Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

35mm Film / Digital - Page 2

post #16 of 56
ive enjoyed both very much but im far from a professional or even an enthusiast: both seem to be great but for sports i really do prefer digital as there is nearly no waste. i delete the rubbish and keep the wonderful shots (about one in one hundred or less)
post #17 of 56
Thread Starter 
The difference between film and digital is that with film you don't shoot 100 exposures to get just one good one. You just shoot the good one!

See ya
post #18 of 56
I'm currently working through 16 exposures on a 120 roll film Diana and I'm being very selective on what I point the camera at.

Though it could all still turn out crap anyways.
post #19 of 56
Originally Posted by asmd View Post
still would like to own a m7 one day[/url]
I'm there with you. I love the the rangefinder system in terms of composing (though you have to always make sure to lean a little left for centering subjects). An M6 TTL would also be nice, paired with a 35mm Summilux. I hope the next version of the M8 will be spectacular, though I wouldn't shy away if I had a good deal on a M6/7 come my way.
post #20 of 56
Film is dead. Let it die peacefully. :-)
post #21 of 56
It's not dead it's a niche.
post #22 of 56
It's faaar from dead.

Just not as ubiquitous as it used to be.
post #23 of 56
Digital is convenient and the sensors are getting incredible, but for a true 1:1 35mm its expensive! My dream setup would be a leica mp with a noctilux; totaly manual 35mm film.
post #24 of 56

I guess this is an "audiophile" thing: old/dying Technology is ALWAYS better! ;-)

Case in point:

When CD is out, Vinyl is better.

When SACD/DVD Audio is out, CD is better.

When Solid State is out, Tube is better.


The list goes on and on.

Seems we "audiophiles" just can't let go.
post #25 of 56
It's that analogue charm we can't let go of.
post #26 of 56
i just like using clever film cameras like the Nikon FE. shooting with it is just more fun.
post #27 of 56
Shooting film for school has definatly taught me that less is more. There's a very fine line in the darkroom when making alterations before it becomes a crappy picture.
I like shooting my F3 just as much as any digital camera, but the simple fact of the matter is that they don't do the same thing. Silver prints aren't the same as looking at images on a monitor.
post #28 of 56
I'm not going to sit and argue that film is 'better'. But the fact is, I have film cameras, film cameras that I like. I like to use them. In their day they were (and they still are) very high quality precision instruments. They are very nice cameras that are pleasant to use and they give me good results, and I already own them.

I'm not one to argue that vinyl is better than CD either. But the fact is that I already have lots of records, there are lots of records out there, recording artists recorded their music onto records for decades and records can give very good sound quality.

I don't take part in the attitude that just because some new widget X has come out on the market, that it diminishes the validity of widget W that has been faithfully storing music or making images for a very long time and making people happy while doing it. I can't bear the thought of discarding my film cameras, half of which are older than I am, and joining the cycle of disposable digital cameras that are obsoleted by the same argument that would make me ditch my film cameras every time a new better digital camera comes out. When digital cameras are a mature technology and there is some digital equivalent of the pentax K1000, then digital cameras will appeal more to me.
post #29 of 56
I remember seeing on the web that 35mm film is equivalent to about 12M pixels in terms of resolution. Mulitple dSLR's have passed that mark. So finding a better dSLR shouldn't be that hard any more.

I gave away my film SLRs, one Minolta one Canon, several years ago along with all the accessories including lenses. Moved on to digital starting with SONY toys. Yes, the early digial cameras are fairly inadequate in almost all aspects, IQ, handling, etc. But the recent dSLRs are truly fantastic! A few examples are Nikon D3/D700, Canon 1D series and 5D, SONY A900. By judging photo prints, I don't see any lacking in IQ. One particular area, ISO, digital is certainly way ahead of films.

I am not ditching film cameras by any means. Lots of them are legendary and even collectible. But for real life photography, digital wins hands down.
post #30 of 56
Film has a different response curve from digital so it will give a different look. It's not easy to duplicate in Photoshop. Digital has not the dynamic range of negative films either.

I prefer the images from the older DSLRs. The new ones like the Canon 50D and Sony A900 have a cartoony look even at low ISOs. The noise reduction messes with the texture. On the other hand, the Nikon D300 doesn't apply noise reduction at low ISOs so its low ISO is actually more grainy than its high ISO, but this is the way I prefer it. The texture is preserved at the pixel level.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital