Would you still buy a film camera?

[Bobby Ironsights]

Lots of us still shoot film, in fact, I just bought a Crown Graphic with lens circa 1942 that crushes the image quality of any digital camera under $5000 .....

.....but do not try and tell me it is better than digital.

It's just physics. In this case, it's size that matters.

You see, the amount of information contained in a 35 mm film negative v.s. a 35mm full frame sensor in a digital camera is getting pretty close to equal. That's why, if you have nice deep pockets, and you take a LOT of pictures, it makes pretty good sense to get a full frame 35mm slr.

But you can kick the 35mm slr's butt with medium format 120/220. BUT you cal also get a medium format digital back. FujiFilm makes one, for a cool $22,000US, plus tax and shipping. Medium format TLR's are a hundred bucks on ebay, so you'd better take a hell of a lot of product photo's to make your money back on that one. *plus, you still need a medium format camera and lenses to put the digital back on to.*

But a 4x5 camera, uses a 20 square inch negative.

20 square inches of film is one HELL of a alot of film real estate.

Right now, there is no-one that I know of even thinking about trying to make a sensor that large.

You can get a mcgyver'd solution, called a scan back, decent 4x5 inch ones start at only $18,000US, but the higher resolution ones are going to set you back at least $30,000US, and the scanback technology still doesn't really approach proper film tech. Note, that this doesn't include the camera or lenses, you still need a proper large format film camera/lens kit. Also, 4x5 inch scan backs, only actually cover 3x4 inches, similar to less than full size sensors on "35mm" digital slr's.

And if a film user decided to really embarrass a scan-back user, he could just go up to 8x10. or 11x14, or so on and so forth. An 11x14 negative is a monster 154 square inches of film real estate and you can get a used 11x14 camera, or build a new one yourself in your garage with simple woodworking tools and mailorder hardware, for well under a grand.

With an 11x14 inch negative, it's entirely possible to make***literally*** floor to ceiling sized prints, with excellent sharpness, like an 8x10 from a 35mm negative.

Digital is great for speed, and someday, when I can afford a full frame slr that's compatible with my canon lenses, I'll probably get one, but film (at least in the larger formats), is still the 800lb gorilla of the photography world. It's unwise to challenge the 800lb Gorilla, as the 800lb gorilla knows how to bring the pain.

So yes, I can cheerfully tell you, if image quality is your highest priority, and nothing else really matters, that film is better, and there's just no arguing with the laws of physics. They are called laws and not guidelines, for a reason.

 

[tbsdphotog]

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have several and shoot film mostly. If you like black and white nothing beats a film camera. If you can get the film processed for free, then do it. Or better yet, learn to process yourself. Nothing beats fumbling around in the darkroom.!

 

[Dan Dare]

I have both. I bought my film slr after my dslr.

I have a Canon 350D and a Canon 1N