Would you sell your digital gear?

[unpopular]

Just what the title says.... As a film shooter, would you ever consider selling your digital gear and go back to 100% film?

Why or why not?

Yes; in fact i'm giving this serious consideration just as you pose the question.
Digital cameras seem inherently prone to faults. This is my experience of owning Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony.
I'm looking at both the Leica R system and Contax SLRs. Yet when I research these also, there is a body of opinion that
much of these cameras also were unreliable too! I would like to get back to finding a mechanical/manual system with excellent optics and be free of the BS involved with digital capture, 'computers' and so on. I would prefer to utilise Leica or Zess glass, as there are few if any 'dogs', whereas Nikon/Canon is a huge range of primes and zooms which are a mixed bag.
The older SLRs which are heavy with electronics I shall avoid for the same reasons as leaving digital..more to go wrong as before.

Other options for me are the Rollei MF 6000s and also the Contax G system. I also like the Leica M5, 'looks and build', but the M system glass is too expensive compared to a similar Zeiss set of primes.

I'd suggest the RX I or II, maybe the Aria. The original RX had an excellent focus assist, at the expense of some brightness. I'd personally prefer the focus assist, even if it was a little flaky when you need it the most. The G is cool, but the rangefinder takes some getting used to - something I'm sure you could certainly manage. The RTS, the Contax flagship, I never entirely trusted the vacuum mechanism.

Electronic control in a mechanical camera isn't a bad thing, modern magnetic drives are far superior to spring-loaded mechanism.

 

[panblue]

Derrel, for me I think it could work out about the same cost. That is shooting as an amateur one or two rolls per week, and using high street lab development of negs with basic JPEG scanning onto CD. Seems to me about the same as 'investing' in a prosumer FF body every few years yet retaining e.g an R3 plus lenses which I can cherish for what they are as much as what they do.

The fanboy GAS culture of the internet-digi crowd which really has become a de-facto attitude (problem, imo) now, is actually making me wish for a benchmark system (i.e film) which i can settle upon and disengage from all the rubbish which "defines" photography now.

But how is that any different than buying a $1500 body now... and then buying another $1500 body in 2 or 3 years when the latest and greatest is 17mpx more than your old body? Or spending $600 now for LR4, and then another $600 in a year when LR5 comes out? Digital is not without its ongoing expenses...

Back in 2003 I guess it was, I bought the then-new, super-hot FujiFilm FinePix S2 Pro, the 6MP/12MP d-slr that used F-mount lenses. I shot the daylights outta' that camera!!! In fact, at one point, I calculated that I had shot the equivalent of $79,000 worth of E-6 film and processing with that $2,400 camera body. That was well before the Nikon D70 OR the Canon EOS Rebel arrived; those were the very FIRST sun-$1,000 d-slr bodies, and those too were lowish MP count models.

So...as far as the "ongoing costs" of digital....uh....not very much really...NOTHING almost, compared to film processing, film printing, film contact proofing, and film hassles. And the gas and or postage/shipping for film drop-off and delivery???

Sorry, but the "ongoing costs" of digital, like hard drive storage are basically ZERO when the cost of one, 8-gigabyte CF card is factored against the cost of 10,000 rolls of film...the cost of FILM ALONE these days is utterly ridiculous. Add in developing. Add in negative and slide storage pages and cabinets. Add in scanning fees or time to scan. Sorry, but the "ongoing costs" for digital are, as I said, negated simply by the film costs alone!!! Today I can buy a 3 terabyte Hard Disk on sale for $139....give me that HD and a pair of 8-gig CF cards, and I can store 3 years' worth of "free" images....images that would easily cost $80,000 or more to shoot and develop and store on FILM...

 

[compur]

Digital is dead. It dies every Christmas shopping season when the NEW digital technology replaces it.

 

[compur]

Having film and digital equipment is a little like having two wives (I'd guess anyway, no baby you're the only one! really). Each has their strong and weak points.

If it's legal and neither one mind, why give either up?

Because it's twice the expense?

 

[panblue]

I'd suggest the RX I or II, maybe the Aria. The G is cool, but the rangefinder takes some getting used to - something I'm sure you could certainly manage. The RTS, the Contax flagship, I never entirely trusted the vacuum mechanism.[/QUOTE]

I've owned a few rangefinders, it's no problem at all for me to use. Possibly the Rx/Aria..the N would be just replacing one fault-prone electronic system with another. This is why i'm sought of homing-in on the early Rs. It's difficult but interesting choices also

 

[unpopular]

yeah. the N never took off, and you'd be limited to a few lenses. I wouldn't suggest the N.

The G2's rangefinder is different, though. It doesn't work like a traditional viewfinder. If you haven't used it yet,

http://global.kyocera.com/prdct/optical/support/manual/g2_eng.pdf

I don't know much about the original G.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Film is dead for me.

I really appreciate you saying this. For YOU, and the others who say film is dead, it may be. But from the smell of my makeshift darkroom, I can most certainly assure you that film is still very, very much alive.

Well, here is the thing. You will always have people that are hold outs. Look at the alternative methods. People are interested in tech that is from the 1800's. Dead for all practical purposes. But there are still hold outs even for ancient tech.

I don't care if people shoot digital or film. Just show me the print / image. I'm a bottom line guy. Now some of the zen photogs like the whole process wet darkroom and even the glass plate coating. It is a free country more or less. We can do as we please.

I will say my fav digital cams are those like the Fuji Xpro / X100 and Epson RD-1 and Leica that work like the old film cams. I will give film that!

 

[Ilovemycam]

Film is dead.

That's about the dumbest thing I've read on here.

There are thousands of professional photographers who would vehemently disagree with you. The girl who shot our wedding a few years ago recently sold all her Canon gear and moved to only shooting film for her portraits and weddings. I think she shoots a Hassy 500cm or something like that. She's made it a huge part of her marketing and her organic, folksy branding. She brags about never touching photoshop anymore. All natural.

People effing flock to her.

Hey don't believe me. Look at the biz trends. Film biz is either growing or declining.

OK, I will agree 'film is dead' is not exact, better termed it is on life suppport.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/15...-to-stop-making-film-for-the-cinema-industry/

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/24/kodak-to-sell-its-camera-film-business/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577607700939340864.html

Maybe you will reconsider your wrong ideas as you bid to buy expired film on ebay to feed your out of date cams!

 

[panblue]

and Leica that work like the old film cams.

But that's the thing, they don't. I'm not talking about the subjective quality of the images. I bought a used digital ..it goes U/S because of a fault. I have two photos taken 20 seconds apart, in a totally normal situation. The first is made with a working camera, then the next is made with a broken camera. Just ''pffft" ..camera dies.

 

[runnah]

People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.

But yes film is dead. Same as cassettes, records, 8 tracks, reel to reels, Apple 2's, floppy disks etc...people who swear by these types of old techs are "better" are incredibly pretentious.

I only produce tintypes so I would know.

I could just as easily call you pretentious for making value judgments based on what type of medium she uses to create her images. :raisedbrow:

You do realize that there are plenty of companies that still produce brand new film cameras, right?

I don't know anyone (our wedding photog included) who claims that film is better. It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release. Film certainly has a look that can't be replicated by any digital sensor or post processing technique (sorry, VSCO).

It's like almost anything else in photography, it's a matter of personal taste and preference. If you want shoot film, shoot it. If you don't, then don't. However, if you just want to snipe at someone because they choose one or the other, then GTFO.

Hey I am thick skinned so bash away.

My point is that shoot whatever you want, but I can bet you that the person shooting film is going to let everyone know.

Reminds me of the joke - "How do you know if someone is vegan?" "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release.

This exactly what I am talking about. It's film, it's not some mystical emotional experience. You can have the same experience using a low capacity sd card.

 

[panblue]

True, but the vision is what matters.

People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.

But yes film is dead. Same as cassettes, records, 8 tracks, reel to reels, Apple 2's, floppy disks etc...people who swear by these types of old techs are "better" are incredibly pretentious.

I only produce tintypes so I would know.

I could just as easily call you pretentious for making value judgments based on what type of medium she uses to create her images. :raisedbrow:

You do realize that there are plenty of companies that still produce brand new film cameras, right?

I don't know anyone (our wedding photog included) who claims that film is better. It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release. Film certainly has a look that can't be replicated by any digital sensor or post processing technique (sorry, VSCO).

It's like almost anything else in photography, it's a matter of personal taste and preference. If you want shoot film, shoot it. If you don't, then don't. However, if you just want to snipe at someone because they choose one or the other, then GTFO.

Hey I am thick skinned so bash away.

My point is that shoot whatever you want, but I can bet you that the person shooting film is going to let everyone know.

Reminds me of the joke - "How do you know if someone is vegan?" "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release.

This exactly what I am talking about. It's film, it's not some mystical emotional experience. You can have the same experience using a low capacity sd card.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Hey I am thick skinned so bash away.

I couldn't care less about bashing you, dude. My comments weren't directed at you at all, just generally at people who spend more time hating on how other people do things than building their own craft. Your comments in this thread are just a good example.

but I can bet you that the person shooting film is going to let everyone know.

And WTH wouldn't they if it works into their brand and helps bring them clients? Again, too much time and energy spent worrying about somebody else. It takes a real pompous ass to complain that someone else takes joy in doing things a certain way and wants their potential clients to know about it.

This exactly what I am talking about. It's film, it's not some mystical emotional experience. You can have the same experience using a low capacity sd card.

You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.

---

And I'm done here. Any more chatter from me and I'll be a hypocrite.

 

[runnah]

And WTH wouldn't they if it works into their brand and helps bring them clients? Again, too much time and energy spent worrying about somebody else. It takes a real pompous ass to complain that someone else takes joy in doing things a certain way and wants their potential clients to know about it.

Hey a fool and his money are soon parted. If people are willing to pay for labels and a false sense of superiority than who am I to complain.

You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.

In fact I've shot and developed thousands of rolls of film over the pre-digital years. I will agree that it is a different experience, it's a giant pain in the ass. I do not miss any aspect of shooting film. The sacrifice of digital sensors is well worth the advantages.

But I'll leave this alone. I want to be friends!

 

[unpopular]

You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.

Shooting film is different, but not for these herpderp, hippy dippy reasons!

 

[bhop]

To me digital is a pain in the ass.. mostly because it takes too much work to make it look like film. I think the things people are saying they hate about film are things I love about it. I like developing my film, it's relaxing. I like the surprises when I see a pic that I don't remember taking. I also can't afford a digital Leica so if I want to shoot a rangefinder, I have to use film.. *shrug

That said, I don't think i'd sell my digital cameras. I mean, my D300 hardly ever gets used. I literally haven't touched it in months, but I keep it around because sometimes I get asked to shoot events for my friend's car site and he wants a lot of shots of the race cars, although, I usually shoot a roll or two of film for myself through my F100. Also, sometimes I just need a quick shot to post online or something. I also use my X100 often when I get lazy or if the lighting isn't good.

Honestly, I've been a film die-hard for a long time, but lately i've been feeling lazy, or haven't had the time for scanning. The newer FX sensors look pretty good, if only I could afford a D4..