . but the way how digital read the shadows is fantastic"<br>

" . . . the 300, using the spot metod, you have an exposimeter inside the camera that you can use without to move."</p>

<p>Dear Andrea. The film to day, still registering more details, then a best 35mm digital cameras. It is a well known fact. A fact, digital try to get there. The metering method is same as all previous metering, except the invention with the Matrix metering, witch was invented and used with the first Nikon FA film camera and refined to then, todays digital cameras. And you still has to move your eyes or position of the camera.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>OK, this isn't really a comprehensive analysis of the subject but it at least hints to me that the best in class film bodies will easily outlast in probably both value and function their digital counterparts...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alas, if you do a "completed listings" search on eBay* for various, even fairly new, film cameras, and compare that to a search for some of even the earliest digital cameras, the simple fact is that the film bodies are going for peanuts. Only a few choice film models, as a rule, have any value at all. I've been looking at this for some time now, and the "hint" is often expressed, but rarely accords with fact in the marketplace. I wish it were other, especially as I have accumulated a lot of old film cameras, but...</p>

<p>On eBay the F6 typically goes for between $1200 to 1350 because it <em>is</em> the "last flagship" - A Canon EOS 1v however goes for only around half the price of the Nikon. A Nikon F5 goes for less, at about $275 to 500, about the same as a Canon EOS 1v.<br /> Look at a Canon D30, one of the very early digital cameras at only 3+ MP. It sells for just a little less than the Nikon F5, the low being the same range, but the high on the F5 a little higher. I'd argue that a Canon D30 is technologically obsolete, but somebody still wants them. The Canon 10D at 6.3 MP goes for more as well. Lots of F4s are sold around $200<br /> I frankly have no idea why people are paying so much for low MP digital cameras, it can't be collectors as yet, can it? In any case, the fond hope that your old film camera is a treasure of great worth needs a reality check.<br /> ______<br /> *in this situation, I'd strongly defend eBay prices at which items are actually sold (not what is <em>asked</em>) as being a truer market indication than store prices. In the cases I cite, there are many UNsold cameras for which prices higher than the typical sale price are asked, but no one bites. I think some of the store stock has been "in stock" for some time at the prices asked.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Bela, it is only a fact in the purely semantic sense. In that same sense, it is also a fact that Communism is a perfectly valid form of government that hurts no one.</p>

<p>First off, regular old Kodak Gold/Max or Fuji Superia gives you nothing over digital. But Portra, or moreso black and white developed oneself, does capture more dynamic range. But just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it appears on the print. If you have a scene with deep shadows you can expose for the shadows and trust that some films will still capture the highlights; but in printing, those of us without access to a darkroom and sufficient dodging and burning skills wil find we cannot produce a print that shows that detail. We either have to let the shadows go dark, or the highlights go white.</p>

<p>Digital cameras don't have the same dynamic <em>potential</em>, but the advantage of it is that everything the camera sees hit the final print without issue. Moreso, you can make a stack of 50 'full range' prints easily, while you could work all day making 50 'full range' prints in the darkroom and still not hit that number. Plus I don't even want to talk about how hard it is to point the enlarger at the floor or wall and make five trips back and forth dodging and burning, only to find I didn't do it right and I wasted yet another sheet of 18x24 paper.</p>

<p>Think of film and digital cameras like oil and and watercolour paints. Different media for different purposes. I always shoot my Hasselblad when I have a 'fine art' image in mind that I want to make for my portfolio. Always always. Well, unless I'm packing light - then I use the Yaschicamat. But if I'm taking photos for a client that might want multiple copies, or I'm doing something that might require taking a lot of photos under varying conditions (weddings, bands, gala events, sports, etc.) I will always shoot digital. It's once thing to take the time to dodge/burn/etc. one perfect print, but I'm not about to do it several dozen times just so I can get two more stops of range for a client that isn't going to notice.</p>

<p>While I strongly prefer my film camera, the fact is that if I could only own a single camera, it would by my 35mm-sized DSLR. It's just plain more useful. And for the record Steve, the D300 is the first digital camera I ever used and didn't think, "You know, if I had used film ..."</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Also, another thing I forgot to mention: we don't know this yet, but I would be shocked in a D300 didn't last as long as an F100. They're built from (more or less) the same body, and use (more or less) the same shutter.</p>

<p>But remember that camera lifespan is rated in shutter actuations - not age. A D300 is good for ~150,000 shutter actuations, or 6,250 rolls of Tri-X. Even if you buy Tri-X at $3 a roll, that's still $18,750 worth of film. And that's assuming you never develop any of that film.</p>

<p>The only reason your Nikon F, which has a much less durable shutter, still works after 45 years is because you probably haven't run 6,250 rolls of film through it. Or at the very least, you haven't run that much film through it without having it rebuilt at some point. You'll find that collectors and hobbyists will lament the 'durability' of digital cameras, while your average professional, who was only getting 5 years out of a new film body anyway, doesn't have nearly as much to complain about.</p>

[rickbehl]

<p>I knew my previous post would raise a few eyebrows :-)</p>

<p>As I mentioned on the film side I am referring to the real 'flagship/best in class' models of both digital and film. That is not to say that the F4 or F5 were not or are not great cameras on their own. But again from a 'Personal' (and I do emphasise 'Personal') point of view the F6 is really an amazing piece of kit.</p>

<p>I'm slightly dubious about the idea of pitching a Nikon F5 against a Canon D30. The F5 was released in 1996 and the Canon D30 in 2000. Four years is a pretty long time in any technical/technological field hence for my comparison I chose two bodies released in the same year and from the same manufacturer. In fact the F5 pre-dates any digital bodies from both Nikon and Canon and so you could only really pitch it against other film bodies of the same time, a contest I'm sure it would do well in. All that being said, I am quite surprised that anyone is buying second hand 3MP dSLRs on eBay... It works well for me in any case as it means I have less buyers to compete with when picking up amazing Pro film camera bodies for a fraction of their original release prices.</p>

<p>Referring to your last point I don't buy film cameras in the hope that one day they may be worth a stack of cash. I know that is a fool's game and you're better off putting your savings in a stock index tracker over the long long term. Unless of course you are really buying those rare lenses, etc as a specialist collector would research and investigate fine wines or art... No, the reason I buy film cameras even today is because I can own and actively use some amazing technical professional pieces of photographic equipment at a cost which is now affordable to me.</p>

<p>Vive le film!</p>

<p>Rick</p>

[rickbehl]

<p>Zack, with regard to your lifespan of the D300. If this is true then 150,000 shutter actuations may not be quite as much as one thinks. If we say that a pro/semi-pro shoots around 300-400 images on a shoot and does 4 of these a week. If this were the case then the lifespan of the camera would be around 2 years. Surely the film bodies such as the F100 were built to last longer than that? I'm no Pro so I am making some assumptions on the numbers but from personal experience it is very easy to shoot 100+ images on a dSLR very quickly in a location these days...</p>

[donholmes]

<p>Shad--how much do you want for the D300?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Rick,<br>

I see Canon D30 bodies going for $150 to $175 on Ebay. Yes, it's ancient. But for someone wanting a DSLR, $150 isn't bad. I didn't bother selling mine....I just have it as my daughters DSLR. It spanks any $150 point and shoot out there for image quality. She only want prints in the 4x6 to 5x7 range....with the ever so rare 8x10. 3mp gives her the quality she's after.<br>

Yes, she could get a great film body for that....but she doesn't want to use film for all her snapshots.<br>

I shudder to view Ebay just to see a Canon 10D that I spent $2500 on going for $350. That said, anyone buying an RB67 now won't be losing any money on resale in a few years! In the meantime, I'll continue to use 35mm and MF film for the majority of my wedding work.....and personal work.</p>

[bill_from_new_york_city]

<p>To me what only counts is the final image, not the tool you use to capture it with. I am a digital guy went digital 10 years ago and never looked back. If you are happy with with film, then it will show in your images.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>There is something special about film and there is something special about older cameras without all the bells and whistles.</p>

<p>To develop a roll of black & white, preferably sometime after it has been shot, is like opening a present. You really have no idea what you are have until the neg has been developed and you're looking at a print or a scan.</p>

<p>The immediacy of digital kills all anticipation and excitement.</p>

<p>And the complex operation of a newer cameras takes you further away from creating an image compared to the simpler and more direct approach of older cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[thephotophile]

<p>I have to say that I use both mediums and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to know the frailties of each and adjust accordingly. Horses for courses and tools for the job.</p>

<p>To me the end result of my labours are when I see a print on my wall or in my portfolio, and despite swapping freely between both mediums I find that I am unable (as are others) to tell the difference between the two once they are in print.</p>

<p>So to sum it up, use what you need for the job at hand, do it well and you will be an artist. Do it badly and the medium won't matter.<br>

:-)</p>

[christopher_tucker2]

<p>I've been shooting the Nikon D1, D100 and D2h for the newspaper since 2000 or so. I've always had to wrestle with the color on the digital cameras. But color on 35mm film and scanned (which is what the paper used before the D1 came out) was not as difficult for me to work with.<br>

More modern DSLRs are much-improved as far as color goes. I'm tempted to upgrade from the D2h, but these digicams are pricey buggers.</p>

[christopher_tucker2]

<p>I just realized: the 1959 Nikon F has better color and high resolution than the Nikon D1, D100 and D2h. And the DSLRs are some 40 years newer than the F is!</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Thanks for the pat on the back, everyone.<br>

Its suggested that I take the D300 as a backup. What for? I'll take the FM2n.<br>

I put a couple of rolls through the F4s yesterday. I'd forgotten what a great (but heavy) camera that is! And the viewfinder...enough said.<br>

But please, don't descend into a whats the best film camera out there....thats off topic.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Welcome back to the light!</p>

<p>Digital has its place, but film will always reign supreme as far as I am concerned. My Hassy and F2's and F4 still get regular use. I hand print all my B&W in my darkroom, though I admit to scanning the color, it's just too hard to find the kits and paper around here.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>How the subject drifts.<br>

My decision to go back to film was not a matter of price or commercial demand. I could go out and buy an M9 tomorrow. But in 50 years of photography, the joy for me is the total ease of use of a basic, good quality film camera, the learning through experimentation and experience of what combinations of f stop and shutter speed gets what result and and the anticipation associated with getting the negs done and seeing what came out well.<br>

I would love to buy a Hassy or Rollei and move up to MF but after decades I still have a lot to learn. The biggest disappointment I live with was not following in my grandfathers footsteps and being apprenticed to him...one of this countries eminent portrait photographers, in a career that lasted for 60 years.<br>

The issues for commercial photographers dictate that they use digital. Thats the reality today. Sticking with film for me is a pleasure to be indulged in ones spare time as a happy pursuit.</p>

[eddymendoza]

Hi Bella, nice images you have. Are they all film? There seems to be some digital stuff on there, where they shot on film

and then scanned and worked on? They look great! That's the thing I can't get myself to do. Once I shoot film it stays the

way I shot it. I can't bring myself to altering one bit of it's original qualities like I do with digital images. It's strange but

that's how I feel. I want to preserve the image as much as I can. And I agree with you all the way about mechanical

cameras too! If my 40 year old yeshica rangefinder can produce today a perfectly exposed image I can't imagine not being

able to do the same 20 even 30 years from now. I don't think I can say that about my digital equipment.

 

Cheers

[rob_piontek]

<p>I agree that shooting film and using simple cameras is simply more fun. I started with film (again) a few years ago and went back and forth between different film cameras and a DSLR. Now though I'm at the point where I really do not enjoy using the DSLR. I shoot mostly B&W, print in my bathroom, and there is a personal connection to the whole process and finally to the prints that I don't get with digital. They feel somehow special and they are.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>My Nikon N90s was less than two years old when the shutter finaly failed. It was used every day while I worked as a cruiseship photographer. FM2 bodies also failed due to the shutter failing. Most film bodies if they are used heavily will fail. The cost of film and processing often meant they average amature never really had to deal with shutter failure. I would expect a pro shooting around 400 shots per job with 4 jobs per week thats 1600 exposures per week shooting for 40 weeks per year thats 64,000 shots per year would have had plenty of experience with shutter failures during their working life unless they sell the bodies after a certain amount of use just to be safe. There are always the odd camera body that just seems to keep on going but most will fail when used enough.</p>

[jason]

<p>IMHO i reckon it's not everyone who wants/needs simplicity and ease. Film shooting is NOT easier. Sure the cameras are easy even for one as simple-minded as me! The joy of shooting till the battery fails or the memory card is full. The 1st week with my tiny Pentax Optio Digicam felt like someone at Kodak had given me the keys to a warehouse of film. Photoshop. You learn as you go along.Hell, i did all manner of work in darkroom,dodging,feathering,lightening,blurring.If you were doing Pro-work, the fun with "real" film speeds,the wretched flash cables, never knowing if all the flashes synchronized..One flash unit alone even that a problem till hot-shoes.Darkroom not an easy task being especially allergic to most of Kodak's chemicals. Had to use Ilford.<br>

I still shoot film but truthfully find the digital images simply closer to my vision. My last new Nikon was the F3.Purchased 2 yrs ago,in mint condition. I have a full assortment of lenses,wides,teles,normal and macro. Maybe for me a Digital-body that will accept my old lenses.probably Canon.I used top of the line equipment that esp the Leicas needed constant services.The Nikons only when through falling or "things thrown at it!<br>

The amount of exposures that i NOW do is almost crazy. Yet in the last 4~5 years have learned more about available light, fill flash and ease of quick journalism. My Pentax now in my Lady Friends care shot close to 12,000 exposures,(half pro) in 2 years. I never could have shot film at that rate. Sure your more careful, making only tried and tested ways. I am in a constant growing curve.<br>

I respect your feelings but think you are losing on a great growing opportunity.Computer work is not that hard. You work in the light. Think again.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>I don't think that the issue is about ease of use. Thats a personal matter. Some will find either, easier. And I also concede that digital does make life a lot easier for professionals. I was in the industry in the 70s and 80s, and professionals used film. A typical wedding would see perhaps only 100 shots taken, all up...Less if it was in MF. But each of those 100 were carefully thought about. The machine gun approach was the realm of the sports and news photographer where they were'nt paying the bills.<br>

Film now is perhaps the home of the LF traditionalist and amateur enthusiast, who gets joy from careful composition, thought about exposure, and the involvement in the whole process. <br>

Most quality manual film cameras are very rugged. In my case I have FE2's and FM2's. I could not begin to guess how many shutter actuations these have had. My F4s was a work camera for me for 12 years. All three are in perfect working order and get serviced once a year for a pittance. In the last six months they are appreciating slightly if one looks at eBay.<br>

I have a journalist friend from GB who is embedded with 3 Para in Afghanistan. He has dozens of cameras and guess which he took? Two FM2n's plus a suitcase full of Provia 400 and TriX. He could not afford to mess around with computers and the delicate electronics of digital cameras in a tent in the desert. There was no going back if he missed something. He had one chance so he took the safe route with manual film.<br>

I am going on a trip into our outback soon, and I'm looking foward to seeing what a dozen rolls of Velvia turn out like.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Shadforth, I couldn't disagree more. For a professional wedding photographer, digital capture introduced and mountain of time in front of computers, post processing images. I'm now back to about 80% film work. I shoot it, drop it off, and download the scans. My post processing for wedding is now 10% to 15% of what it used to be.</p>

<p>Digital made it easier to press the shutter....after that, it turned photographers into minilabs. I'd rather be spending my time behind the camera instead of in front of the computer.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

If one knows how to properly expose, frame and compose a shot, one can do with digital that which one used to do with film - drop the media card off at the lab and pick up the results, proofs or CDs, later.

 

A wet darkroom takes up a lot of room and work. A dry darkroom takes up nothing. That is why most people now can and will do dry darkroom work where before they would not do wet darkroom work.

[steve m smith]

<p>So it's all about convenience then?</p>

[photo5]

<p>The 12x18 inch prints from my D300 far exceed the same size prints from 35mm film, so that made me excited when I saw them. I enjoy film, but the D300 is a fantastic camera and I enjoy using it.</p>