35mm SLR - why?

[Tom Kershaw]

Yeah, an experienced photographer will have a vision and that vision will rise above pretty much any technical encumbrances. The vision exists completely apart from the gear.

<rant>

But, as a teacher, I assert that black boxes are the absolute enemy of education. I am just old enough to have participated in the transition from pencil 'n paper education to computer- and web-based learning. I did both, and I definitely felt the difference. It horrifies me how we (teachers) have thrown hands-on "analogue" learning away. And this is usually done to save money, effort and time rather than for any real educational benefit. I see very clear evidence of the harms of automation in the d$lr-based photography of today.

</end rant>

Do you mean operating "virtually" rather than in the tangible world?

Tom

 

[Vonder]

Wow,that's a bit of a tough one. I had to think about it!

Let's look at the EOS-1V. I have one, and I have a few DSLRs. The true advantage of buying a 1V today, assuming you buy used, is price-performance. For $400 you get a full-frame camera that can use all of Canon's EF lenses and EOS flashes. You can certainly equal the image quality of a 1V with even low-end DSLRs so it's not that, assuming you could live with a crop-sensored camera, but you'd not get a robust body that can take punishment and still keep working. To get the equivalent build quality in a DSLR you'd spend 12x as much, minimum.

Any argument about "film" fails in that you can buy a much less expensive camera than a 1V and record superb images. You asked why one would buy a 1V or F6, not why one would chose film.

 

[keithwms]

Black boxes change the perspective of education so that the old handraulic ways are used to check/justify the new, but are not necessarily used as the primary means of calculating/using whatever it is we are talking about.

Unfortunately, that isn't my experience. There is a scary level of faith that the computer and the web can answer anything. If Apollo 13 had happened to this generation....

Sure there are exceptions, but on the whole, virtual education has taken away many necessary hands-on experiences, because computerized education is a lot less expensive. There is growing objection to computer/web-only instruction, but I'm afraid it'll take a long time for people to realize what their kids are missing. Maybe when we start buying our spacecraft and nuclear reactors from China.... in ten years or so....

Do you mean operating "virtually" rather than in the tangible world?

Tom

My main fear is that the virtual world lacks many of the complexities and nuances of reality and thus students simply aren't prepared for them. Intuition is something that can really atrophy if it isn't exercised daily!

 

[Mark Fisher]

BW

 

[ntenny]

Folks, the OP explicitly wasn't asking "why film rather than digital", but "why a spiffy bell-and-whistleful film SLR rather than some other film camera". I assume we all agree that there are lots of reasons to shoot film!

-NT

 

[rodrickreidsma]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier:

I choose to use my F5 specifically because it uses film. It also has features that I desire in a hand camera, the combination of which, I cannot find in any other model in the Nikon line, save maybe the F6, which is a bit out of my price range. The F100 might also be an option, but it too, is a "bell-and-whistleful" SLR.

My question (again) is, why not use one? If you desire a camera that will use all of Nikon's current lenses (even the G-series), then you're pretty much stuck with all the bells and whistles. The same (to a degree) is true of Canon's lineup. Considering you can get a 1N for $200 and a 1V for $500, why not spring for something rugged and responsive?

-R

 

[TheSohnly]

You can destroy negatives in a fire or with scissors

you can destroy image files with data corruption or deletion

Troll post

move along

 

[Naples]

The OP certainly did ask "Why a film SLR over a DSLR?"

Specifically: "But what advantages, if any, would one choose to shoot a late-model full-featured film SLR over the d-word equivalent?"

Hence my answer: "Film. It gives me a physical image, not a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s."

You can't ask why someone chooses a film SLR over a DSLR and demand that the principal differentiating feature be excluded from the conversation.

 

[SilverGlow]

(on my point that digital emigres will be accustomed to automation)



No, that's not my point. You're taking one statement out of context---what I said is that the various automatic bells and whistles of a high-end SLR aren't strictly necessary, but are probably expected features for most people coming from digital. Which is one reason that a digital emigre might want to use one of those cameras.

-NT

Ok, I gotcha this time

I love most of the advanced features of my EOS 1v SLR and my DSLR's too...making the switching from one body to the other easy.

 

[rippo]

Folks, the OP explicitly wasn't asking "why film rather than digital", but "why a spiffy bell-and-whistleful film SLR rather than some other film camera". I assume we all agree that there are lots of reasons to shoot film!

-NT

Yes! That's what I was asking. Shooting film goes without saying. It's the reasons for shooting the particular sub-category of camera I'm curious about. I'm trying to imagine a digital-born-and-raised photographer who says "hmm, film…I want to try it." There are so many reasons to shoot film, and different cameras fit those different needs. I was having trouble (less so now, after lots of good replies) imagining that newbie selecting a modern SLR as his/her "film exposing device". I had been thinking the leap from digital to film must be based on a rejection of the entire digital experience, which in many ways is super-automated. This of course was due to my limited thinking.

OT but worth a mention: free film giveaway here. http://www.camerasandfilm.com/archives/169

 

[SilverGlow]

Yeah, an experienced photographer will have a vision and that vision will rise above pretty much any technical encumbrances. The vision exists completely apart from the gear.

<rant>

But, as a teacher, I assert that black boxes are the absolute enemy of education. I am just old enough to have participated in the transition from pencil 'n paper education to computer- and web-based learning. I did both, and I definitely felt the difference. It horrifies me how we (teachers) have thrown hands-on "analogue" learning away. And this is usually done to save money, effort and time rather than for any real educational benefit. I see very clear evidence of the harms of automation in the d$lr-based photography of today.

</end rant>

I will agree with you that automation can be bad for learning; during the learning process. But at some point that educational track must show how automation can be used to the benefit of the photographer's vision; late in the curriculum.

A case in point to this is the fact that the majority of SLR & DSLR shooters will shoot in P mode 100% or near that often, and place all aspects of the camera workflow in full automatic....and they've done this for years and even decades....this auto mode shooting has held them back from learning anything the entire time...imagine shooting an SLR for 20 years and the amount of learning is akin to taking the first year twenty times! There are high end DSLR/SLR shooters that may as well own a P & S model for the way they use their high tech high end gear....and they are often so proud of their "baby"....what a waste of resources!

In my own journey, my learning didn't turbo into high gear until I started shooting in full manual mode, and using the best practices that Canon (in my case) has outlined in several white papers. Another reason I have gotten good with camera workflow is that I did a lot of learning with a DSLR, which gave me immediate feedback to whatever set up I was playing with. This immediate feedback can turbo charge one's learning fast...then I took those learned lessons and applied many of them to analog shooting, and for this reason I feel very confident about manual exposure when shooting with a film body...I no longer need an LCD to confirm the results....but I don't begrudge DSLR shooters for their LCD either, as is the case with many film nazi's.

For me, the final frountier is composition....anyone can be taught to master camera workflow, composition is the hardest aspect of photography, and the one thing most of us will never master. I myself have a lot of opportunity for improvement in composition, which I find the greatest challenge.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Personally, I prefer the feel of a mechanical camera over one with menus and automation. When I do shoot digital, I use a manual focus, manual aperture lens, and run the camera on Manual Mode 99% of the time.

 

[keithwms]

I'll just add that ceding some decisions to a modern, highly automated body can be cathartic. I generally enjoy working more deliberatively and manually, and 'fast' for me is an rb67. But sometimes I get stuck in a rut, the gear feels like its taken over the creative process, and scenes seem simply to pass by, right and left. At that point, going out with my f100 is helpful. The f100 takes care of (almost!) all the technicals and it's just instinct, don;t even have to bother too much with framing the shot. So I am certainly not one to diss aperture priority or matrix metering or focus tracking and such; without tools like that, there are some shots that simply cannot be taken, at least not reliably.

Silverglow, I think we are in general agreement, I carefully composed that disclaimer at the topic of the section you quoted

 

[SilverGlow]

I'll just add that ceding some decisions to a modern, highly automated body can be cathartic. I generally enjoy working more deliberatively and manually, and 'fast' for me is an rb67. But sometimes I get stuck in a rut, the gear feels like its taken over the creative process, and scenes seem simply to pass by, right and left. At that point, going out with my f100 is helpful. The f100 takes care of (almost!) all the technicals and it's just instinct, don;t even have to bother too much with framing the shot. So I am certainly not one to diss aperture priority or matrix metering or focus tracking and such; without tools like that, there are some shots that simply cannot be taken, at least not reliably.

Silverglow, I think we are in general agreement, I carefully composed that disclaimer at the topic of the section you quoted

Where can one find a forum on composing? I realize one can find threads dedicated to certain genre's such as portraits, landscapes, street, the list goes on....but none of these really discuss composition directly...the elements of a picture, etc...even those specialized threads are still too hardware centric...

 

[ntenny]

I love most of the advanced features of my EOS 1v SLR and my DSLR's too...making the switching from one body to the other easy.

How do you feel about the EOS-3 mentioned in your signature? I've been thinking about picking one up precisely in order to have a more automated film body (e.g., for flash use) and a film platform for my EF lenses, but I don't have a very good idea of what it would be like in use.

-NT

 

[bblhed]

This is mostly false, what you wrote.

You have this dillusion that somehow a DSLR is more "automated" then an SLR.

Where did you get this wrong information?

My Canon EOS 1v SLR is just as "automatic" as most DSLR's! The major difference is that one captures the light on film and the other an Analog (not digital) sensor.

Both bodies have Av, Tv, P, M, and both can operate full manual or full auto.

So no, a DSLR use will not have to make do with less automation if he goes to shooting film.

Quite right, in fact when I got my latest SLR the main thing I was looking for was for all the knobs buttons and dials to be as close to being in the same place as they are on my DSLR as possible. I will probably try out all the automated modes on the SLR one of these days, but I have a feeling that I won't like them on film just as I don't like them in digital. All I ever use is M, A, S, & P, as for the rest I could care less, I tested them, and found that I could set the camera for the same effect custom with my own tweaks just as quickly myself.

 

[SilverGlow]

How do you feel about the EOS-3 mentioned in your signature? I've been thinking about picking one up precisely in order to have a more automated film body (e.g., for flash use) and a film platform for my EF lenses, but I don't have a very good idea of what it would be like in use.

-NT

The EOS-3 is a great SLR. I've had 3 bodies for years....about 6 months ago I purchased 2 1v's and prefer those for their more robust build, and how they feel in my hands. Still, you can't go wrong with the EOS-3.

 

[keithwms]

Where can one find a forum on composing? I realize one can find threads dedicated to certain genre's such as portraits, landscapes, street, the list goes on....but none of these really discuss composition directly...the elements of a picture, etc...even those specialized threads are still too hardware centric...

Well I would say start a thread and there will be lots of suggestions.

Of course, there is no magic formula for composition. Even if there were, everyone would immediately exhaust it and it'd need to be replaced by something else. Nevertheless, there are some fundamental ideas and principles that I am sure many of us verbose apuggers would be delighted to discuss

 

[film_man]

I use a EOS 3 because I need fast AF for certain bits of photography. Simple as that!

 

[agw]

Yes! That's what I was asking. Shooting film goes without saying. It's the reasons for shooting the particular sub-category of camera I'm curious about. I'm trying to imagine a digital-born-and-raised photographer who says "hmm, film…I want to try it."
...

The reasons are the same as they always were: flexibility. Flexibility is the reason to choose a 35mm SLR over a 35mm rangefinder in the first place, and flexibility always was the prime reason to choose a high-end "pro" 35mm SLR body over a "lower" one.

Interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens, exact framing, high-power autowind options, high-performance AF, lately custom functions, and the wide range of system accessories available for this class of body were always intended to offer the maximum flexibility to adapt the body to the "job".

While the 35mm rangefinder is sufficient for many applications, and even superior over the SLR for some, the 35mm SLR wins for overall flexibility, with the "pro" body taking 1st place:

• You can use a shift or tilt/shift lens on the SLR. Try this with your rangefinder...
• I currently use the F5 (IMO the peak of 35mm SLRs) as my primary body. Currently, it has a G2 focusing screen and a 50mm 1.4 ZF.2 mounted - combining the best of the two "mondern interface" and "traditional MF feel" worlds.
• I can mount a 300mm lens (and if necessary TC) on the F5 and shoot birds-in-flight or other action at 7+ fps. Again, nothing for rangefinder land.
• The 35mm SLR takes a wide range of macro options - dedicated macro lenses (available in multiple focal lengths, extension tubes, bellows, microscope adapters,...). Again, this makes it more flexible than the rangefinder.
• The high-performance AF system of the F5, F6, or 1v make them the natural choice if you have to rely on really good AF performance.
• This class of body being engineered for durability, they can swallow a high amount of "normal" use, or even abuse.

I could add much more points, but I think i've made the point already.

I (currently) prefer the F5 over the F6 because I have it, but I'd consider picking up an F6 in the future if the right "occasion" comes by. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. And, if I were to pick up a Canon SLR, the 1v would be the only sensible choice, IMO.

 

[flashgumby]

Yeah, my Maxxum 7 has more bells and whistles than I will ever need or use - but that doesn't bother me one bit, because there are *some* bells and whistles on it that I *do* use (and many features that few would call bells/whistles)...

1. One main advantage of my SLR system - my 11yo son can use all my lenses and accessories on a body that he is comfortable with (his Dynax 5) - now *that* is flexibility!
2. A nice bright glass prism viewfinder
3. Fast AF
4. Excellent metering
5. Extremely simple and clear control layout
6. Amazing rear multifunction display
7. This computer guy needs to get away from the computer!!!

Sure I could do much of the above if I bought a Sony Alpha, but there's still the *most* significant difference - I need a place to load my Reala / Delta / etc.

There is a lot to be said for a tool (or set of tools) that is so much fun to use, and still allows me to use my preferred medium

Regards,
Gordon

 

[AmsterdamMartin]

why a modern SLR ?
The viewfinder ! A big porthole, like you step into you lens.
Combined with exposure and focus automation, and the motor drive, it still is a particular style of shooting different from other analog systems.

 

[jonsparkes]

For me, I simply have no interest in the latest piece of plastic or the truck load of software required to produce something that resembles a photograph at the end of a machine gun shutter session.
I take my superbly built film camera in hand and for a tiny moment in time allow the life giving light to paint its magic on my film.
Film for me is about the photograph and the magic that created it, often in the world of the D the photograph is lost somewhere in the process.

 

[2F/2F]

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.

We obviously have different criteria for judging our images, and different ideas of what looks good.

It is as simple as this: I have my criteria for what I want from an "imaging system. Right now, digital is nowhere close to meeting my criteria," while film meets them (because it has, in fact defined them). When digital meets them, and does it affordably and enjoyably, I will switch.

...and any gallery owner or publisher I want to deal with will feel exactly the same way, or I won't deal with them. I am not going to be a slave to what gallery owners or publishers want. It should go the other way, in fact. They pick you because they want to sell your pictures; because they fit in to their gallery, and they believe they can make money. You don't change your work to be what they want. They represent/publish you because they think your work as it is can make them money. At the very least, most will understand and respect my views, even if they do not hold them.

I am not interested in having anything better than the results I get from film, in the photo rag definition of better. I am interested in having these film results, exactly. In fact, these results are what causes me to shoot film. Most people in this day and age just do not get this point of view. They feel that the technology available should constantly redefine what one wants. Certainly, technology available can have a huge impact on what one wants, as it did with me, learning on film. I'd probably want different things if I was born and bred on digital. However, I cannot so easily redefine my aesthetic preferences when new technology comes along, nor should I be expected or forced to. So, I like what I get from film. It is perfect for me and for my work. SO, when digital can give me exactly what I get from film, and the equipment is as affordable as is film equipment, and the equipment will last me 20 to 30 years after I buy it (I refuse to treat cameras - or anything, for that matter - as disposable consumer electronics as apposed to high-quality, long-lasting, serviceable tools.), and all of my old cameras are broken and all the people who know how to repair them are dead, and film stops being made, then digital will be my primary way of taking pix. Till then, I will not be holding my breath. I will just shoot what I have until I feel that there is something that exceeds it in all respects.

In the commercial world, what clients want is almost totally defined by the technology that is available, as opposed to actual aesthetics. Therefore, it is no surprise that film is all but gone from the commercial world. The sad thing is that artists don't spend enough money alone to support the market, so a whole bunch of great materials went out the door when commercial work went digital. The only way to keep film alive, IMHO, is for it to have a BIG resurgence in commercial work. Artists have always largely been forced to use the materials that the commercial world makes available, and it is no different with photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We obviously have different criteria for judging our images, and different ideas of what looks good.

It is as simple as this: I have my criteria. Right now, digital is nowhere close to meeting my criteria for what I want from an "imaging system," while film meets them (because it has, in fact defined them). When digital meets them, and does it affordably and enjoyably, I will switch.

...and any gallery owner or publisher I want to deal with will feel exactly the same way, or I won't deal with them. At the very least, most will understand and respect my views.

I am not interested in having anything better than the results I get from film, in the photo rag definition of better. I am interested in having these results exactly. In fact, these results are what causes me to shoot film. When digital can give me exactly what I get from film, and the equipment is as affordable as is film equipment, and the equipment will last me 20 to 30 years after I buy it (I refuse to treat cameras - or anything, for that matter - as disposable consumer electronics as apposed to high-quality, long-lasting, serviceable tools.), and all of my old cameras are broken and all the people who know how to repair them are dead, and film stops being made, then digital will be my primary way of taking pix. Till then, I will not be holding my breath. I will just shoot what I have until I feel that there is something that exceeds it in all respects.

Well said. This is my opinion, too.

Steve