Ching-Kuang Shene
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
No, not me. This one HAS value even after it has been discontinued for more 25 years.Are you guys telling me to sell this thing???
CK
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Keep that film camera boys!!
- Thread starter roger_slr
- Start date
CK
wisey
Well-known member
Hi Tom.
Never sell that camera!
It was the same model camera I owned and loved for some 28 years (with never a problem) until someone stole it from my office with a pile of other Nikon gear. I still miss to this day!
Cheers,
Rob
5700 Gallery http://www.edgestudio.com.au/5700/5700.html
website http://www.edgestudio.com.au
Never sell that camera!
It was the same model camera I owned and loved for some 28 years (with never a problem) until someone stole it from my office with a pile of other Nikon gear. I still miss to this day!
Cheers,
Rob
5700 Gallery http://www.edgestudio.com.au/5700/5700.html
website http://www.edgestudio.com.au
kjsphoto
Active member
I still use film as well. I shoot with hassy and linof 6x17 and digital cannot give me the quality of what I get from these two cameras. I also print large 30x40 and up.
If I was mainly printing 11x14 then I would use digital but one thing I have noticed with digital is fine detail in wide-angle landscapes just does not hold up compared to the camera I use. I also do shoot digital. I also scan using Imacon scanner so the scan are hi-res and just hold the detail.
I shoot film for fine art work but print digital.
Another problem with digital I do a lot of low light/night photography and digital just cant hang with long exposures.
--
Kev
If I was mainly printing 11x14 then I would use digital but one thing I have noticed with digital is fine detail in wide-angle landscapes just does not hold up compared to the camera I use. I also do shoot digital. I also scan using Imacon scanner so the scan are hi-res and just hold the detail.
I shoot film for fine art work but print digital.
Another problem with digital I do a lot of low light/night photography and digital just cant hang with long exposures.
--
Kev
If charging batteries is really your only reason for not taking digital into the bush, you might like something on this, or similar, sites. http://www.cetsolar.com/solarbatchargers.htm I haven't tried any of these myself, but they look like they would work. HTH. PatiO.
Jerry Kalpin
Senior Member
Harris, that point (complete control) is very significant. And correcting our own mistakes ...priceless!!
--
Jerry
CP4500 Canon i950
As usual, people with pre-concieved ideas get it wrong.
I didn't advocate getting rid of your precious digital slr's, but was merely making a point (which I think still stands), namely, digital & film can work in tandem.
Those of you who believe the marketing men and got rid of your film cameras for a pittance and bowed to the digital god made a mistake in my view.
In reply to some of the feedback I got:
Nobody addressed the fact that you can't get wider than 18mm with D-Nikon, whereas with film it's easy!
I was told some photographers have 20,000 images, and to do this on film would cost $$$$$.
Would they be 20,000 good images?
Because if they are, they're wasting their time writing here. They should be getting fat on large royalty cheques from picture librarys etc.
I was told digital made someone better, because they could look at the images on the back of their D-SLR, images they wouldn't have otherwise.
I was under the assumption it works the other way!
You look at the back to delete bad shots.
Anyway the lcd screen tells you little.
It will tell if you chopped someones head off, but it certainly won't tell if you're exposure is ok, or your focusing.
Someone else said "get rid of your F100 and buy an F5"
That's real sensible, considering I was praising the F100, not damning it.
The attitude of some seems to be, they can take 100's of shots and it costs little or nothing, then pick the few good ones from the dross.
Great. But it's supposed to be a camera you have, not a scatter-gun.
Think before you shoot!
The best camera feature is (supposed to be) that thing between your ears!
Digital is great. D100 is great (I have 2 actually)
The main point I was making still stands.
I have a 20-35mm f2.8 Nikkor. I also have a 30-52.5mm f2.8
I have a 35-70mm f2.8 Nikkor. I also have a 52.5-105mm f2.8
Get the picture?
I have a Nikon F3.
It's rugged. I can lock-up the mirror, close the eyepiece blind, fit a WLF and get long exposure pin sharp 36MP images with a little work.
