I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions
flbrit
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,125Gear list
Like?
Here is a well reasoned evaluation of todays film v digital debate
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 31, 2013
 flbrit's gear list:flbrit's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Sony Alpha 7 II Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Here is a well reasoned evaluation of todays film v digital debate
In reply to flbrit, Mar 31, 2013

flbrit wrote:

http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html

-- hide signature --

Brian
Below is a ink to a slide show of some of my snaps (you have to copy and paste)
http://briandrinkwater.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Slide-Shows/28194522_dDKzmW#!i=2384402388&k=TJmRb5p

As I own both a D800 and use 4x5....I see the quality between the two all time.  As I use film professionallyfor portraiture   and weddings....I am well aware of the workflow benefits of using film.  But thanks anyway.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Agreed
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 31, 2013

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 22,091Gear list
Like?
Re: Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to photoreddi, Mar 31, 2013

photoreddi wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Carl Maiorino wrote:

...and that is where Thom Hogan's premise is wrong.  The cameras don't have a self-destruct mechanism that goes off on a certain date.

But unlike with film, you cannot get any improvement in image sensor quality without buying a whole new camera unlike buying different and/or update film for $8 a roll.  Compare that to $3000 for a 35mm dSLR, which is the equivelant to film SLRs.

Huh? With film cameras you change the image quality by rewinding the film into its cassette (after marking the frame count somewhere if you want to later use the same film) and replacing it with another film having a different ISO/ASA number. With digital cameras you just dial in the new ISO setting. What about color balance? With film cameras to come even remotely close to duplicating the flexibility of digital cameras you'd have to carry in your bag twice the number of film types, Tungsten and Daylight balanced film and probably a whole bunch of color filters.

You've also gone way overboard on your comparison to a $3,000 DSLR. For only $440 for a D3100 or $600 for a newer D3200 you have DSLRs that are not just the equivalent to film SLRs but two cameras that can easily produce better images than your 35mm film cameras.

You got that wrong.  You are comparing cameras of different formats: aps-c vs. 35mm.  There was aps-c film and flm cameras, but very unpopular and a very late addition.  So digital comparisons need to be 35mm not aps-c for format and lens use.

So which film cameras do you still use?

EOS-1v and K1000.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to Carl Maiorino, Mar 31, 2013

Carl Maiorino wrote:

...and that is where Thom Hogan's premise is wrong.  The cameras don't have a self-destruct mechanism that goes off on a certain date.  I can use any old digital camera I please and still get great results.  The decision to upgrade is an option, not a requirement.  Digital is only as expensive as we make it...

Really?  You still get great results from a 10 year old DSLR compared to newer gear?

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 22,091Gear list
Like?
Re: Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to flbrit, Mar 31, 2013

flbrit wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Carl Maiorino wrote:

...and that is where Thom Hogan's premise is wrong.  The cameras don't have a self-destruct mechanism that goes off on a certain date.

But unlike with film, you cannot get any improvement in image sensor quality without buying a whole new camera unlike buying different and/or update film for $8 a roll.  Compare that to $3000 for a 35mm dSLR, which is the equivelant to film SLRs.

Film chemistry was not so quick to upgrade its quality. It took years to improve ISO performance and it never reached the iso 6400 quality of todays digital, and beyond,  in 50 years. Digital has gone right by that in less than 10 years.

But again, you need to buy a whole new camera in order to get any improvement.  How many people are still using 10 year old dSLRs now?  Meanwhile I can use a 30 year old K1000 with the latest film and get the same results as someone with a newly manufacturered film camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianric
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,199Gear list
Like?
Re: Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 31, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:
Really?  You still get great results from a 10 year old DSLR compared to newer gear?

Don't know about ten, but average Joe Blow couldn't tell the difference between my D700 and D800 at base ISO on an 8x10 print.

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianric
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,199Gear list
Like?
Re: Digital is cheaper than film by far. Check your cost per shot.
In reply to Lance B, Mar 31, 2013

Lance B wrote:

The fact is, there are thousands of people who are heavily into photography simply because of the ease of getting superb results due to the fact it is digital and not film. They can also control the post processing wheras most would be at the mercy of the lab.

Sorry, digital is a no-brainer and much cheaper and easier than film ever was and the results are better, period.

That's what brought me back into photography was the DSLR. Shooting since the late 60ies with Nikon F1, Koni-Omegas, Mamiya C330, etc, lost interest in the 1980ies because I was at the mercy of the labs. When digital came out, I started back into photography with those small pocket cameras until Canon came out with the Digital Rebel, the first DSLR for under a grand. I will admit I've been through quite a bit of DSLRs, Digital Rebel, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMK2N, IDMK3, two D700, D3S, D800. Still have one D700, D3S and D800. Expensive, yes. Worth it, hands down yes for two reasons. My prior hobby was drinking myself to death. The last five years of drinking I was up to 5 cases of beer and smoked a carton of cigarettes each week. Going on 13 years of sobriety and cigarette free, and am now the volunteer event photographer for MS Delaware, American Cancer Society New Jersey, March of Dimes New Jersey, Free Masons of Pennsylvania, Special Olympics Salem New Jersey, and the sports photographer for Ambassador Christian Academy Glassboro New Jersey. I'm retired from over 38 years in nuclear power and my volunteer activities gives me something to look forward to and live for.

Yeah, digital is worth it. Ask Kodak.

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianric
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,199Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 31, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

Funny I don't see Kodak in the film business anymore. 

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,656
Like?
Re: Agreed
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 31, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

Likewise, film SLR owners weren't forced to upgrade their cameras yet most of them did, even though as has been said, the newer cameras would still use the same film that the older cameras would have used.

You've written off and on about how many, many decades you've been shooting. Could it be that your F5 is your first and only 35mm film SLR, or is it just the last of your film SLRs. My first was Nikon's F which was as basic as it gets, no AF, no metering. Several years later I upgraded to a Nikon F Photomic T which meant that I could then dispense with my Gossen and Sekonic light meters much of the time. Many years later I was shooting with yet another Nikon upgrade, this one being able to autofocus, use much more sophisticated matrix metering and other goodies. Yet the most recent, like your F5 still used the same film that the oldest Nikon F could have used.

So tell us (even if the upgrades weren't continuous), how many 35mm film cameras have you owned/used. You may not have upgraded them as often as you've upgraded your DSLRs, but there were probably very good reasons that you did upgrade them, reasons that wouldn't apply to film SLRs, none of which measure up to any of today's decent entry level DSLRs, not even your F5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 27,372Gear list
Like?
Re: Digital is cheaper than film by far. Check your cost per shot.
In reply to brianric, Mar 31, 2013

brianric wrote:

Lance B wrote:

The fact is, there are thousands of people who are heavily into photography simply because of the ease of getting superb results due to the fact it is digital and not film. They can also control the post processing wheras most would be at the mercy of the lab.

Sorry, digital is a no-brainer and much cheaper and easier than film ever was and the results are better, period.

That's what brought me back into photography was the DSLR. Shooting since the late 60ies with Nikon F1, Koni-Omegas, Mamiya C330, etc, lost interest in the 1980ies because I was at the mercy of the labs. When digital came out, I started back into photography with those small pocket cameras until Canon came out with the Digital Rebel, the first DSLR for under a grand. I will admit I've been through quite a bit of DSLRs, Digital Rebel, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMK2N, IDMK3, two D700, D3S, D800. Still have one D700, D3S and D800. Expensive, yes. Worth it, hands down yes for two reasons. My prior hobby was drinking myself to death. The last five years of drinking I was up to 5 cases of beer and smoked a carton of cigarettes each week. Going on 13 years of sobriety and cigarette free, and am now the volunteer event photographer for MS Delaware, American Cancer Society New Jersey, March of Dimes New Jersey, Free Masons of Pennsylvania, Special Olympics Salem New Jersey, and the sports photographer for Ambassador Christian Academy Glassboro New Jersey. I'm retired from over 38 years in nuclear power and my volunteer activities gives me something to look forward to and live for.

Yeah, digital is worth it. Ask Kodak.

Your story is very interesting and regardless of what photography costs, for you it is worth every penny due to your self destructing tendencies! It really is great that you have found a hobby that keeps you so interested and focused (sorry about the pun!) and I applaud you turning your life around.

Also, a very hearty congratulations on being 13 years without a drink or a cigarette and I thank you for sharing this with us as it really is a great success story, I take my hat off to you!!

Similar to you, I was a keen photographer back in the late 70's, early 80's shooting wiith a Pentax MA Super, but the cost of slide film was making it difficult to do as much as I wanted. Being newly married in the early 80's and then having kids etc meant that photography was on the back burner, but even when the kids were older and I had a bit more money, film was still expensive and there were all the hassles of getting it developed and you were relying on the labs post processing to get the look you were trying to achieve.

In 2004 I purchased my first Pentax DSLR, the *ist D and my love for photography was reborn. Tha fact that I could now post process my own work and print at home meant no labs, and getting to process the way I wanted was real freedom! Since then I "upgraded" to each new Pentax DSLR, K10D, K20D, and finally the K7 and I had most of Pentax's finest lenses, some of which are/were legendary.

In 2010, I wanted to get the more professional grade lenses and cameras and with a heavy heart I finally bit the bullet sold off all my Pentax gear and purchased a Nikon D700 and, 16-35 f4 VR, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VRII 1.4x TCII, 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII. Best thing I ever did. Since then I have added 300 f2.8 VRII, 14-24 f2.8, 35mm f1.4G, 85mm f1.4G, 105 f2.8 VR Micro, 500 f4 VR and also the 35mm f1.4 Sigma. I now have a D800E. I am mostly doing bird photography, but love to try my hand at most other diciplines.

Again, thank you for sharing with us your wonderful success story.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 27,372Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 31, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, so to speak.

Forget the outdated notion that a camera is an "almost for life" purchase or maybe a "once in 10 year" purchase like they were in the film days but then you spend the rest of your life buying film and paying for it to be developed, or at best buying film and buying the chemicals and paper etc and doing it at home.

Nowadays, the camera is the film, so, you don't buy a roll of film every week nor need to pay for the processing, but you save that money and buy a camera every 2-3 years, or if you are a high frame count shooter and always desire the latest or a pro/semi pro, you may upgrade every year to get that edge.

When looked at it this way digital, is for most keen photogs, a much more economical way to take photos. If you look at a P&S or even a low cost DSLR, there is no way on this earth that film could even begin to compete cost-wise with digital.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Bingham
Forum ProPosts: 20,939Gear list
Like?
In defense of Thom
In reply to Teila Day, Apr 1, 2013

I am really not sure this is what Thom said! And if so, how many years ago? I poked fun at him earlier simply as a response to the OP's statement. Digital is obviously many times cheaper no matter how you cut it! Thom knows this. I think Thom was referring to the folks that desire the latest and greatest right now! Hmmm. I guess that might be me . . . and Thom.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon D610 Nikon D5300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed
In reply to Lance B, Apr 1, 2013

Lance B wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, so to speak.

Forget the outdated notion that a camera is an "almost for life" purchase or maybe a "once in 10 year" purchase like they were in the film days but then you spend the rest of your life buying film and paying for it to be developed, or at best buying film and buying the chemicals and paper etc and doing it at home.

Nowadays, the camera is the film, so, you don't buy a roll of film every week nor need to pay for the processing, but you save that money and buy a camera every 2-3 years, or if you are a high frame count shooter and always desire the latest or a pro/semi pro, you may upgrade every year to get that edge.

When looked at it this way digital, is for most keen photogs, a much more economical way to take photos. If you look at a P&S or even a low cost DSLR, there is no way on this earth that film could even begin to compete cost-wise with digital.

Maybe for a "keen" photog....that said, my film and processingis built in to the cost of wedding and portait sessions.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed
In reply to brianric, Apr 1, 2013

brianric wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

Funny I don't see Kodak in the film business anymore. 

Really?  I suggest you have some homework to do.  I still buy Ektar 100, Portra 160, 400 and 800, and various B&W films.  So really, there's nothing funny in your comment....uninformed....but not funny.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mahmoud Mousef
Senior MemberPosts: 2,363
Like?
Re: instant gratification is not good
In reply to RedFox88, Apr 1, 2013

RedFox88 wrote:

Instant gratification is not a good thing.

