Keep that film camera boys!!

[roger_slr]

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.

Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital, consider the following:

The combined price of an F100 and a Menolta 5400 scanner would be about $1600. You would then have a combination capable of 36 Megapixels imaging. How long will we wait before you can get a digital camera capable of this resolution for this price!
The AF , exposure and build of the F100 is far superior to the D100.
I'm in the process of getting the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
On the D100, it's not a 12-24, but an 18-36mm lens.

How long will you have to wait before an 8-16 mm lens comes along, for thats the focal length it would have to be to match this lens on my F100.
Nikon also have a 12-24mm lens out.

As this lens can't be used properly on a film camera, and all Nikon digital cameras have the 1.5x factor, it's wrong to call this lens a 12-24mm. It should be called what it in fact is: a 18-36mm.
Don't get me wrong, I like digital.
But keeping (or getting) a film camera opens up a whole range of possabilities.

Each lens you own would in effect be two lenses. Quite a bonus if they happen to be quality fast lenses like the Sigma, or my 24-70 f2.8, or my 80-200 f2.8.
All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!
Think about it.

 

[cafr]

throw the f100 away.
get an f5.

 

[Ken.]

The combined price of an F100 and a Menolta 5400 scanner would be
about $1600.

Some here have stated that they have over 20,000 photos on their cameras. 20,000/36 exposure per roll = 556 rolls of film.

556 X $15.00 for film and development = $8333.33!

Add to the equation all the photos that I would have lost if I did not have the option to look at the photo right after the shot.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the digital camera. I have gotten better results than from my fil SLR. Not only do I have more control at the time of shooting by looking at the photo, but photoshop adds the ability to edit myself.

I have an Epson 2200 and the photos are excellent, though glossies do not look like film. I have a few prints from Larry Berman that were taken with his 5000 and printed on a fuji frontier printer. I cannot tell the difference between film and digital with these.

For me film is dead.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

 

[Thomas Bauer]

…

…36MP image.

But if I ever do need something that massive, it won’t be with a 35mm film camera.

What I am about to write is only a two minute thought on years of using film vs Digital, so I can go on for days apon end on the subject...

I own the F5, F100, F80, N8008, N6006 and the N5005.
And: almost all the manual Nikon bodies.
But I haven’t needed or even wanted to use them in years.
For me there is no use for them any more.
And now with My D100 and the D70 35mm film just makes no sense @ all.
I used to do the film vs. digital long ago.
But there is just no intelligent argument left in the matter.
I can get where I’m going with out film.

If I couldn’t I’d bee still shooting with film, the same way I had since the 70’s
The one single thing to me that convinced me to stay away from film is:
(Only one of hundreds)
I can tell you all the great shots I’ve gotten using film.

But to tell you the truth I wouldn’t be able to print you out a print until I found the neg.

I have file drawers and boxes and folders and bags, books, albums and on and on and even on full of film STUFF.
I’ll never know where most of it is or even what I have.

But since I’ve recorded it on digital I can not only find it with a click otf the mouse or the stroke of a key, but I can give you a print in your hands that very same moment.

(You can not do that with film, and never will)

HTTP: WWW.YCSPHOTO.COM

 

[Michael Cochran]

I was going to say something...but Ken and Thomas said it all.

Digital is the only reason I participate in this hobby of mine.

 

[Al Adrian]

You go ahead and keep on loving your film camera... but Kodak have seen the light and I agree with them.

Sure there will always be a use for film.. but I take way more images than I ever did pictures.

I don't like the long wait, then the likely disappointment that I just paid to print out 20 lousy photos for maybe 3 or 4 keepers... and If I'm picky, one decent image in 3 or 4 rolls...

With digital, once the cost of the camera is found, images are pretty much free (way cheaper then film/developing costs anyways) and I get to see them right after I take them, find that excellent one, and clean it up in PS, print it out.... Instant satisfaction.

You go ahead and stick with film... I don't mind. I'll stick with my digital.

Al...

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.
Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital,
consider the following:

 

[mrhooks]

The AF , exposure and build of the F100 is far superior to the D100.

Then don't get the D100, get something better. Although it is different when it is not a one-time expenditure, the cost of an F100, lenses, and hundreds of rolls of film is more than enough to afford a D2H.

