35mm SLR - why?

[Marco B]

Maybe it would have been better if you asked: "Why are people using modern / late generation SLR's instead of going with a 10 dollar 25 year old one you can get on E-bay?", because I have the feeling, this is at least partly what you are asking.

Well, for me and my Minolta Dynax 7 (yes, the film one):

- No broken light meter or other end-of-lifetime electronics that might let you down.
- Ability to use modern NiMH rechargeable batteries
- Lighter rugged plastic / metal combo (I don't need a full metal tank that breaks my neck)
- Lot's of bells and whistles I like:
* Fantastic well lit status display on the back, great for night time photography showing a BULB exposure time counting up.
* Exposure data memory storing used shutterspeed, F stop, focal length etc. for up to 7 films, no worrying about writing it down...
* Ability to transfer film data to my computer (yes, I am still talking an analog camera, or should I call it "hybrid" )
- And more I like...

Marco

 

[nickandre]

There's no digital to get in the way of photography. No settings to twiddle with. No screen to view. Plus it's full frame, no crop factor, and $30.

 

[Vincent Brady]

I feel that the design of the 35 SLR peaked just before the arrival of the digital camera onto the scene. The digital camera is constantly changing and improving and you cannot afford to stay up with market, but the humble 35m SLR will just carry on at its peak provided you know how to use it for years to come.
_________________
TEX

 

[Rob Skeoch]

This is my sad story and I'm sticking to it.

I just bought an F6.

I don't own alot of cameras but I do shoot a fair bit, both digital and black and white film. I shoot mostly 8x10, some Pentax 645, and then 35mm with a rangefinder.

I always use digital to shoot pro sports. I get paid by Sony to use their cameras so that's what I use. This gives me access to the latest digital without owning one.

I still enjoy shooting film and likely shoot film 3 or 4 days a week. Although I have a full range of Sony lenses for the digi, they never made a film body. I did try a few minolta bodies but didn't enjoy using them.

In the past I had used the F4 and F5 (also the EOSIV for the brief time I had Canon). I decided the F5 was the nicest film SLR I had used and thought I would get another F5, but first took a look at a new F6. Well once I held the F6 I was hooked. This is the nicest SLR I've tried. Outstanding build quality, great viewfinder, easy to use features, easy to customize menu..... just the best SLR I've seen.

The only shortcoming with the system is the build quality of the lenses, but I've already started building a system using the Zeiss lenses in the Nikon mount. Now I have the best of both worlds, great glass and a great camera body. I hope to use it enough to wear it out.

So why get one of those top-or-the-line film bodies, because using them is a great experience.

-rob

ps. The one camera system that I always liked but never used was the Olympus OM4. It seemed like a great camera, but Olympus was always a minor player in the photo industry in Canada and didn't offer the kind of pro support the other brands had.

 

[5stringdeath]

There's no digital to get in the way of photography. No settings to twiddle with. No screen to view. Plus it's full frame, no crop factor, and $30.

Well, this all depends on the camera. My 5D functions just as my film cameras do (my SLR's anyhow), I have the screen turned off, it is full frame, no crop factor. But it wasn't $30

And there are plenty of "settings to twiddle with" on many film cameras too ... go read the "Most Overrated Feature" thread

 

[Ken N]

My reasoning to the original question is because of the unique look that film gives me. I like the functionality of the modern DSLR, but the look of the film medium.

That said, my axe of choice is either an OM-4T orOM-3Ti.

 

[stevco]

Today, such impressive modern pieces of camera-art-industry-techology, like Nikon F5/F6 or latest Canon's and others film bodies who looks like todays digitals bodies and have almost same options are definetely not expensive, very strong build, different meterings, better viewfinder etc. But as you say, shooting with such a body is like experiencing digital, and such "speed" cameras should be used from some sport/jurnalistic photographers who need the advanced techology/autofocus/speed etc, but why would some sport photographer today use film when they need to shoot myriad of photos? With this kind of bodies you would shoot 36 exposures in several seconds, heh.

For artistic way, some completely manual or manual-like camera would be best, it doesn't mean that it should be like 40 year's old, it could be some newer Nikon FM-10, some Voigtlander/Zeiss newest manual analolg based cameras etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. Full wide angle when compared to less then full focal plane sensors.
2. Zoom capability which RF does not have
3. Longer telephoto lenses that RF has.
4. Macro capability which RF does not have.
5. Ease of use of polarizors.
6. Can see DoF by stopping down which RF cannot do.
7. Brighter viewfinders.
8. Better resolution then digital.
9. Better color gamut that digital has or will have for maybe decades [look up color gamut].
10. Lower equipment costs than digital.
11. Processing or even custom processing is much less that the start up costs of a digital slr. Camera, computer, software
12. The enjoyment of film.

I shoot 35mm, MF and LF with slrs. I also have RFs.

Steve

 

[wclark5179]

"35mm SLR - why?"

Because the photographer likes to capture using film.

I've been active with the Twin Cities Professional Photographers Association (TCPPA), where every so often a presenter will ask how many use film and how many use digital capture. Ten years ago (2000) it was about 80% film & 20% digital, 5 years ago (2005) it was 80% digital & 20% film, today it is 99% digital and 1% film.

Many reasons for this.

But folks on this forum, including me, like using film for capture for many reasons.

Although it's real hard, even with film, to totally eliminate digital as most use scanning, the internet to, at least, look at photographs.

Since I've been a nerd all my life, never went our for sports, I say that now it is truly the revenge of the nerds as so much of our tasks and our society has been touched by all these electronics.

Enjoy film while you can. It offers much to use as a medium for our art.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

All of my work is produced on transparency to Ilfochrome, museum grade conservation framed , displayed in gallery and eventually sold. The camera is a tool, and one which has guided me to perfecting my trademark style in 35mm. I am not enamoured or swayed by bigger, slower, fancied or fussy formats at all, though I have a natural interest in observing why other photographers are using — and cheerfully ignoring anything at all with the whiff of digital to it!

The EOS 1V, despite being packed to the rafters with technology, is nowhere near digital. Even further from that notion is my beloved workhorse, the EOS 1N. If they appear to you an almost digital experience, why do they "fall short"? And there is the question. If you do not use your Nikon N90S (BTW, is that the F90X otherwise?) then how is it a change of format (if any) will reignite the spark? I see you've already got multiple formats to play with. You really need to sit down and consider the objectives and what you want to do, to achieve, with whatever format you are looking at and not clutch at a fancy piece of expensive, auto-redundant machinery like it is a Chanel tote, which is the way so many digimons appear to be panhandled today: on purchase they are the flavour of the month; before you know it, the latest and greatest is yesterday's hero — now as popular as herpes on a honeymoon. You can take my word for it: you can go a long, long, long way in one format. I'm still going in it after 33 years.

 

[2F/2F]

Because 35mm film is better than any digital camera in almost every way, for almost every task I ever do that calls for one or the other. I have little use for a digital camera, other than when people specifically need to be provided with relatively crummy, small, quick pix, and/or are on a tight budget and want/need a quick turnaround. In other words, I think that digital is a great thing to have on hand for when you need to take pictures that you don't really care about. You can use film for things you don't care about, and you can use digital for things you care about, but I find that the extra effort with film is worth it with the things you care about, while it is less worth it with the things you don't, and vice versa with the "benefits" of digital.

I do like using digital cameras for certain things. However, not enough to invest a bunch of money into them all at once and drop all of my film tools, as most people seem to have done. Digital stuff is too expensive for me, not well built enough for me (though the quality is pretty good on the higher-level - i.e. even more expensiver - models), and is designed and marketed as disposable electronics and software, not as long-term tools. I don't believe any self respecting company should design and market its products this way. I think some of the medium and large format digital companies (i.e. SINAR) have something closer to the right idea, when it comes to digital (high quality, built-to-last, backward-and-forward-compatible, system-oriented tools with longevity and reliability, for true commercial photographers and the situations in which they shoot). I think digital can work very well wen you have full control, but film is better for me in natural, unpredictable, highly-varied, totally-uncontrollable light. I know how to work with film to get what I want, and it is actually fun for me, unlike digital. I use the modern-style cameras of which you speak when I want more modern features, but still want a piece of film as the result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because 35mm film is better than any digital camera in almost every way, for almost every task I ever do that calls for one or the other.

Spoken as an experienced and wise man.

Listen to him! He knows that of which he speaks.

Steve

 

[lxdude]

I still like doing film. I like doing things by hand than by computer. I'm weird!

Jeff

Yeah, but that's not why!

 

[alapin]

I like the look that film give me. I started shooting digital 10 years ago and found that I didn't like the look as well as the amount of time you needed to spend in PS. It was not what I was looking for. I mostly shoot digital when I take a camera apart to repair.

So why 35mm SLR? I could give you many of the reasons others have given you, but mostly because my Olympus SLR , Yashica GSN 35 and Olympus XA rangefinders that I have used, for next to forever, still are great cameras that can provide great photos.

 

[telyt]

Because 35mm film is better than any digital camera in almost every way, for almost every task I ever do that calls for one or the other..

I find that prints from the Leica R8 with DMR digital back are far better than those I was getting with the R8 and E100G or Provia 100F - grain vs. noise, color accuracy, dynamic range, and the ability to fine-tune exposures to match the camera's dynamic range to the subject... about the only advantage the camera had with film is the wider angle of view, when the photo required it. I'm printing the DMR files much bigger than I ever printed the film photos and I'm much happier with them (as are gallery owners/curators).

However I have kept two Leicaflex SL bodies as backups for the R8/DMR. Why not just use the R8 with film? To put it in simplest terms, the SL's viewfinder, and I have little use for the R8's automated features. The SLs have both been updated to use the R8's Leica-R ROM lenses and modern silver-oxide meter batteries.

 

[2F/2F]

So why 35mm SLR? I could give you many of the reasons others have given you, but mostly because my Olympus SLR , Yashica GSN 35 and Olympus XA rangefinders that I have used, for next to forever, still are great cameras that can provide great photos.

Indeed. If something is good enough for X's criteria, it remains good by the same criteria, no matter what else is invented. The invention of new tools does not change the absolute qualities of the old ones, nor does it necessitate their obsolescence.

It does tend to change X's criteria, however.

The problem for we film users who are holding on is that people are brought up to believe that newer is better and normal, and that older is useless and weird. We are fighting an entire cultural change, not just a trend.

 

[Leighgion]

Leighgion, checked out your flickr page and was pleasantly suprised to see the 35mm f1.8G DX being used for film. There seems to be some vignetting in some of the photos and I was I wondering if this was caused by the lens or added, as the "Temple Reading" photo seems to have little or none.

The vignette is from the lens, but it's not TOO severe, so if the corners of the image are dark anyway, it doesn't show as much. Only really stands out when the corners are light.

In the case of my "Temple Reading" shot, there's no visible vignette because the image is cropped in. I was just a bit too far away when I took that.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with how the 35mm 1.8G DX performs on film. I'm sure its softer at the edges in addition to the vignette, but that really isn't something of grave importance to me.

 

[Leighgion]

I guess I *have* been overlooking the obvious answer: it's still film. Bells and whistles aside, if you want it to look like film, you shoot film. How the camera feels and operates doesn't make it "almost digital". It just makes it modern.

Yes, Tri-X is still Tri-X whether it's in an Argus C3 or an F100. But the F100 is going to handle much better if you need speed and flexibility.

Does someone have the answer to the "bright viewfinder" question? Is there a technological reason that viewfinders are brighter in film SLRs than in dSLRs? Or is it just a quality issue? (high end film SLRs with bright viewfinders can be had for cheaper than the equivalent dSLR).

As already has been noted, lower end DSLRs tend to have pentamirrors, which don't give you as nice and bright an image as pentaprisms. Higher end DSLRs have prisms.

 

[rippo]

The EOS 1V, despite being packed to the rafters with technology, is nowhere near digital. Even further from that notion is my beloved workhorse, the EOS 1N. If they appear to you an almost digital experience, why do they "fall short"? And there is the question. If you do not use your Nikon N90S (BTW, is that the F90X otherwise?) then how is it a change of format (if any) will reignite the spark? I see you've already got multiple formats to play with. You really need to sit down and consider the objectives and what you want to do, to achieve, with whatever format you are looking at and not clutch at a fancy piece of expensive, auto-redundant machinery like it is a Chanel tote, which is the way so many digimons appear to be panhandled today: on purchase they are the flavour of the month; before you know it, the latest and greatest is yesterday's hero — now as popular as herpes on a honeymoon. You can take my word for it: you can go a long, long, long way in one format. I'm still going in it after 33 years.

I am reading everyone's posts with much enthusiasm, and of course can't reply to them all. Gary has prompted a response to his though.

First, yes the N90s is the same as the F90x.