Plenty of times it's great and the most desirable thing for learning.

Making photography accessible to the masses is a good thing, and so is learning photography on a digital camera.

It's far better to see the results instantly and learn there and then (if that is your goal), rather than wait for processing and then try to re-trace your steps. It's also great to learn from the EXIF metadata. I wouldn't even be taking photos if it wasn't for digital, let alone enjoying it and learning from it so quickly (and without wallet-rape).

We wouldn't even be seeing many of the images and videos we see now without cameraphones. The list goes on and on.

In fact I call this era, and the generation in school and college the Instant Gratification generation/era.  It leads people to put in less effort to work for goals, instead they use instant gratification to get what they want.

Remote controls makes people lazier to go and walk up to the TV to change channels and ready-made clothes and shoes make people lazier to make or mend their own...

We still had instant gratification with Polaroids, and I still don't want those expensive days returning; the cost was prohibitive and discouraged learning and fun, just as it is with regular film, in my opinion.

It leads to buying things that aren't needed (like every new iphone and digital cameras for instance).

Instant gratification doesn't lead to people buying things that aren't needed; that has always existed. We are encouraged to consume, dispose, consume, dispose. Whether that's a tape recorder or a CD player or a clothes line or pots & pans.

With the amount of convergence and rapid changes going on in phones and computers, it doesn't surprise me to see people wanting the latest; only where tech is relatively stagnant is there a need to stick with what you have because rapid changes aren't being made. And even then the marketing industry will do its best to convince you to upgrade, or put your life online.

You'll always get people that take the bait. In other words, I don't think the world has changed as much as you might think. We have been encouraged to consume, consume, consume, and it doesn't mean we have to just because of better technology, or that instant gratification necessarily leads us there.

It also leads to shorter attention spans which the world seems to  have now.  One bad thing is it has kids thinking they can "multi task" while studying which humans cannot multitask.  They text friends, chat on facebook, watch youtube videos instead of studying but they think they are studying and multitasking.  20 years ago you had to be on the phone with a friend in order to communicate.

You also had to pay more to do it. And you still had video games and VCRs to distract you, and many other things.

So it was a whole lot easier to actually study then, and parents knew when you were on the phone by just picking up the phone, now they let their kids have their own cell phones, their own private line.  Unbeliveable!

Good and bad points to any technology or product or service out there.

Parents want to know their kids are safe sometimes too. The technology is there and it's being used. There are many things you are ignoring that are beneficial with 'instant gratification', and not just beneficial, essential.

Like emergencies. Like sending a happy snap off to your mum who is worried whether you are eating well, or jumping on the webcam and talking. All are so easily and cheaply done today. There will always be 'distractions' from study or whatever, but so many benefits too.

Then there's the ugly side with companies such as Google and Apple and Microsoft and Blackberry tracking everything you do, and countless third parties doing it too.

But are you really wanting a return to the film days and all the hassles and waste of money that entails (including posting physical glossy photos to others who want them long after the fact?). I am amazed that I can go into the local discount store and pick up a perfectly decent digital camera for less than $100 with 'film' that holds thousands of photos and images that are perfectly serviceable and I can basically send an image around the world seconds after it's taken and a small group or a thousand or many thousands can see it.

Whether I want to learn from it or just use it in my life as a tool is irrelevant; the technology is wonderful and many wouldn't even be taking photos without digital technology because the cost of film and processing is too expensive, so themoments of their lives that will never return could never get captured.

Are you still using film daily? I bet you aren't. The benefits with digital are too great and your argument goes off into other areas such as "kids these days" rather than focusing on the technology itself and the many benefits it has brought to millions.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,656
Like?
Agreed? Nope.
In reply to The Davinator, Apr 1, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, so to speak.

Forget the outdated notion that a camera is an "almost for life" purchase or maybe a "once in 10 year" purchase like they were in the film days but then you spend the rest of your life buying film and paying for it to be developed, or at best buying film and buying the chemicals and paper etc and doing it at home.

Nowadays, the camera is the film, so, you don't buy a roll of film every week nor need to pay for the processing, but you save that money and buy a camera every 2-3 years, or if you are a high frame count shooter and always desire the latest or a pro/semi pro, you may upgrade every year to get that edge.

When looked at it this way digital, is for most keen photogs, a much more economical way to take photos. If you look at a P&S or even a low cost DSLR, there is no way on this earth that film could even begin to compete cost-wise with digital.

Maybe for a "keen" photog....that said, my film and processingis built in to the cost of wedding and portait sessions.

It appears that you're trying to win the argument by being deceptive. From what you've posted before, film represents an extremely small percentage of your wedding and portrait sessions. Not only that, the digital cameras that you said back in 2003 and 2004 that were able to replace your film cameras for most of your work were Canon's 3mp D30 and 6mp 10D. Part of the reason for this is convenience and acceptable results, but another part is due to digital's ability to get you results faster and more economically.

you may not see medium format at the ball game, or race track or for the press...but the best landscapes will not come from a 6MP sensor either. As far as making a living from "average" pics, I'd say there are just as many poor shots from digital users as there are from medium format shooters.

Don't get me worong, I use digital for most of my wedding and portait shooting via a 10D and D30. But the highest rez shots with color and noise equal to digital comes from my medium format gear.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/6935920

I do big enlargements and a 6 MP sensor is not enough. So the D70 is NOT FINE. The new D2X may work well....but 22MP is finally enough to make me consider giving up medium and large format film work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10296749

My wedding and portrait workflow is now about 99% digital. I only use the RB67 for large groups that will need a big enlargement. The film bodies now are there only for emergency backup.

For my personal work, which is mainly landscape and architectural, I use the RB67 and my 4x5. This is probably for about 90% of my personal work where I feel digital lacks...especially in the area of black & white work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10146221

And finally a more recent gushing comment about some of the cameras that you're bought since 2004.  I can understand why of the three replies to your previous post you answer two but decided not to answer mine, which asked how often you've upgraded your film cameras. Maybe it's because you've bought too many film and digital cameras to support your contention that it's only digital cameras that are frequently upgraded.

The D800 is currently the benchmark camera for image quality that other brands are compared to.  It amazes me all the time.  I thought my D700 was already better than many cameras..but the D800 takes it to a new level.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50825076

So tell us (even if the upgrades weren't continuous), how many 35mm film cameras have you owned/used. You may not have upgraded them as often as you've upgraded your DSLRs, but there were probably very good reasons that you did upgrade them, reasons that wouldn't apply to film SLRs, none of which measure up to any of today's decent entry level DSLRs, not even your F5.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51194698

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed? Nope.
In reply to photoreddi, Apr 1, 2013

photoreddi wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

My Nikon F5, along with all my film cameras from 110 to 4x5 all have had no need for continuous upgrades.  I know some will say DSLR users arent forced to upgrade.  Funny, I dont seem them all running around wirh their 3mp Canon D30 anymore. 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, so to speak.

Forget the outdated notion that a camera is an "almost for life" purchase or maybe a "once in 10 year" purchase like they were in the film days but then you spend the rest of your life buying film and paying for it to be developed, or at best buying film and buying the chemicals and paper etc and doing it at home.

Nowadays, the camera is the film, so, you don't buy a roll of film every week nor need to pay for the processing, but you save that money and buy a camera every 2-3 years, or if you are a high frame count shooter and always desire the latest or a pro/semi pro, you may upgrade every year to get that edge.

When looked at it this way digital, is for most keen photogs, a much more economical way to take photos. If you look at a P&S or even a low cost DSLR, there is no way on this earth that film could even begin to compete cost-wise with digital.

Maybe for a "keen" photog....that said, my film and processingis built in to the cost of wedding and portait sessions.

It appears that you're trying to win the argument by being deceptive. From what you've posted before, film represents an extremely small percentage of your wedding and portrait sessions. Not only that, the digital cameras that you said back in 2003 and 2004 that were able to replace your film cameras for most of your work were Canon's 3mp D30 and 6mp 10D. Part of the reason for this is convenience and acceptable results, but another part is due to digital's ability to get you results faster and more economically.