I'm in the process of getting the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
On the D100, it's not a 12-24, but an 18-36mm lens.

Every system has its compromises. This is one of the compromises of digital. But you completely ignore all of the advantages digital has over film, such as how much easier it is to learn photography thanks to the ability to immediately review any photo you take, no film costs, ability to take more photos without carrying tons of film canisters, et al.

Nikon also have a 12-24mm lens out.
As this lens can't be used properly on a film camera, and all Nikon
digital cameras have the 1.5x factor, it's wrong to call this lens
a 12-24mm. It should be called what it in fact is: a 18-36mm.

12-24mm is the focal range of the lens. Putting the lens on a DSLR does not magically change this physical specification. It is effectively an 18-36mm lens on a DSLR due to the size of the sensor, but the lens itself is still 12-24mm.

I can't imagine anyone seeing the 5700 has an 8.9-71.2mm lens and thinking they're going to get mega-wide-angle shots.

But keeping (or getting) a film camera opens up a whole range of
possabilities.

It's great if you don't mind dealing with all of its inconveniences. Maybe in 10 years, when I'm a better photographer, and a Hasselblad with a digital back is still in the $20k range, I'll try shooting film. Or even in 2 years, if I'm sufficiently skilled that I feel comfortable shooting with film (and can afford to buy and develop good film all the time). Assuming film has not gone the way of the dodo.

--
Jesse
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!

Whether a person would keep his/her film gear is very up to that person's working style and shooting tasks. Moreover, when you ask/raise this question on a digital board, you will not get many agreements. For casual and snap shooters who rate convenience and DIY workflow highly, film gears make no sense at all. Professionals who need fast turnaround time would not use films frequently. However, for those who want ultimate image quality, they will perhaps do most of the critical shooting on films, especially on high quality slides. If a photographer travels a lot to present his work, a slide projector does a much better job than a LCD projector for sure. This is perhaps the reason that National Geographics Society still uses films exclusively due to the image quality. The only occasion they used D1X is due to time constraint when they must shoot B2 bomber in certain time frame and must present what they shot to the military for examination.

I shoot slide films exclusively with all high end Nikon gear (F2AS, F3, F5 and F100) for my professional work. I still buy a lot of various best slide films in case I need them for professional type work. However, for most casual shooting, I used my Coolpix (even a SQ) and Minolta A1 most frequently, and D100 (and perhaps D70) has taken over some tasks that were done with my F5/F100. Anyway, my film gear is always ready. IMO, the image quality of DSLR is still not up to the quality of the best slide films as of now. Once digital quality can beat 35mm slide film, I am sure I would not hesitate to move to a digital only system. Hmmm, no, maybe I will move to a 645 or 6x7 film system to do the most critical film shooting.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 User Guide

 

[Mark E (Flask)]

I hate threads like this...the film people try to make themselves feel better about staying with film by taking shots at digital ... and the digital folks try to make themselves feel better about all the money they sunk into equipment that will be outdated shortly and which will lose a significant amount of its value.

Use what works for you and stop this nonsense.

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.
Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital,
consider the following:
The combined price of an F100 and a Menolta 5400 scanner would be
about $1600. You would then have a combination capable of 36
Megapixels imaging. How long will we wait before you can get a
digital camera capable of this resolution for this price!
The AF , exposure and build of the F100 is far superior to the D100.
I'm in the process of getting the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
On the D100, it's not a 12-24, but an 18-36mm lens.
How long will you have to wait before an 8-16 mm lens comes along,
for thats the focal length it would have to be to match this lens
on my F100.
Nikon also have a 12-24mm lens out.
As this lens can't be used properly on a film camera, and all Nikon
digital cameras have the 1.5x factor, it's wrong to call this lens
a 12-24mm. It should be called what it in fact is: a 18-36mm.
Don't get me wrong, I like digital.
But keeping (or getting) a film camera opens up a whole range of
possabilities.
Each lens you own would in effect be two lenses. Quite a bonus if
they happen to be quality fast lenses like the Sigma, or my 24-70
f2.8, or my 80-200 f2.8.
All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!
Think about it.

 

[Joves]

I hate threads like this...the film people try to make themselves
feel better about staying with film by taking shots at digital ...
and the digital folks try to make themselves feel better about all
the money they sunk into equipment that will be outdated shortly
and which will lose a significant amount of its value.

Use what works for you and stop this nonsense.

I still have my trusty old Pentx MX and, I do not intend to get rid of it or my digital. Here is another way to look at it. And I got this view from my Aunt, she used to teach photography at a college.

Digitals are actually more enviromentally safer in the aspect of producing finished product. You dont have to use chemicals to develope the film or the final print.

I still will use film in certain applications and, I shoot mostly slide, when I do. Astronomy pics are better in slide.Also you must consider the amount of time waiting for pics as, well. Digital has literally made more people use their cameras more. Film will never die but, it will be used by more professionals and, to some extent, by people who do not own computers, nor want to.
There is room for both to coexist like people should.
IMHO,
Dennis

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

Use what works for you and stop this nonsense.

I believe everyone is entitled to have his/her opinion here no matter if you like it or not.

CK

 

[philinnz]

I like both as well, I use an old contax 137MD, and sometimes I like to lug it around complete with lenses etc. Get some great shots. I also like my cp5K and 95% of my shots are with it.

The two pics that follow are taken within moments of each other, the first from the cp5k, the second with the contax moments earler, using colour film

judge yourself if there is room for both - one of these has been posted before. Both have similar amounts of post processing and sharpening. I do not have a favourite, but I think the film gave a better colour response



and from colour film



--
Phil A
http://www.pbase.com/philinnz
cp5000, SB26, WC-E68, TC-E2

 

[Jerry Kalpin]

All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!

Whether a person would keep his/her film gear is very up to that
person's working style and shooting tasks. Moreover, when you
ask/raise this question on a digital board, you will not get many
agreements. For casual and snap shooters who rate convenience and
DIY workflow highly, film gears make no sense at all.
Professionals who need fast turnaround time would not use films
frequently. However, for those who want ultimate image quality,
they will perhaps do most of the critical shooting on films,
especially on high quality slides. If a photographer travels a lot
to present his work, a slide projector does a much better job than
a LCD projector for sure. This is perhaps the reason that National
Geographics Society still uses films exclusively due to the image
quality. The only occasion they used D1X is due to time constraint
when they must shoot B2 bomber in certain time frame and must
present what they shot to the military for examination.

I shoot slide films exclusively with all high end Nikon gear (F2AS,
F3, F5 and F100) for my professional work. I still buy a lot of
various best slide films in case I need them for professional type
work. However, for most casual shooting, I used my Coolpix (even a
SQ) and Minolta A1 most frequently, and D100 (and perhaps D70) has
taken over some tasks that were done with my F5/F100. Anyway, my
film gear is always ready. IMO, the image quality of DSLR is still
not up to the quality of the best slide films as of now. Once
digital quality can beat 35mm slide film, I am sure I would not
hesitate to move to a digital only system. Hmmm, no, maybe I will
move to a 645 or 6x7 film system to do the most critical film
shooting.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 User Guide

CK, I agree 97% with what you say.

Slide film and even colour reversal film has, to this point, much more 'resolution' than digital and I suspect (but not sure) a wider gamut. I would agree 100% if I were a photographer for National Geographic with access and funding for top development labs for my work.

But as a self-styled amateur (even though I worked for Kodak for 30 years) I rely on 'reasonably priced' outside film development and/or mini-labs over which I have NO CONTROL. In digital, you have complete control of the entire process.

So I think, for me, digital always produces better results. And in this forum I have found more good pictures than I ever did at Kodak, inspecting customers' films (by the thousands).

Anyway, that's my 3%
--
Jerry
CP4500 Canon i950

 

[David Vance]

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.
Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital,
consider the following:

I kept my old Minolta STR 102 when I went digital. I find the body conected to a 70 - 210 lens makes an excellent door stop.
Actually I still use it on occasion to shoot slides. But rarely.

David
--

http://www.pbase.com/dazzy
FCAS Member

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

Jerry,

But as a self-styled amateur (even though I worked for Kodak for 30
years) I rely on 'reasonably priced' outside film development
and/or mini-labs over which I have NO CONTROL. In digital, you
have complete control of the entire process.

That is what I originally said:

Whether a person would keep his/her film gear is very up to
that person's working style and shooting tasks.

