ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Still not funny, Plastek. Try harder.
Even admitting that someone posted a comment while I was writing mine, thus pipping me at the post, why did you feel such urge to spoil all the fun? You've got the sense of humour as a funeral director. On duty. Whose wife passed away the day before.Tell you what: get a daily dose of Monty Python. They have a channel on Youtube. That'll cure you. (Eventually.) https://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
No, you're wrong. The count was at 1999, so...
Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Marty4650: This is really no different than what Nikon did with the Df.
Nikon just used styling to appeal to a different demographic (hipsters with too much money) than Pentax did (people who want bright bold colored cameras).
Karl, we're wrong. It turns out what defines a good camera is "AF, frame rate, frame buffer, build strength, and video." How could we be so naïf?
Oh, I see. You're just wasting my time. Ciao.
Albert, what is the relevance of all those features in terms of image quality? Is frame rate more important than the sensor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but image quality is determined by the sensor, right?
Really? Comparing the Nikon Df to these candy-coloured... hmm, things? That indeed makes a lot of sense...By the way, the 'hipsters with too much money' are actually buying a Nikon D4 for much less money and nearly half the size and weight. How stupid these hipsters are.
Tom_A: More interesting is the recently introduced Lomo with 120 film. In itself a rather cool entry to medium format cameras, and portable as well, but it is as expensive as a 2nd hand MF Fuji rangefinder...
Thanks, Tom. Sorry for the misleading reply. I wasn't aware of the existence of this Lomo 120.
That's the Lubitel, the only Lomography camera with glass elements in its lenses. Not quite sure about the price, though: the Fujis usually sell for about the double of a new Lubitel.
I love film but this is not for me. Even Lomography's best efforts to sell a serious film roll are a flop. I tried Lomography Earl Grey, an ASA 100 film, and it has the grain of an ASA 400 film, no sharpness and no contrast. I won't even touch their colour films, especially this one.However, I do sincerely admire the role Lomography and lomographers have been playing in keeping film alive. It's just that I don't share their viewpoints about how a picture should look like. Shifting colours can be nice, of course, but only occasionally. I don't dig lo-fi.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible. What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.
nerd2, you express yourself as if all film cameras were rudimentary. They aren't. By the year 2000 film cameras had all the functions and modes you can think of - including DoF preview. Even my Olympus OM-2 has a DoF preview button (which I don't use because what I see through the viewfinder is quite accurate). It's not like film shooters wear leopard skins and use spears to hunt mammoths, you know...
audijam: All i want to say is I cherish every moment I press the shutter and hear the motor advances my film to the next I don't need to be reminded that film is DEAD (well it is not completely dead yet) and digital DSLR is much better blah blah blah. I use 5D3 for work and family and believe me I love it because it's perfect for what I need it to serve. HOWEVER, it doesn't eliminate or replace my love for film SLR.
I took my EOS 3 out last night just to look at it. It's so beautiful. Too bad I let go of my AE1 years ago to a teen who wants to learn photography. I hope he hasn't given up yet.
Well, the Tesla is another story altogether, but it is a sports car with the commodities of a luxury sedan in which the torque is delivered instantaneously. Previously you were mentioning one of the most anodyne, dull and insipid brands on the planet - Hyundai, of course -, not something as saucy as a Tesla S.By the way, I'm glad you're not one of those opponents of electric cars... they're such *&&%$#"<!
nerd2, that will be right if you only look at the figures. However, as in most human activities, there's an ineffable quality that can only be named 'pleasure' and can make us prefer flawed (or 'obsolete') goods over brand new ones, even if the latter are loaded with the latest technology. That Ferrari will be much more thrilling to drive than the Hyundai. Of course you can be more pleased with your Hyundai, and you might even drive faster - but where's the thrill? You won't *feel* that speed.The same with cameras. There are a few people who extract more pleasure out of a film camera than a full-fledged digital SLR. Why? Because it's fun. Or at least they think so. And don't forget that the most pleasurable human activity has been there since the beginning of life on earth. One day they'll find a more technological way of making babies, possibly with the aid of a computer (or an app), but for now the antiquated technique will have to do.( As for me, the future can wait...)
Joseph: talk for yourself. I'm not trying to kid anyone. Not even myself. I got correct exposures in all but one pictures with my first film roll. You might be surprised to know, however, that I had learnt exposure with a digital camera. Even so, that knowledge was something I got because I wanted to, not because I needed to. (As you say, it's hard to make a digital shooter want to learn.) Manual exposure is an option if you shoot digital; you can take decent pictures even in auto mode with a digital camera, but you'll get nowhere with a manual film camera from the 70's or 80's if you don't know the basics of exposure.Nerd: ever heard of 'SLR'? That 'Through-The-Lens' thing? You can actually preview depth of field with an SLR film camera. If what you care is making proper pictures, live view, the ability to delete failed pictures and LCD are mere gimmicks. You know, Leica does an LCD-less digital camera...
I subscribe every word Wye Photography wrote. As for the thinking part, what is there to think about when you can take a picture and then, if you're not satisfied with what you see, make another one immediately? Photographing by trial and error doesn't make anyone shoot better! It's like having a gun and shooting senselessly until you hit the mark. Film, on the other hand, obliges you to get it right first time. You have to master everything. There must be a reason for art students who take Photography courses to have to use a film camera. (At least that's what happens here in my hometown; don't know about the rest of the world.)And the rewards of getting a good picture with film are much greater. With digital, results are predictable. There's no challenge. Of course you have to master exposure if you're serious about photography and shoot digital, but you never get that razor's edge feeling you get with film. (But then again maybe you don't want that feeling, which is OK too.)
I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible. What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.
bmcdad: Its like saying AT&T will restart production of Rotary Phones... Art does not require a time machine. You can't reminisce evolution to a halt.
Rotary phones are incompatible with digital stations, hence their obsolescence. Film can be scanned and converted to digital files. There are no compatibility issues. Your analogy is rather unfortunate.
Am I on the right website? Wasn't this DIGITAL Photography Review? ;)Jokes aside, last year I decided to buy a film camera after some years of digital photography. I chose an Olympus OM-2n because I had OM lenses that I used on my E-P1 via an adapter. To cut a long story short, I haven't used the E-P1 for months now.Last June I decided to give the Ferrania Solaris 100 colour film a try. I was overwhelmed by the beauty of its colours. It's not perfect - I wouldn't advise to use it for long exposures -, but the sheer joy those colous convey make it worth it. Especially because it's so cheap. So I became quite enthusiastic about this project - especially after I learnt that those people were intending to resume production of these inexpensive, cheerful film rolls. And, as many have pointed out, you can't have too many options when it comes to film.