Nope, sorry.  More than 75% of my wedding and portrait work is film based.  I went back to that around 2005.  So, I've been back to the film workflow for weddings and portraiture for about 8 years.  I'm not sure how that is deceptive.  I've been pretty clear about it.  Even in the 10 year old post of mine you've linked to (a bit obsessive are you) I made it quite clear that my personal work was still done on film.

you may not see medium format at the ball game, or race track or for the press...but the best landscapes will not come from a 6MP sensor either. As far as making a living from "average" pics, I'd say there are just as many poor shots from digital users as there are from medium format shooters.

Don't get me worong, I use digital for most of my wedding and portait shooting via a 10D and D30. But the highest rez shots with color and noise equal to digital comes from my medium format gear.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/6935920

I do big enlargements and a 6 MP sensor is not enough. So the D70 is NOT FINE. The new D2X may work well....but 22MP is finally enough to make me consider giving up medium and large format film work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10296749

My wedding and portrait workflow is now about 99% digital. I only use the RB67 for large groups that will need a big enlargement. The film bodies now are there only for emergency backup.

For my personal work, which is mainly landscape and architectural, I use the RB67 and my 4x5. This is probably for about 90% of my personal work where I feel digital lacks...especially in the area of black & white work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10146221

And finally a more recent gushing comment about some of the cameras that you're bought since 2004.  I can understand why of the three replies to your previous post you answer two but decided not to answer mine, which asked how often you've upgraded your film cameras. Maybe it's because you've bought too many film and digital cameras to support your contention that it's only digital cameras that are frequently upgraded.

Yes, I love the D800.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact I still use film.  Am I not allowed to use film and love the D800?  How exactly does the fact that I think the D800 takes DSlRs to the next level have anything to do with the fact I use film in my workflow?

As to film cameras, I enjoy trying all sorts of cameras.  I've used the Minolta X700 since the early 80's.  My RB67 I bought in the early 80's as well.  My Bessa i purchased years ago as I wanted to try the rangefinder experience.

I've tried lots of digital gear as well.  Everything from 48mp scanning backs on my 4x5 rig to 16mp MF to 39MP MF.  I had thought years ago that I may be able to give up MF Nd 4x5 film with newer digital cameras....but I've found it not to be the case for me.

The D800 is currently the benchmark camera for image quality that other brands are compared to.  It amazes me all the time.  I thought my D700 was already better than many cameras..but the D800 takes it to a new level.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50825076

So tell us (even if the upgrades weren't continuous), how many 35mm film cameras have you owned/used. You may not have upgraded them as often as you've upgraded your DSLRs, but there were probably very good reasons that you did upgrade them, reasons that wouldn't apply to film SLRs, none of which measure up to any of today's decent entry level DSLRs, not even your F5.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51194698

I'll let you pour over the 10,000 posts I've made at DPReview....as it appears you have nothing better to do.  Oh, I didn't originally reply to your post because I didn't think it worthy of my time.  Just to be clear....I still don't

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,656
Like?
Re: Agreed? Nope.
In reply to The Davinator, Apr 1, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

...

Maybe for a "keen" photog....that said, my film and processingis built in to the cost of wedding and portait sessions.

It appears that you're trying to win the argument by being deceptive. From what you've posted before, film represents an extremely small percentage of your wedding and portrait sessions. Not only that, the digital cameras that you said back in 2003 and 2004 that were able to replace your film cameras for most of your work were Canon's 3mp D30 and 6mp 10D. Part of the reason for this is convenience and acceptable results, but another part is due to digital's ability to get you results faster and more economically.

Nope, sorry.  More than 75% of my wedding and portrait work is film based.  I went back to that around 2005.  So, I've been back to the film workflow for weddings and portraiture for about 8 years.  I'm not sure how that is deceptive.  I've been pretty clear about it.  Even in the 10 year old post of mine you've linked to (a bit obsessive are you) I made it quite clear that my personal work was still done on film.

Yes you did, but why are you rehashing this trivial point. My reply quoted you saying that most of your personal work (unlike the business weddings and portraiture) was done on film.

you may not see medium format at the ball game, or race track or for the press...but the best landscapes will not come from a 6MP sensor either. As far as making a living from "average" pics, I'd say there are just as many poor shots from digital users as there are from medium format shooters.