CK

 

[Backdoctor]

Jerry,

I agree with your last sentence of the first paragraph below. I keep getting compliments on my prints of my daughters dance troupe. They tell me how professional looking they are. I sort of laugh, cause I'm such a hack at this. The reason they are so sharp is that I have total control. If I shot film and sent it out to a lab, they wouldnt be saying all those nice things. I sharpen them, crop, fix color and glare. I make up for all the screw ups I do shooting them.

Just my 3 cents.

But as a self-styled amateur (even though I worked for Kodak for 30
years) I rely on 'reasonably priced' outside film development
and/or mini-labs over which I have NO CONTROL. In digital, you
have complete control of the entire process.

So I think, for me, digital always produces better results. And in
this forum I have found more good pictures than I ever did at
Kodak, inspecting customers' films (by the thousands).

Anyway, that's my 3%
--
Jerry
CP4500 Canon i950

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

 

[tom james]

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.
Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital,
consider the following:
The combined price of an F100 and a Menolta 5400 scanner would be
about $1600. You would then have a combination capable of 36
Megapixels imaging. How long will we wait before you can get a
digital camera capable of this resolution for this price!
The AF , exposure and build of the F100 is far superior to the D100.
I'm in the process of getting the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
On the D100, it's not a 12-24, but an 18-36mm lens.
How long will you have to wait before an 8-16 mm lens comes along,
for thats the focal length it would have to be to match this lens
on my F100.
Nikon also have a 12-24mm lens out.
As this lens can't be used properly on a film camera, and all Nikon
digital cameras have the 1.5x factor, it's wrong to call this lens
a 12-24mm. It should be called what it in fact is: a 18-36mm.
Don't get me wrong, I like digital.
But keeping (or getting) a film camera opens up a whole range of
possabilities.
Each lens you own would in effect be two lenses. Quite a bonus if
they happen to be quality fast lenses like the Sigma, or my 24-70
f2.8, or my 80-200 f2.8.
All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!
Think about it.

--
Tom James
Silver Bay, NY
C P 5 7 0 0, S B 5 0 D X, P E 2
PBase Supporter

 

[tom james]

Are you guys telling me to sell this thing???

I own a D100.
I also own an F100.
Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital,
consider the following:
The combined price of an F100 and a Menolta 5400 scanner would be
about $1600. You would then have a combination capable of 36
Megapixels imaging. How long will we wait before you can get a
digital camera capable of this resolution for this price!
The AF , exposure and build of the F100 is far superior to the D100.
I'm in the process of getting the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
On the D100, it's not a 12-24, but an 18-36mm lens.
How long will you have to wait before an 8-16 mm lens comes along,
for thats the focal length it would have to be to match this lens
on my F100.
Nikon also have a 12-24mm lens out.
As this lens can't be used properly on a film camera, and all Nikon
digital cameras have the 1.5x factor, it's wrong to call this lens
a 12-24mm. It should be called what it in fact is: a 18-36mm.
Don't get me wrong, I like digital.
But keeping (or getting) a film camera opens up a whole range of
possabilities.
Each lens you own would in effect be two lenses. Quite a bonus if
they happen to be quality fast lenses like the Sigma, or my 24-70
f2.8, or my 80-200 f2.8.
All I'm saying is you can have your cake and eat it!!!
Think about it.

--
Tom James
Silver Bay, NY
C P 5 7 0 0, S B 5 0 D X, P E 2
PBase Supporter

 

[PatiO]

I dumped my film STUFF so long ago I don't even remember what all I had. So, now I'm saying: "Hang on to your one and two megapixel Coolpix digital cameras, boys. They'll always be useful for macros; etc." As we all move up to affordable (and unaffordable) DSLR's, we shouldn't forget our humble beginnings. Mine was a Canon A50, which I still have, then I went the gamut of the Coolpix's. Had everyone til the 4500. I let it go and kept my 995 for eBay and closeups of everything. Nothing against film, I loved it for several years. But I've happily moved on... PatiO.

 

[PictoMan]

I recently acquired the Nikon 5700 and love the images it can produce. The convenience of digital is unmatched. Having said that, however, I still use film for my critical work which is often in very remote areas with no chance of recharging batteries.

Rupestrian
Bringing the oldest art back to life