When I shoot film, I primarily shoot 35mm rangefinder or medium format SLR or TLR. I intentionally seek an experience and result that is different from when I shoot digitally for commercial purposes (fashion, portraits). I shoot these film formats because of the process, as much as the result. I simply enjoy it. I find the N90s to be not very satisfying to use, because it's "too much like going to work". A similar experience to my dSLRs, but without some of the benefits of digital. So I was failing to see the appeal of that type of camera.

But I've been enlightened, for sure! I seem to have forgotten that even when it's shot full-auto, film has its uses. My bad.

No, the spark hasn't gone. If anything, the film spark is brighter than ever in me. I've explored almost all the formats and major categories of cameras, and I know what works for me and what doesn't. My question was not subtitled "how can I find a new love for my N90s". It was a curiosity about how other people use and favor high end 35mm SLRs.

 

[rippo]

Also, I think I was asking from a hypothetical film-newbie's perspective. If someone wanted to make the leap from digital to film, why would he/she choose a high-end 35mm SLR?

 

[Jamie420]

All 35mm SLRs are full frame. All 35mm cameras have the same quality of recording medium. Film is more fun. I can scan my 35mm negatives and they look like they were taken with a D3, every time. Yet somehow, my N65 didn't cost me 5000 dollars. And I would have to put a hell of a lot of film through it to make it cost that much.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All 35mm SLRs are full frame. All 35mm cameras have the same quality of recording medium. Film is more fun. I can scan my 35mm negatives and they look like they were taken with a D3, every time. Yet somehow, my N65 didn't cost me 5000 dollars. And I would have to put a hell of a lot of film through it to make it cost that much.

A 50 Megapixel Hasselblad back costs costs $50,000.

 

[Leighgion]

But I've been enlightened, for sure! I seem to have forgotten that even when it's shot full-auto, film has its uses. My bad.

Of course. The film doesn't care if you shot it full auto or agonized over Sunny 16. Exposure is exposure, regardless of how you got there and focus is no less valid if a phase detect system and motor found it rather than your own hand and eye on a split prism.

It's fine to enjoy more process, but you have to remember that no matter what sentiments are popular on message board threads, camera automation isn't some kind of plebeian crutch. It was invented and refined for very practical reasons to help the photographer take photographs quickly when they've not the time or inclination to fiddle faddle for every frame.

If I'm trying to shoot my niece's soccer team and want to use Tri-X for that classic PJ look, I don't need an experience that's different from my workhorse DSLR; in fact, what I need is an experience very much like it if I hope to leave with any photos, which for my gear chest means the F100. The team is going to move at the same speed regardless of what gear I choose, so I'd best choose gear that's going to keep up.

 

[Galah]

...I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?

-Matt
(Bronica EC, Bronica ETR-s, Yashica Electro 35 GSN, Yashicaflex, Nikon N90s, Super Ricohflex, Toyo-View C etc etc etc)

Speaking personally:

You're a little weird and like to be different, and proud of it?

You get full-frame cheaply (all your cameras can be full-frame with 50 mp sensors).

No sensor cleaning required?

Your'e not in the rat-race and can concentrate on photography instead?

Your equipment won't date (dated already)?

You may be living in the digital age, but your mind is still in the steam age (and you like it that way)?

Your equipment is unlikely to get stolen and, if it should be, its cheap enough to replace (save on insurance)?

The technology is "mature", therefore stable and unchanging (not having to master new stuff all the time)?

Anyone can take pictures with digital (even nursery-school kids): film is more challenging and easier to screw up?:rolleyes:

You just "like old stuff" (made of leather, metal, and glass, with springs and gears, often made by people "who cared", and lasts "forever")

You can get more of it for the money?

You don't need to own or know anything about computers, IT, etc/

What's VR/SR? Who cares?

 

[ntenny]

Also, I think I was asking from a hypothetical film-newbie's perspective. If someone wanted to make the leap from digital to film, why would he/she choose a high-end 35mm SLR?

Depends on what they want to do, I suppose. I can think of a number of good reasons, ranging from "I expect to shoot a lot of sports/kids/wildlife" (or other subjects in which automation makes it easier to get time-critical shots) through "the bells and whistles are cheap enough that why not" to "I just like the way this particular camera feels". There are also some reasons that I'd say are, um, not as well thought out ("I gotta have the BEST of everything!").

But for most people, I think a basic slightly-automated SLR would have all the same virtues in practice---anything with autofocus and that's capable of doing at least aperture-priority and full-manual. Not that those are necessary features for photography, of course, but most people coming from digital will be used to quite a bit of automation.

-NT