Is it the End

[stephen_w.]

Will sensors eventually surpass film's raw resolution, maybe. Will commercial digicam lenses performance surpass Leica lenses, I doubt it. Will the user interface surpass my manual Leica camera/lens combination, not likely. Will a digicam provide the educatioal/thought process involved in making a photograph better, never.

[stephen_w.]

So sorry, this is the MF Forum. Substitute Hassy SWC for Leica and you get the same point.

[lachaine]

I have never, and I still don't think it's a case of one "replacing" the other. One does replace the other for a number of specific applications (news media, for one), but I don't understand people who are just waiting for the right price to "move up" to digital, or people that would be satisfied with digital imitations of real film. To me, half or more of the pleasure of photography is choosing the film and working with it. It's like choosing and enjoying fine wines. All that disappears with digital, and it becomes totally uninteresting when all you do is click the shutter and then sit your arse in front of a computer screen. It's a whole other hobby, as far as I'm concerned. Even the "instant-ness" of digital detracts from it for me. I love the process of trying to capture subjects or scenes based on my abilities to do so, and then being surprised by the results after the film is developed and printed. To me, digital takes a wonderful hobby and turns it into a sterile, complex technology and money-dependent activity devoid of any nuance or flavour. It's so sterile. I owned a nice digicam for about a month more than a year ago and then got rid of it. There's no pleasure in it. I've used this analogy before, but it reminds me of another hobby: model trains. Some avid hobbyists in that field have their elaborate systems controlled by a computer. Their pleasure is in programming the computer. Then, you just look at the trains. Where's the fun in that? Does it remain a model train hobby, or is it then a computer hobby? What about just having a model train simulation on the computer itself? Digital photography is kind of like that: an imitation of a process done on a computer screen.

 

Digital anything? Thanks but no thanks. It's de-humanizing. My prediction? The current fascination with all things digital will eventually die down. There will be a backlash about doing things digitally that suck the pleasure and fun right out of the activity, and film will remain with a steady user base for a long time to come.

[spanky]

Doesn't anyone think it's strange that after decades of film, now that digital is an option, film suddenly isn't good enough? My take on this whole "Film is Dead" atmosphere is that it's the companies that make digital cameras and other tools that are trying to predict the end of film. Why? Simply they just want to move more product. Think about it. Almost every household in the US has a camera. Perhaps it might just be a simple 35mm point and shoot. Most of these folks bring out their camera several times a year for holidays, birthdays, vacations ect. So their camera would last years. So the digital folks are trying to convince people that their film cameras are obsolete and they will buy a digital one. After all, film is on the way out right? And many people cave into this theory since most people have a herd-like mentality. Whatever everybody else is doing, so will they do. Did anyone see the silly article in the May issue of Popular Photography and Imaging called "Digital Eye for the Film Guy" where a group of experts went to some guys house and tried to convince him that using digital is better then film? I can only guess this article was set up by the companies whose products were used in the article. It's almost like those of us who still like to use film are lepers or something.

Cheers,

Marc

[thomas_diekwisch1]

I agree with those who are advocating the use of inexpensive high quality MF gear that can be had right now for reasonable prices. There are those technology geaks out there who want the newest technology at all times, regardless of whether it helps them with their pictures. And then there are those who use simple technologies and produce amazing results.

 

However, I was quite surprised when I went through this month's Shutterbug magazine, which IMHO has enormously declined in overall standard, and didn't see a single innovative product for medium format, with the exception of two new digital backs. That section BTW was very well written, and among other issues addressed the question of the overpriced digital backs for MF. One might want to think that digital MF manufacturers should be able to gain enormous profit/market share by offering backs at 2-5K.

[brian_c._miller]

I recently borrowed a friend's Canon PowerShot G5 digital camera.

 

I don't like it.

 

While it is mostly OK, I have found that using it can be utterly maddening. I have been photographing some stuff for sale on Ebay. What do I find? It is nuts to focus this thing manually. It is maddening to let it focus itself automatically. I have to read a thick manual to do things which I would do quickly and intuitively with a film camera.

 

The only thing digital gives me is convenience of not having to develop and scan the film.

 

Will I give up any of my film cameras? No.

 

I have 1/2-frame to 8x10. I like all of them, and all of them (with the exception of the Pentax 645) are fully manual. I don't like digital. Digital gives me very little convenience. I would photograph anything with film and endure all its setbacks rather than use digital.

 

The digital camera makes me wait for its little computer to do things. It makes me wait and wait and wait for it to resolve its focus. Its manual focus mode is maddening.

 

I can't see what I would be upgrading *to* if I bought an expensive digital camera. I can use a manual camera (CHEAP!!) to produce excellent photos. I don't need the digital camera. I don't need something which *restrains* me!

 

And all this frustration is with a camera which is in the $500 range. My Graflex Super Graphic has never punished me with this much frustration, and it cost me $350. (and my Nikon Nikkormats cost me $150! No, I'm not selling those, either.)

 

Digital: Bah, humbug!!

[phil_derosier]

I approach all this from a business standpoint, as some already have:

 

Use the least expensive equipment that gives the greatest flexibility and the finest results.

 

Answer? A TLR and Nikon 8000 scanner from ebay.

[george_sanderson]

Didn't someone once say, in the context of a nascent photography, '...from today, painting is dead'. Now it's '...from today, film and film cameras are dead...'. Bulldust!!

[cxc]

To answer the actual question, yes, now is a great time to upgrade to large format. Not because you can still get decent value for your medium format stuff, it's too late for that. Because used LF prices are also in free fall, so it is no longer an extravagance. And there is actually an increasing selection of new gear, believe it or not: Walker just came out with a WA 5x7, Badger has just started up their own LF camera line, Arca has a new encased field model, etc., etc. Hang onto your MF stuff, for days when you are too lazy to haul around the LF.

 

I'm assuming you are an amateur like me (I can't imagine a successful pro who hasn't already at least a plan for going digital soon, if s/he hasn't done so already). The bigger the camera, the more fun I have using it, the fewer pointless/worthless shots I take. We amateurs have no deadlines to meet, no customers to please. Slow down and smell the hypo.