I have a Canonet QL19. It cost about $40.
Where would you get a digital compact with a razor sharp f1.9 lens, an all metal body, and 36MP images, for the cost of a few rolls of film?
To recap for anyone not up to speed:
I'm not saying Digital v Film.... I'm saying Digital + Film !!!
I didn't advocate getting rid of your precious digital slr's, but was merely making a point (which I think still stands), namely, digital & film can work in tandem.
Those of you who believe the marketing men and got rid of your film cameras for a pittance and bowed to the digital god made a mistake in my view.
In reply to some of the feedback I got:
Nobody addressed the fact that you can't get wider than 18mm with D-Nikon, whereas with film it's easy!
I was told some photographers have 20,000 images, and to do this on film would cost $$$$$.
Would they be 20,000 good images?
Because if they are, they're wasting their time writing here. They should be getting fat on large royalty cheques from picture librarys etc.
I was told digital made someone better, because they could look at the images on the back of their D-SLR, images they wouldn't have otherwise.
I was under the assumption it works the other way!
You look at the back to delete bad shots.
Anyway the lcd screen tells you little.
It will tell if you chopped someones head off, but it certainly won't tell if you're exposure is ok, or your focusing.
Someone else said "get rid of your F100 and buy an F5"
That's real sensible, considering I was praising the F100, not damning it.
The attitude of some seems to be, they can take 100's of shots and it costs little or nothing, then pick the few good ones from the dross.
Great. But it's supposed to be a camera you have, not a scatter-gun.
Think before you shoot!
The best camera feature is (supposed to be) that thing between your ears!
Digital is great. D100 is great (I have 2 actually)
The main point I was making still stands.
I have a 20-35mm f2.8 Nikkor. I also have a 30-52.5mm f2.8
I have a 35-70mm f2.8 Nikkor. I also have a 52.5-105mm f2.8
Get the picture?
I have a Nikon F3.
It's rugged. I can lock-up the mirror, close the eyepiece blind, fit a WLF and get long exposure pin sharp 36MP images with a little work.
I have a Canonet QL19. It cost about $40.
Where would you get a digital compact with a razor sharp f1.9 lens, an all metal body, and 36MP images, for the cost of a few rolls of film?
To recap for anyone not up to speed:
I'm not saying Digital v Film.... I'm saying Digital + Film !!!
You are say this now, but your original post stated to get a film and scanner for the same price and get 36 megapixels. I did not see anywhere in your original post that you liked the idea of digital.
No one here is stating that you should give up film. Just letting you know the reasons that we like digital. :c)
I talked to a few pro photographers and no matter what you say, the totally amazing shots do not happen on every roll. One expects to go back to an amazing vista many days and expects to shoot many photos to get the perfect shot. Besides... shooting in large numbers can be fun and a learning experience.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5
mrhooks
Leading Member
Nope. You're now twisting what you originally said. Either that, or you didn't do a good job of conveying what you meant the first time around.
The majority of us in NTF probably don't own DSLRs anyways, which begs the question why you would post your little DSLR tirade here.
What you said was:
"Before contemplating selling your film camera and going digital, consider the following:"
That can be interpreted as, "stay with film and don't go digital, and here are the reasons why." Ambiguous wording at best. You should have said something like, "instead of completely abandoning film for digital, use both; here are the reasons why."
Beyond that, nowhere in your original post did you say film and digital can work in tandem, unless you expect everyone to infer that from your statement that you own a D100. Sorry, but you should say what you mean.
I said it was one of the compromises of shooting digital. Neither format is perfect. If it is such a big deal to you, more power to you. Not everyone cares as much as you do about not being able to go wider than 18mm.
Does it matter? You may not have to develop all 20,000, but you still have to pay for the film.
And how would that work?
Yes.
Little is still something. What does a film camera tell you after you've taken a shot?
Focusing I'll agree on, unless there was a lot of camera shake. But it isn't that hard to tell if exposure is OK with the LCD.
First of all, not everyone is an expert. Second of all, even experts make mistakes. What if you are someplace remote, such as a foreign country, and you will not get another chance to shoot what is in front of you? With digital, you can shoot a bunch, bracket exposure, etc., until you get it right. And with the LCD, you can usually tell when you've gotten it right. With film, you shoot and pray one of the shots turns out right. If you're a expert, then perhaps you will have much more confidence in your abilities, but nothing beats instant confirmation. And that doesn't even get into the inconveniences of transporting film through airports.
If you say so. It seems to me your point has changed to suit your argumentative needs.
Not everyone's needs are the same as yours. Get the picture?
--
Jesse
(see profile for equipment)
Harry Joel
Leading Member
If I could have afforded the 4x5 inch CCD adaptor I would not have sold my beloved Linhof Technica.
900=> 990=> 5700
NTF World Roster: http: www.folderol.biz/forum/forum.html
--
900=> 990=> 5700
NTF World Roster: http: www.folderol.biz/forum/forum.html
Ping279
Senior Member
I haven't been into photography long enough to own a film camera. I just got into it about a year ago and Digital was the hot thing. I figured it would be alot more fun with a digital. My mom however does have a couple film cameras. She was into photography when she was younger and actually has a degree in it. I've used her cameras a few times but I would still prefer a DSLR.
--
~ Ping279 ~
http://www.pbase.com/ping279
Highschooler from Florida, aspiring photographer
FCAS Member
• I live for the small things in life, they keep my camera nice
and busy •
Nikon CP 4•5•0•0 - Hoping for a DSLR soon!!
--
~ Ping279 ~
http://www.pbase.com/ping279
Highschooler from Florida, aspiring photographer
FCAS Member
• I live for the small things in life, they keep my camera nice
and busy •
Nikon CP 4•5•0•0 - Hoping for a DSLR soon!!
Dan Beaty
Forum Enthusiast
The camera I find myself using the most these days is my cp5400. Like many others have already stated, I like the convenience and skipping the cost of processing film. Some of my prints rival prints from my Mamiya 645 format film camera!
However, I do not plan to unload my 35mm, 645 and 6x7 systems for several reasons. One is that I still enjoy using them when I have the time to really study my subject. The other is that I have observed the continued popularity of many older cameras.
View cameras, press cameras and even twin lens reflex cameras have all had seasons of renewed popularity. I would not be surprised if this cycle did not return to some 35mm and medium format cameras in time, bringing the value back up of solid, well-maintained equipment. Hopefully, this will in turn keep up the availability of film and processing.
On the other hand, I am excited to think of what the next few years will bring in the digital market by way of better quality and lower costing equipment!
Dan Beaty
However, I do not plan to unload my 35mm, 645 and 6x7 systems for several reasons. One is that I still enjoy using them when I have the time to really study my subject. The other is that I have observed the continued popularity of many older cameras.
View cameras, press cameras and even twin lens reflex cameras have all had seasons of renewed popularity. I would not be surprised if this cycle did not return to some 35mm and medium format cameras in time, bringing the value back up of solid, well-maintained equipment. Hopefully, this will in turn keep up the availability of film and processing.
On the other hand, I am excited to think of what the next few years will bring in the digital market by way of better quality and lower costing equipment!
Dan Beaty
I thought by saying " Don't get me wrong, I like digital" originally, I might have conveyed that impression??
Digital is fine, I said so initially, but I think it also makes people lazy.
So the exposures off, the horizons wonky, the focusings poor and the compositions not the best.
Ah good old photoshop. I'll just lighten/darken, straighten, sharpen & crop.
Hurrah, another masterpiece.
Why not at least make an effort to get it right in the first place?
tyoung
Veteran Member
I agree that this can be a common problem, but in the years before digital really began to take off, a legion of darkroom technician's were employed to make all of these same corrections by an even greater legion of lazy film based photographers. Digital didn't invent lazyness. It only perfected it.
--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
[email protected]
How else would each lens become two lenses, other than using said lens on both digital & film bodies?
Sure, but it would be nice to have the option, should you wish, for a nominal outlay, to go wider would it not?
I've been semi-pro for about 3 years, and taking images for a hell of a lot longer. But I wouldn't have anything like 20,000 images.
The point is, apart from a pro, who takes images full time, or a 70 year old, how can anyone find the time (or the subjects) to amass 20,000 quality images?
What did photographers do for the 150 years before digital?
Do a lot of praying, or give what they're doing a bit more thought?
I hope there's a power socket in that remote once in a lifetime place of yours.
The main point I was making still stands.
Yes I get the picture, although I hope I can read it in whatever happens to be around in 20 years time.
My suggestion for you would be:
Borrow one of your moms film cameras, load it with a roll of velvia slide film, and take a weekend to use up that roll, writing down what settings you use & why. Ask your mom for asistance if necessary.
Get it processed and compare to your notes.
I gurrantee it'll be the best $10 lesson you could have, and when you pick up the digital again, you,ll see a difference.
CIASpook
Veteran Member
Having the best of both worlds is always the best!! There are things film can't compete with such as shooting b/w and color on the FLY!! No memory card swaps, etc.
But a 6.1MP digital cannot compete with an awesome film shot on a high quality scanner.
But a great film shot on a high quality scanner can still require work to clean up any dust etc that may be on tthe slide or scanner that at first take you don't notice until you make a HUGE poster and suddenly small imperfections are magnified.
It's a give and take scenario.
Go with what will serve YOU best.
Digital has allowed me to stay lazy and stupid. I don't have to worry about using up my roll, film speed, or paying for photos of someone's butt because they ran by me just as I taking my shot (well....depends on the quality of her butt!). Plus, you have to take your film to get developed, then go back and pick it up, then get it home and review the pictures, then have them scanned...I am far too lazy! I like my digital camera! Then again, I've never owned a film camera!
But a 6.1MP digital cannot compete with an awesome film shot on a high quality scanner.
But a great film shot on a high quality scanner can still require work to clean up any dust etc that may be on tthe slide or scanner that at first take you don't notice until you make a HUGE poster and suddenly small imperfections are magnified.
It's a give and take scenario.
Go with what will serve YOU best.
Digital has allowed me to stay lazy and stupid. I don't have to worry about using up my roll, film speed, or paying for photos of someone's butt because they ran by me just as I taking my shot (well....depends on the quality of her butt!). Plus, you have to take your film to get developed, then go back and pick it up, then get it home and review the pictures, then have them scanned...I am far too lazy! I like my digital camera! Then again, I've never owned a film camera!
mrhooks
Leading Member
First off, learn to edit out unnecessary inclusions of the previous post. Now, onto the reply...
Once again you fail to address, among other things, the fact that ANY format is a compromise. It is up to the individual to decide which is the most suitable set of compromises for himself. Yet you seem to think you have the answer for everyone.
B&H sells a 20-pack of 36-exposure Velvia for $115, not including shipping. That's a total of 720 exposures. Over the past five months, I've taken well over three times that number of shots with my 512MB CF card, which I paid roughly $92 for. And the cost gap will only get wider as I continue to use that card. One does not need to shoot anywhere near 20,000 images, good or otherwise, to see that firsthand.
Anyways, you still fail to address any of film's shortcomings, such as the inconvenience of flying with film.
--
Jesse
(see profile for equipment)
Your usage of the differing effective focal ranges for film and digital SLRs in your original post suggests digital is inferior because it cannot go as wide. It does NOT suggest film and digital work in tandem. Obviously that is not the idea you meant to convey; so once again, learn to say what you mean more clearly.
Sure, it would be nice for those who want it . Your harping on that one issue suggests it is an all-important feature that should deter most anyone from shooting digital. Way to turn around and downplay.
Once again you fail to address, among other things, the fact that ANY format is a compromise. It is up to the individual to decide which is the most suitable set of compromises for himself. Yet you seem to think you have the answer for everyone.
Wrong. The point is it costs money to buy film. EVERY shot you take has a cost associated with it. With digital, that cost is lower, and it drops the more you shoot.
B&H sells a 20-pack of 36-exposure Velvia for $115, not including shipping. That's a total of 720 exposures. Over the past five months, I've taken well over three times that number of shots with my 512MB CF card, which I paid roughly $92 for. And the cost gap will only get wider as I continue to use that card. One does not need to shoot anywhere near 20,000 images, good or otherwise, to see that firsthand.
They worked with what was available to them, which is what digital photographers are doing today. You need to try a lot harder for a convincing argument. Should we forget about cars because we still have bicycles and feet? A car is a compromise as well - they are expensive to buy and maintain, pollute the environment, use up Earth's natural resources, and require us to pave the land. Yet we accept cars, because of the convenience they provide. Well, the same goes with digital. Why make something harder than it has to be, when technology can make it easier?
I meant remote as in far from home. That can apply to Tokyo just as easily as it can apply to Antarctica. If I decide to spend 90% of the rest of my life in the bush, I'll get a Hasselblad. As long as I live in a city, your argument above has no legs to stand on as far as I am concerned. If Thom Hogan can bring digital cameras to the Galapagos (he seems to suggest it is a viable option), I think I'm pretty safe using a digital camera around California and Europe.
Anyways, you still fail to address any of film's shortcomings, such as the inconvenience of flying with film.
Whatever. Come back after you learn how to write clearly.
--
Jesse
(see profile for equipment)
You're not addressing the question I'm asking above. You're quoting about wide angles in response to a question about how a lens can have more than one focal length. Try reading the response I sent.
Come to that, try reading the initial posting again. Of all the feedback, you seem to be the only one having difficulty understanding it. Maybe I should type slower for you ?
Pointing out a fact isn't harping, it's pointing out a fact!
Most people I know who take images, especially landscape or interior, have a big interest in wide angle, the wider the better.
By the way, "Don't give up your film camera" doesn't read " Give up your digital". Can you grasp that fact?
The whole point of the exercise was to point out that, for example, if someone has a Nikon film camera and a digital slr, and find they're not using the film camera, to think before deciding to get rid of it.
It has advantages they may not have realised.
They may sell or trade it in, then regret it later, especially if they get the usual " film cameras are dead, I'll only give you $x for it".
Is that such a horrible piece of advice to give?
I don't have all the answers, we can't all be like you!
That wasn't what I asked.
I asked who has 20,000 good images.
I didn't mention cost.
So if they invent a camera that you can program to go out and take you're shots for you, you'd be happy to stay in bed and send it on it's merry way?
You seem to forget one thing.
I shoot digital, I like digital and the benefits it brings.
I prefer the build quality, the feel, and, the probable image premium of film.
Did you ever actually use a film camera?
As I've stated before, both can work together.
Out of all the replies, you seem to be the only one who can't get their head around that concept.
I wouldn't have regarded either California or Europe as remote myself.
If you're referring to x-rays in airports, I've never had a problem.
Of course film has shortcomings. So has digital.
I'm suggesting using both. You' on the other hand, seem to be discounting one in favour of the other, and seem annoyed that anyone would have the nerve to disagree.
Actually, it's "Anyway", not "Anyways"
Come back when you can comprehend the ideas of others
win39
Veteran Member
$1730 at B&H. Of course that does not have anything to do with keeping your old stuff. That is buying new stuff.
You would then have a combination capable of 36
So what? Everyone knows by now that digital camera pixels are way more effective than scanned film pixels. I have done the tests for myself and a 100% 5MP image looks way better than a 35mm frame scanned at 4000dpi at 50%. Sharper, more details, better color and no grain.
I don't understand why you think wide angle is an issue with a 10.5mm and a 12-24mm available. That certainly gets the wide angle most people want. You might need 12mm on a full frame, but not many people do. On the other hand the new 200-400 zoom is 300-600 on a D100. Safari ware even without a teleconverter.
Not sure why this is on a non-dslr forum.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum