What Nikon film body?

Alpha · Nov 30, 2007

Watching a negative appear is something else.

Ihaveaquestion · Nov 30, 2007

Digital cant match the look of 3200 B&W Grain.

JIP · Nov 30, 2007

While I do agree that it is noce to be in the lab under the lights (it was one of my favorite things to do in school) unless you are printing your own what is the point of buying a special body to just shot film.

hacksaw35 · Nov 30, 2007

JIP said:
While I do agree that it is noce to be in the lab under the lights (it was one of my favorite things to do in school) unless you are printing your own what is the point of buying a special body to just shot film.

It's not like it is an investment, I got the body for roughly 50 bucks, and I am still taking classes, so I have access to the lab...although there might be a few people out there that can make digital b&w look similar to film, true b&w film still captures an incredible image. imo.

jimmayor007 · Nov 30, 2007

I also found a very inexpensive nikon body like these, that did a great job.

Alpha · Nov 30, 2007

JIP said:
While I do agree that it is noce to be in the lab under the lights (it was one of my favorite things to do in school) unless you are printing your own what is the point of buying a special body to just shot film.

I might ask the same. Why buy a "special body" to shoot digital?

JIP · Nov 30, 2007

Well to max the OP already has a digital body so it really is not buying a "special body". And to Hacksaw if you have a body already why are you asking the question. Also I think if you have any question about the quality of digital B+W compared to film you should consult http://www.bandwmag.com/ who in the last few years have accepted digital as legitimate B+W format.

hacksaw35 · Nov 30, 2007

JIP, the deal kind of fell into my lap, the day "after" I posted my question...I didn't have one. I will check out your link.

jstuedle · Nov 30, 2007

If you own or plan to own any "G" glass, a F4 or F5. A friend just sold a mint F5 on ePay and only got $360 for it. If you own any MF glass, or only have non-G and non-DX glass, my all time favorite Nikon body is the F3.

itoncool · Nov 30, 2007

jstuedle said:
..... my all time favorite Nikon body is the F3.

Same here... my first, my biggest lost, my all time favorite...

Antithesis · Nov 30, 2007

It would be cool to own an f5, if I didn't already have an FG-20 and an FA I'd probably choose that as my film body. I used the FG-20 a lot for my black and white film class (last class of the term was yesterday) and there is definitely a joy in using a fully manual camera. It feels like so much more of an effort and is more rewarding in the end. Digital is so automated, there's no craft left in it.

JerryPH · Dec 3, 2007

Antithesis said:
It feels like so much more of an effort and is more rewarding in the end. Digital is so automated, there's no craft left in it.

I disagree. With most good SLRs you can set the camrea to manual for best results just like on a film camera. Focus, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, everything... and you get the instant gratification of being able to see how your shot turned out in the viewer without needing to process the picture to see if your settings are right or wrong.

The "art" in using a dSLR manually is no better or worse than a film camera, IMHO. I use my dad's Nikon F2A now and then and am very comfortable using it, same as my Nikon D200. My preference just leans towards digital.

Now if you like processing film and what not, well that compares to spending hours in Photoshop (minus the fumes and eventual need for an iron lung... lol). There is a lot more the same than differenent in SLRs and dSLRs.

Alpha · Dec 3, 2007

JerryPH said:
I disagree. With most good SLRs you can set the camrea to manual for best results just like on a film camera. Focus, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, everything... and you get the instant gratification of being able to see how your shot turned out in the viewer without needing to process the picture to see if your settings are right or wrong.

The "art" in using a dSLR manually is no better or worse than a film camera, IMHO. I use my dad's Nikon F2A now and then and am very comfortable using it, same as my Nikon D200. My preference just leans towards digital.

Now if you like processing film and what not, well that compares to spending hours in Photoshop (minus the fumes and eventual need for an iron lung... lol). There is a lot more the same than differenent in SLRs and dSLRs.

Except for printing, in which case you do a lot of very expensive, painstaking, tedious, frustrating work in order to achieve a configuration that will yield absolutely consistent results. Part of the joy/craft in darkroom printing is that each print is unique to some extent.

Digital printing is to California wine what darkroom printing is to French.

hirschizer · Dec 4, 2007

It's not about taking "true" black and white
I think it's the ability to have this idea in your head about what u want and in the end after worrying and worrying u either get it or u don't and with film that feelings is just gets amped up. (instead of chimping for maybe 5 seconds and moving on)
my example for this is the other day i had to shoot an abstract assignment for college. The only lens i have is my kit lens for my eos 500 camera and i really wanted to get close and get this really nice focus but i couldn't do it with that lens. I had heard of people using mounts to make their normal lenses macro lenses so i decided to try it out without a mount (eh who cares it's only one or two shots in my roll of 36 film i'd rather try and fail then to have never known what i would of gotten from the shot.) So i ended up doing the photograph and tried to get the focus close because i had to use both hands just to have the lense against the body so i could see. when i developed the film and did my contact sheet i looked at the photograph i ended up getting the exposure right and getting a pretty good focus i was pretty happy with myself. now if i had taken the same shot with digital i probably would of taken one shot, failed and decided that the photograph was a waste of time and went on to the next photograph.

I once read an article about a photographer who could make photographs in the darkroom using multiple shots basicly making a layered photograph who was asked to do the same in photoshop and did so but was so frustrated that he went back into the darkroom and did the same thing over again taking him hours more. it's whatever feels right to you.

Do i hate how much time and money goes into black and white sure i do, but it gives me a lot more respect to people like eddie adams who did this for years. I've spent three hours in a dark room just to get one photograph just right. But i love how instead of just "fixing" a photograph in photoshop i have to first get it pretty darn close and then maybe change something by burning or dodging.

plus there's certain issues with digitalthat u didn't have with film like reproduction. (plus u can charge more for film ;-))

(sorry for the book)