DSLR vs Medium Format

[panocho]

would never do that. not unless I REALLY needed the money

you would probably get ridiculous money from selling a very nice equipment. That money would be but a tiny part of the amount you would have to put for a nice digital equipment to "substitute" it (?).

Get the digital and keep the MF, that's what I would do. Well, unless it bothers you to have the MF around without using it at all anymore. But, would that really happen? as jrstatt points with his/her particular case, sooner or later you will likely feel like shooting some film, at least for a while

 

[RVsForFun]

...buy film or get processing for a MF camera, what good is it? We've had several pro labs to under in my area due to lack of film/printing income.

 

[Don Simon]

Alas, film (and more importantly, processing) is scarce and will disappear very soon. I must say I think you need to move to 100% digital ASAP.

I have to completely disagree with that. Film isn't disappearing. Yes, it's not as easy or as cheap to get film processed. But, particularly if you shoot and process your own black and white there is not a major problem. Ilford are even relaunching films in 120 that were previously only available in 35mm. And I'm not suggesting one person can save film, but if everyone decides to completely ditch film because they think it will disappear, well, it will disappear. As for dropping prices, the value of his MF gear will have already dropped to a fraction of its original value, so why let it go? Meanwhile digital cameras can surely only get cheaper. So frankly I don't see why anyone 'needs' to move to 100% digital unless they actually feel that need.

 

[panocho]

I have to completely disagree with that. Film isn't disappearing. Yes, it's not as easy or as cheap to get film processed. But, particularly if you shoot and process your own black and white there is not a major problem. Ilford are even relaunching films in 120 that were previously only available in 35mm. And I'm not suggesting one person can save film, but if everyone decides to completely ditch film because they think it will disappear, well, it will disappear. As for dropping prices, the value of his MF gear will have already dropped to a fraction of its original value, so why let it go? Meanwhile digital cameras can surely only get cheaper. So frankly I don't see why anyone 'needs' to move to 100% digital unless they actually feel that need.

agree in disagreeing.

can't see companies stoping the production of film when there is plenty of photographers who do and will shoot film.

of course film will be (is already) more difficult to find, probably more expensive, and the lower quality consumers kind will definitely disappear (since consumers shoot only digital). but just that

 

[joey33]

I originally purchased the Bronica equipment used back about 17 years ago with the all good intention of starting a wedding and portrait business and did shoot a grand total of three weddings and about three years of being the official photographer for a very busy Elks Lodge often shooting events that are nearly as demanding as weddings. I needed a camera system that would deliver the flexibility and higher image quality over a 35mm system. This was about the end of 1993 at this point I quickly began to realize that digital technology would within 10 years take over film and most people would prefer digital for the convenience of instant gratification.

I must agree the magic of working under a red light in a dark room and dropping an exposed piece of paper into a developing tray and watching an image appear in that soup of chemicals that YOU mixed. Born from painstaking careful removal of dust from a lens. Bracketed exposures (without a light meter of any kind) with EACH filter yellow, red and green. Carefully timed gentle agitation of a delicately hand loaded steel real. YES film is an art! I suppose I could have as much enjoyment of this Art if I keep my manual 35mm camera and find some kind soul that would allow me access to a dark room. So…what should I do… become more digitally battery powered dependant (yes I rely on spell check… duh&#8230 or.. enjoy Art? After all I don’t need batteries to show a person that might have only one good eye a print. Maybe both?

 

[Christie Photo]

But, particularly if you shoot and process your own black and white there is not a major problem.

I consider when Kodak ceased production of all black and white papers a major problem. I dismantled and gave away my darkroom last year. I initially felt a bit odd... a photographer without a darkroom. But honestly, I had not been in there for more than three years.

In my case, photography is not a hobby. It no longer made sense for me to dedicate space for a darkroom. And really... I don't miss it... not even a little.

Pete

 

[Don Simon]

I consider when Kodak ceased production of all black and white papers a major problem.

Sorry to hear that - me, I never used Kodak

Of course I'm not trying to force anyone to use film... I just don't see any reason why you need to drop it 'ASAP'.

 

[joey33]

I am putting it up for sale. The nearest retail place I can buy 120 film is 45 minutes away then I would have to send for processing at least for prints. As photography has become a hobby together with beekeeping, armature radio gardening and fishing; it is no longer worth it. Thanks everyone for all of your advice. Any buyers should check the for sale posts.

Joe

 

[ashleysmithd]

I'm generally pro-film, however with digital I take far more pictures, and my experience in photography from using a DSLR within 3/4 months has taught me more than 35mm has in a year.

I think in using film, you become disciplined in a way. But once you've been using it for a fair while, you can switch over to digital, and reap the benefits of being taught on film, and having the flexibility of digital.