Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,475
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I found this interesting information today:

I have run across a fairly surprising number of film sites the past few days. Film may be less popular than it was 20 years ago, but there seems to be a niche that still embraces the nostalgic side of it. For me, I'm attracted to the nostalgia of it too. There are 1,000's of digital sites online and 3 or 4 at least at every art fair I attend. Adding my name to that list hardly seems unique.

It seems like competing against a smaller and smaller number of film photographers makes a little more sense.

As an example, when everyone I knew was buying Canon, I was buying Sony. When everyone was buying Apple, I was buying Motorola and Samsung. It's just how I am. I don't want to always follow the crowd for the sake of it.

Additionally, as easy as it is for someone to recommend that I spend money on the digital side, it is expensive. It's an endless pursuit, like almost any hobby. You can start at the high end and go higher, or start at the lower end and go higher. For a non professional like me, it seems starting at the lower end is a better fit for me.

But I still have to consider the cost of the bigger scans and that's it gets more difficult. A 30 inch scan and print is $148 locally and that's without any retouching. So learning to do as much on my own as possible seems wise. Buying a scanner of any real quality doesn't hold with my original premise either.

Maybe digital is unavoidable, but throwing in the towel and following the crowd just doesn't fit my usual tendencies.

You pays your monies and you takes your chances.  So, in the end, you do whatever makes you happy.

However, if we talk about the practical aspect of things, it makes little to no sense to shoot film precisely because you'll digitize it anyway.  Furthermore, going digital doesn't need to be a never ending upgrade roller coaster.  You can get a camera that meets your needs and it can be a used camera for fairly little money and you can shoot with it for many, many years without incurring the cost of consumables.

If you think you're saving money by getting a great camera for a few hundred dollars, figure that every time you run a roll of film through that camera, it's gonna cost you anywhere from $15-$20 and that's without printing or scanning.  If you choose the scanning and / or printing option, that's $30-$40 per roll (which is 10 shots for a 6x7 camera).  So, you run 10 rolls through it and now you're $400 in the hole, so your $500 camera deal is now $900 and it never ends.

From my perspective, a camera is a tool to achieve the images you want to achieve.  The size of the prints you make dictates the film format or the resolution of a digital camera. That's it.  Nothing more and nothing less. If following the crowd meets your needs, you follow the crowd.  If it doesn't, then you don't, but it has nothing to do with the principle of following the crowd.  We're not talking about trends, just tools and their practical applications.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow