Film camera bargains galore.

[mysteryscribe]

If you are a working pro more bang for the buch is true. More quality for the buck is with the film slr for those who shoot only small numbers of images but want high quality ones. In my opinion which is probably the minority.

 

[fmw]

If you are a working pro more bang for the buch is true. More quality for the buck is with the film slr for those who shoot only small numbers of images but want high quality ones. In my opinion which is probably the minority.

I've been fooling with this question a lot lately. No question that a medium format transparency or negative outperforms a 35mm or DSLR image. I don't think that is an issue.

When it comes to 35mm film vs. digital, however, I'm convinced the digital provides better image quality than 35mm. That wasn't true a few years ago in the 1 mp era but it is true today in the 10 mp era. I've spent some time viewing transparencies under a loupe, projecting transparencies, scanning transparencies and the digital beats it in my view when it is derived from a 16 bit deep camera raw file. It projects a better image on the screen (using a digital projector) and it makes better prints. There is absolutely no doubt that the digital has better resolution. That isn't opinion. You can see that very clearly. If I'm wrong, I'm sure not very far off.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Im not even debating that issue because frankly I have no idea.

What I am debating is the buck part. You can buy a very nice slr film camera system for about a hundred bucks these days. A comparable digital camera is going to run close to a grand.

Now if you are shooting a small number of exposures but want a quality shot for your money the slr dollar and sense wise is still your best investment. I don't think you have as much versitility in the two hundred dollar digital camera or in the lenses you can use. Not to mention the off camera flash ect. It just seems that you can spend 10 bucks a month on film and processing and a cd a lot of times before you reach that 1000 buck difference. that to me is the bang for the buck.

Film may be a dying media but it isn't dead yet and when it goes there will be several newer generations of camera out there to take the place of todays digis. Unless you are shooting a great deal of images a digital camera for quality doesn't make dollar sense at all.

That was my point. Now it you are shooting sever hundred images as my son in law is does they absolutely make the most sense. If you need to have the whiz bang then they make sense for that buyer. However for pure economics of the guy who shoots his son's birthday party and vacations they dont really. That's my opinon anyway. Trust me if they made sense dollar and sense wise I would probably buy one they just don't. My daughter has a digital camera because that is what her husband wants to work with, but for her personally, a point and shoot 35mm would do just as well. I want to shoot a quality image if I go out to an event for the family but I don't feel I sacrifice anything by shooting a 35mm slr.

 

[fmw]

Point taken. Yes, that makes sense. As you say you can buy a lot of film and processing for the better part of $1000. No argument there.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I guess it depends on how you plan to use it. Some people I guess buy them for the technology, not really the dollars and sense of it all. The manufacturers certainly can't be selling all those dslrs to serious working photographers. By that I don't mean just the ones who work for money but that it all serious shooters who use them in their work.

Some of the buyers have to be doing it for other reasons, probably because their friends have one. It's about the only way to explain the very strong sales so quickly. Now the small digi for the ladies purse, and even the guy using them for ebay I can see.

It is inconvenient for the ladies purse and for ebay It's like cannon balls to swat flies. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's just hard for me to get a handle on the motives of most buyers. Oh hell I have no idea why anybody does anything. Me most of all.

I took a hard look at the purse thing for my wife and decided she would be better off with a canon p&n film. She hates computers wont use one. She is mostly anti technology anyway so she would be just a point and shoot customer of anything.

 

[fmw]

I can tell you why I switched to digital. The reason is simple. I don't have a working darkroom any more and digital let's have a computerized one. That really is the main reason for me. I also like being able to see my shots immediately. No unpleasant surprises!

I scanned some transparencies this evening and posted them in a couple of the galleries. I enjoyed cropping them and fixing them up for display on the computer. I guess it doesn't matter whether the original image came from film or from a sensor. I have my darkroom back.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I totally agree.... I develop some black and white negatives mostly large ones but do 35 as well now and then. It ends right there after that it is digitalize and work them. I just cant see a 2000 camera taking the place of a 100 scanner. Not for me anyway. Besides the 2k camera is still a smaller image than even your 645 scanned negative.

When it comes to color I can take them to the lab for negs and the rest is mine. If they haven't done away with the one hour lab yet, I can even have 120 color negs done one hour.

I think the digital darkroom is by far a great advance and puts a lot more people in the game. Even the photo kiosh does that to some extent. people most likely get at least as good prints from those as the point and shoot lab corrected prints of yesterday.

I think not being at the mercy of even a good commercial lab is a wonderful thing. I truly think the photo kiosh might do more to kill film labs than any other one thing. Even the low techie can go there and crop and color correct prints. Something only few can do with a total 100% film operation. I think only the most staunch will work a wet color darkroom again. though I have to admit I still like to have my digital file wet printed. I just want the control pre printing.

And i admit one other thing. I go back to my old negs now and see mistakes I can and do correct. But as I try to tell my son in law a professional photographer is judged by the consistancy of his work as much as the artistry. In the old days for me it was shoot safe first then anything else. Now with digital you still have some surprises when the two inch image gets larger but not nearly as many as before. I know not only because I have heard it said but even a 6x6 scan holds suprises when it is 9x12 on the monitor.

Where we differ is I can't see beginning with an expensive dslr as a starting point when I shoot one image a day. Okay last Sunday I shot about ten. Wore me out to. But even those were with 6x9 negatives. I think in 35mm I might shoot one roll a year. I don't think that a dslr or any other digital would cause me to shoot more pictures. Now my son in law thinks it would. He is all hepped up on me buying at least the panasonic with the elmer lens. I don't even want that much digital camera. I shot my headshot and graflex with a $50 p&s that had 4 mega pix and I made an 11x17 and 11 x 14 of it without any issues that I could see. Still he is a technocrat I might wind up with one in the nursing home bed with me. but only after I am no longer able to resist it..

 

[ladyphotog]

I've been fooling with this question a lot lately. No question that a medium format transparency or negative outperforms a 35mm or DSLR image. I don't think that is an issue.

When it comes to 35mm film vs. digital, however, I'm convinced the digital provides better image quality than 35mm. That wasn't true a few years ago in the 1 mp era but it is true today in the 10 mp era. I've spent some time viewing transparencies under a loupe, projecting transparencies, scanning transparencies and the digital beats it in my view when it is derived from a 16 bit deep camera raw file. It projects a better image on the screen (using a digital projector) and it makes better prints. There is absolutely no doubt that the digital has better resolution. That isn't opinion. You can see that very clearly. If I'm wrong, I'm sure not very far off.

Great deal you got, I love it!
I shot digital for a full year and I found out that I am not as a good of a photographer with digital that I am with film. I got into the mind set that I could fix it later and I also shot alot faster, not composing and looking at the light. I don't think I'm the only one that gets into that mindset, I have seen alot of people on here talking about how fast they shoot.
As far as image quality, a beautiful black and white negative printed on oriental can not be matched with digital in any way, so therefore digital does not produce a better image quality. Just my thoughts.

 

[mysteryscribe]

My cousin who is not a photographer heard me complain about medium format cost per shot a few years ago. He asked me how much does it cost to shoot a shot. I said about a buck each.

He said. "My god that's the cost of a beer." Sure made me be alittle more careful what I wasted film on.

 

[fmw]

Great deal you got, I love it!
I shot digital for a full year and I found out that I am not as a good of a photographer with digital that I am with film. I got into the mind set that I could fix it later and I also shot alot faster, not composing and looking at the light. I don't think I'm the only one that gets into that mindset, I have seen alot of people on here talking about how fast they shoot.
As far as image quality, a beautiful black and white negative printed on oriental can not be matched with digital in any way, so therefore digital does not produce a better image quality. Just my thoughts.

I'm blown away by the number of shots a lot of digital photogs make. Quality still wins out over quantity. I went ot the lake Michigan shore today and made a total of 5 exposures. My 1 GB card allows 65 RAW + JEG shots and I only made 5. I think one might be a keeper and that would justify the trip for me. The idea of throwing a bunch of exposures on the wall to see what sticks doesn't do it for me. One shouldn't fire the shutter until one has thought through the shot. I shoot at the same pace and with the same style with digital as I do with film. I never viewed it as anything different photographically.

Black and white doesn't have infinite gradation in digital as it does on film. There are just 256 distinct digital levels of gray. If you talk about a medium format b&w negative such as you would make with your Hasselblad, then, the film camera will win the image quality war over digital every time. The same holds true for color.

But, if you are talking about 35mm then I think the superior resolution of digital trumps the infinite gradation film enjoys and you get a nicer b&w image on 8X10 or 11X14 - at least to my aging eyes. So while medium format film isn't dead for me, 35mm film really is. I do have a nice little Olympus OM2 system that belonged to my late uncle but I rarely use it. I love to handle it. It is small and made with amazing precision. But the negative is just too small.

 

[fmw]

Where we differ is I can't see beginning with an expensive dslr as a starting point when I shoot one image a day. Okay last Sunday I shot about ten. Wore me out to. But even those were with 6x9 negatives. I think in 35mm I might shoot one roll a year. I don't think that a dslr or any other digital would cause me to shoot more pictures. Now my son in law thinks it would. He is all hepped up on me buying at least the panasonic with the elmer lens. I don't even want that much digital camera. I shot my headshot and graflex with a $50 p&s that had 4 mega pix and I made an 11x17 and 11 x 14 of it without any issues that I could see. Still he is a technocrat I might wind up with one in the nursing home bed with me. but only after I am no longer able to resist it..

I guess it depends on the budget. There was a time in my life when I owned and used Leicas. I owned 2 M6's an M4 and an M5 at one time. I never used them professionally because they were too slow to use and the system didn't cover all the bases. There was no point in owning the system at all. I owned it and used it mostly for travel photography because I loved the feel of it, the incredible contrast of the lenses and they made me feel good. I could afford them so what the heck. I don't think you need to cost justify everything in life. Some things you buy just because you want to. We could all get by less, I suppose, but life is more fun if we can avoid it from time to time.

 

[Mad_Gnome]

I just need to know what AEL means on the shutter speed dial. I've figured out everything else.

If all other things are equal, AEL should be Auto Exposure Lock. I use it pretty frequently on my 5D when shooting in fast-changing lighting situations at concerts. Find a light source that will give you an exposure setting you know will give you the best exposure, press and hold the AEL and your next shot should be pretty close to what you wanted in terms of exposure. Metering doesn't work for me in those situations, so I have to do fast calculations in my head, find the right light, lock it in and shoot away. Works pretty well for me.

As for digital vs. film, in the settings I shoot in most often, digital just makes sense. The lighting changes so quickly that a fraction of a second makes the difference between a great shot and a wasted frame. If I were shooting film only, I would have given up a long time ago, as it would have been prohibitively expensive.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Nothing wrong with owning things just because you want them. Price isn't always the factor that makes people buy one thing or another. I know guys who have huge amounts of credit card debt and a closet full of toys.

I Don't know what the answer is maybe it just amounts to different strokes for different folks. It's just hard for me to see the advice around here roll off without giving a counter opinion.

 

[fmw]

To the gnome, yes I did figure it out. It is useful particularly for mirror up operation where the meter would normally be useless. Mirror up is common with medium format SLR's due to the big, heavy mirror.

To Mystery Scribe, that is what debate is all about. Nothing wrong with countering the opinions of others with yours. The forums would be boring without it.

 

[ladyphotog]

I'm blown away by the number of shots a lot of digital photogs make. Quality still wins out over quantity. I went ot the lake Michigan shore today and made a total of 5 exposures. My 1 GB card allows 65 RAW + JEG shots and I only made 5. I think one might be a keeper and that would justify the trip for me. The idea of throwing a bunch of exposures on the wall to see what sticks doesn't do it for me. One shouldn't fire the shutter until one has thought through the shot. I shoot at the same pace and with the same style with digital as I do with film. I never viewed it as anything different photographically.

Black and white doesn't have infinite gradation in digital as it does on film. There are just 256 distinct digital levels of gray. If you talk about a medium format b&w negative such as you would make with your Hasselblad, then, the film camera will win the image quality war over digital every time. The same holds true for color.

But, if you are talking about 35mm then I think the superior resolution of digital trumps the infinite gradation film enjoys and you get a nicer b&w image on 8X10 or 11X14 - at least to my aging eyes. So while medium format film isn't dead for me, 35mm film really is. I do have a nice little Olympus OM2 system that belonged to my late uncle but I rarely use it. I love to handle it. It is small and made with amazing precision. But the negative is just too small.

Granted, I will give it to you about 35 but I rarely shoot 35, I just about always shoot with my blad. My 35 has become my point and shoot so to speak.