Don't get me worong, I use digital for most of my wedding and portait shooting via a 10D and D30. But the highest rez shots with color and noise equal to digital comes from my medium format gear.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/6935920

I do big enlargements and a 6 MP sensor is not enough. So the D70 is NOT FINE. The new D2X may work well....but 22MP is finally enough to make me consider giving up medium and large format film work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10296749

My wedding and portrait workflow is now about 99% digital. I only use the RB67 for large groups that will need a big enlargement. The film bodies now are there only for emergency backup.

For my personal work, which is mainly landscape and architectural, I use the RB67 and my 4x5. This is probably for about 90% of my personal work where I feel digital lacks...especially in the area of black & white work.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10146221

And finally a more recent gushing comment about some of the cameras that you're bought since 2004.  I can understand why of the three replies to your previous post you answer two but decided not to answer mine, which asked how often you've upgraded your film cameras. Maybe it's because you've bought too many film and digital cameras to support your contention that it's only digital cameras that are frequently upgraded.

Yes, I love the D800.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact I still use film.  Am I not allowed to use film and love the D800?  How exactly does the fact that I think the D800 takes DSlRs to the next level have anything to do with the fact I use film in my workflow?

It has nothing to do with using film in your workflow. Why would you invent that scenario if not as a diversion? That you're happy with the D700 and the D800 is interesting in light of your quotes saying that while you once used film for your highest res. needs, the 3mp and 6mp Canon DSLRs were your go-to cameras for your business needs, where film was only occasionally used when shooting group portraits. While you're probably still shooting landscapes with 4x5 cameras it seems that there's a good chance that the D800 might have replaced your RB67 for most of your MF work, with the possible exception of B&W landscapes which you mentioned somewhere.

As to film cameras, I enjoy trying all sorts of cameras.  I've used the Minolta X700 since the early 80's.  My RB67 I bought in the early 80's as well.  My Bessa i purchased years ago as I wanted to try the rangefinder experience.

I've tried lots of digital gear as well.  Everything from 48mp scanning backs on my 4x5 rig to 16mp MF to 39MP MF.  I had thought years ago that I may be able to give up MF Nd 4x5 film with newer digital cameras....but I've found it not to be the case for me.

This is why I asked the question that you now admit to intentionally not answering. You have used many film cameras and many digital cameras, so you are not the example put forward of photographers frequently upgrading digital cameras but not film cameras. The same goes for me, and I've already posted of upgrading my film SLRs to get new features, despite the new cameras not being able to take advantage of better film formulations that the older cameras wouldn't be able to use. So frequent upgrades shouldn't be used to try to make film bodies seem superior to digital bodies. After all, that didn't stop you from upgrading to Nikon's F5.

...

So tell us (even if the upgrades weren't continuous), how many 35mm film cameras have you owned/used. You may not have upgraded them as often as you've upgraded your DSLRs, but there were probably very good reasons that you did upgrade them, reasons that wouldn't apply to film SLRs, none of which measure up to any of today's decent entry level DSLRs, not even your F5.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51194698

I'll let you pour over the 10,000 posts I've made at DPReview....as it appears you have nothing better to do.  Oh, I didn't originally reply to your post because I didn't think it worthy of my time.  Just to be clear....I still don't

Keeping you honest is worth my time and should be worth anyone's time, but it took very little. I didn't even find what I was looking for, which would have been comments about the different film cameras that you've used, and I only looked for them because you avoided answering my question until now. I looked at a small number of posts based on whether the title indicated that they may have been related to film. But have no fear, I quickly stopped reading and will never pore over your 10,000 posts because it would be too depressing and tiresome since I've never seen anyone that is so negative, seemingly looking for every opportunity to lace replies with attacks and insults, fighting unnecessary, pointless, futile battles that continue to this very day. I don't need to post links to them because random forays into your posting archives should easily turn up many of them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Agreed? Nope.
In reply to photoreddi, Apr 1, 2013

Now that you've exercised that chip on your shoulder, I'll just add you to my ignore list....as you dont seem to have any knowledge to share. LOL...keeping people honest....arent you just full of yourself

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads