35mm SLR - why?

[Poisson Du Jour]

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

For that price, you could set up a very nice gallery to display the best of your analog-produced images and the none-the-wiser digi crowd will crow: "gee, they're beautiful digital images — what camera did you use to take them?". <sigh> It never ceases to bloody amaze me that people associate the type of camera with the end-result quality of the image. Bit like Ma's tasty scones: "Gee, they're lovely scones. You must have a great oven...".

Sirius, is that the CFV39 Hassy digi back (39MPX) because I've seen it recently. I think it's about $63,000 here in Australia. I believe one wedding snapper locally has one on Novated Lease (wise!), like his company car.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, is that the CFV39 Hassy digi back (39MPX) because I've seen it recently. I think it's about $63,000 here in Australia. I believe one wedding snapper locally has one on Novated Lease (wise!), like his company car.

And it is not even a full 6cm x 6cm!

Steve

 

[MattKing]

Because:

1) even with all the bells and whistles, there are far fewer important options that are only easily accessible 3 levels down in a confusing series of menus;
2) have you ever tried to get transparencies for projection from a digital file?;
3) if you like to actually print from a negative, with a DSLR you are out of luck.

 

[rodrickreidsma]

...But what advantages, if any, would one choose to shoot a late-model full-featured film SLR over the d-word equivalent? Seems to me that using an EOS-1V or a Nikon F6 would be an "almost digital" experience, but fall short.... I'm not asking for a D-versus-A discussion. I know better than that! I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?...

I'm a bit late to the party, it seems, but thought I might add my bit:

I shoot with an F5 and chose it for a number of reasons. First, it is one of the most advanced film cameras Nikon has ever produced, combining fast and accurate AF, 100-percent viewfinder image and spot metering all in one package.

Secondly, it uses film. One of the most wonderful mediums I have found for rendering images. I prefer it over digital (although I do use a DSLR for a significant amount of work).

Truth be told, I've lusted after the F3HP since I began as a photographer, yet the F3 lacks spot metering. And yes, I could simply use a F100, and have, but there is something very robust about the F5 that simply "fits" for me. Upon seeing mine for the first time, my mother commented that it looked like a Hummer. I think she's very right about that.

It's a wonderful tool and very, very affordable, as are many advance film cameras. So my question is, if you're going to shoot film, why NOT choose one (F5, F6, 1N, 1V, etc...)??

 

[phaedrus]

Multiple reasons

I use a Nikon F6 because it disappears. And a Leica because of the lenses and the swift way of photographing without an interruption from the mirror.
With document film developed in half-tone developer, both can give you a negative quality reaching and surpassing medium format with much more portability.

 

[Cesium]

I absolutely love my EOS 1n. I learned on a canon DSLR and have a lot of canon EF lenses already, so it was a no-brainer to stick with a canon 35mm SLR when I wanted to give film a try.

You can always shoot in full manual, using spot metering, and manual focus if you want a more raw feel (I do the latter two, but still use autofocus). Having the more modern features available is an added bonus for when you feel like using them.

 

[keithwms]

What advantages, if any, would one choose to shoot a late-model full-featured film SLR over the d-word equivalent?

Film slrs are a dime a dozen, get one or two and play. Treat it roughly, have fun. My current fave is the fm2n. I have plenty of reasons to use it in lieu of my fancy schmancy dslr, especially for b&w. Can't remember when I last needed a battery for the fm2n, maybe a year ago? Last week I was out wading in a stream with it, without a care.

That said... I do think the argument for a film rangefinder is considerably stronger, to be honest. There is still, after all these years, no drf that I would care to possess.

 

[ntenny]

That said... I do think the argument for a film rangefinder is considerably stronger, to be honest. There is still, after all these years, no drf that I would care to possess.

This is off topic, but I really don't understand this problem. Why isn't it a cakewalk for someone to produce a good d*g*t*l rangefinder? It seems like all you have to do is stick a CCD where the pressure plate would be. (Actually, for those of us who love our film cameras but occasionally have a use for a digital image, why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.)

But I digress. To get back on topic, I spent my afternoon at a 4th birthday party, photographing children with an AE-1, and reminded myself of why I keep coming back to that camera. I do wish I could have aperture priority, but only because I'm lazy; on the really important criteria it's just a brilliant camera, one of the best examples I know of "everything you need and nothing you don't". Remind me: Why did we spend the last thirty years watching our cameras grow more features?

-NT

 

[steelneck]

This is off topic, .... why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.

Someone actually did it already back in 1999, eleven years ago!
http://web.archive.org/web/19991012020926/http://siliconfilm.com

They where a bit too early, their visions was a bit ahead of the technology, they ended up with a terrible crop factor of 3.33, max ISO was 100 and only enough memory for 24 pictures. They never produced anything but some prototypes until their money ran out and the company went bankrupt.

Now why do not someone else take up this truly great idea? Well, we live in a world of patents where the purpose of patents has become inverted. Once upon a time the purpose was to encourage the development of new technology for the benefit of society, today it has become a tool for closing out competition and keeping technology out of competition in society. So, in about 10 years, when the patents expire around 2020 this "e-film" maybe can be produced. But will there be demand for it in 2020?

 

[haplo602]

because you can ?

the latest and greatest film bodies (maybe exception are Leicas, Nikon F6 and FM2/FM3 bodies) are still very good tech and also very cheap. if my F100 breaks down, I simply have a new one for 200 euro or so. try that with digital. also with film, no matter what camera you are using, the taking medium is the same.

simplicity of controls. film bodies have everything we need for photography and nothing much to distract. the digital ones have too many options for the digital part that do not interfere with photographing, however they do have influence on the results.

 

[telyt]

This is off topic, but I really don't understand this problem. Why isn't it a cakewalk for someone to produce a good d*g*t*l rangefinder? It seems like all you have to do is stick a CCD where the pressure plate would be.

The physics of light and the (typically) much smaller distance between the lens exit pupil and sensor limit the usable size of the sensor without custom adjustments.

(Actually, for those of us who love our film cameras but occasionally have a use for a digital image, why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.)

It would be great if it were that simple! However the camera and electronic stuff need to communicate with each other. Most older cameras lack the communication interface.

Why did we spend the last thirty years watching our cameras grow more features?

For the same reason pimped-out luxury SUVs became popular?

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is off topic, but I really don't understand this problem. Why isn't it a cakewalk for someone to produce a good d*g*t*l rangefinder? It seems like all you have to do is stick a CCD where the pressure plate would be. (Actually, for those of us who love our film cameras but occasionally have a use for a digital image, why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.)

Leica has one, the M8, which produces digi-snaps with a unique magenta cast.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

This is off topic, but I really don't understand this problem. Why isn't it a cakewalk for someone to produce a good d*g*t*l rangefinder?

It's a technical issue, the distance between rear element and film is very short in a rangefinder, and whereas film has a layered structure, most of the sensors out there have the Bayer structure, so you get massive chromatic aberration if you don't correct for it e.g. with microlenses and appropriate firmware. Then there was the issue of not being able to get a hot mirror in there to reject IR, yadda yadda, let's not talk about it here. Shoot film and be happy and least until all the bugs have been beaten out of the black box.

 

[bblhed]

That is like asking if all things were equal would you shoot APS or 35mm film.

With D-SLR just about anything out there that is amateur reasonable in price has an APS film size sensor, if you are willing to go used, or spend around $3000 you can get a true 35mm size sensor, but this is a hobby for me, I'm saving memories and decorating the house, not putting food on the table and a roof over my head.

With the Digital revolution came a lot of really cool film camera toys that make a new 35mm a joy to shoot with, add on that great big true 35mm sensor that gets cleaned every time you advance the film for minimal dust in the frame problems and wow. Also there is that whole what film do I want to use to get what effect thing, sure you can do that in digital post, but really it will only be film like. And forget long exposure with digital, it will look worse than your TV did before cable. Also if a film camera dies, it can only take 36 of your photos max. A 35mm film camera that you could only dream about 10 years ago because it cost almost as much as a car was replaced with a better model that you can pick up used for far less than a car payment, in some cases less than lunch.

I have several digital cameras, mostly point and shoots, but they are all great cameras. I have a Nikon D70 that I love, and one great thing about it is that if I am trying something new and I want to experiment I can shoot a lot of frames to see just what I need to do, it is a huge learning time shortener (not curve, just time). Another thing I like about my D-SLR is vacation, On my last vacation I shot about 200 frames of film both medium and 35mm format, but I shot over 1000 frames of digital total. My D-SLR took up about the same space as my film alone.

I just like film better. Film has advantages and disadvantages, but it is the medium I choose to express myself in.

 

[keithwms]

Let me add (or restate) one more reason to get a film slr: I think it is very comforting to use a tool that I understand completely, down to the last screw. It might be the scientist in me, but I don't like to use black boxes and then have to wonder how much of my photograph is me and how much is some algorithm in the black box. You can become the master of a black box, even a current dSLR, but as a solid state physicist, I don't like the black boxiness one bit, and it bugs me to use something that is designed to think for me. So when I need my d$lr, I go out with every damn feature turned off, using my old manual nikkors It's kinda ridiculous... but hey Nikon never asked me what 'features' I can live without :rolleyes:

 

[Pres10]

Simply put, the one argument that will brush anything else aside:

BECAUSE I CAN!
)

 

[jackbaty]

I bought a D300s recently to cover the "fast and automatic" stuff. Otherwise I shoot medium format or rangefinders. The D300s is terrific, but I'm finding that it's not much fun. I'm not sure if it's the digital part or the SLR part I'm struggling with. To find out, I ordered a minty F100. It's "Full frame," has good meter, fast focus, and tough build. It's basically the D300s without the convenience or decent high ISO capability. I like film, which is why I think (I hope) the F100 will be more fun.

Besides, I paid $200 for the F100, which is $1500 less than the D300s. That's a lot less.

 

[SilverGlow]

I shoot with my Canon EOS 1v film SLR 99% of the time; and shoot with my Canon EOS 5D DSLR 1% of the time.

Why?

Simple: Because film provides 1.5 to 2 stops wider Dynamic Range, and tonal graduations and color are better to my eye with film.

I don't hate digital, and frankly I have the utmost respect for digital as a medium. However I have a strong preference for film.

Now when it comes to resolution, a full frame 21mp DSLR kills 35mm film, but regardless, I'd rather shoot with 35mm film. To me, dynamic range and tonal quality are more important.

 

[SilverGlow]

Let me add (or restate) one more reason to get a film slr: I think it is very comforting to use a tool that I understand completely, down to the last screw. It might be the scientist in me, but I don't like to use black boxes and then have to wonder how much of my photograph is me and how much is some algorithm in the black box. You can become the master of a black box, even a current dSLR, but as a solid state physicist, I don't like the black boxiness one bit, and it bugs me to use something that is designed to think for me. So when I need my d$lr, I go out with every damn feature turned off, using my old manual nikkors It's kinda ridiculous... but hey Nikon never asked me what 'features' I can live without :rolleyes:

Black box help is not so bad. At the end of the day, it still takes the human to compose the picture, and composition is the one thing that no camera can do for us. Still, the journey (camera workflow) is half the reward (the picture) for many, and I understand that.

 

[SilverGlow]

...most people coming from digital will be used to quite a bit of automation....

-NT

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.

 

[Naples]

Why? Film. It gives me a physical image, not a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s.

 

[ntenny]

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

This is mostly false, what you wrote.

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

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

 

[keithwms]

On this subject of automation, sometimes auto is the sensible choice. I am not against automation when I want it.

What annoys me is that there is no really simple, beater d$lr that compares to my fm2n or oly om1 or xa or such- simple, inexpensive little pieces that I can take with me into knee deep saltwater without a care... and still expect topnotch results.

 

[keithwms]

Black box help is not so bad.

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>

 

[mr rusty]

But, as a teacher, I assert that black boxes are the absolute enemy of education

I slightly disagree. 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.

Two examples:- I am old enough to have navigated merchant ships just using a sextant and log tables etc. Sat Nav didn't exist. You HAD to get the longhand calcs right or you were potentially on the rocks. I am sure they still teach this, but it is no longer the primary method. Navigators now navigate using electronic aids and have to learn all the new techniques surrounding the high tech equipment. So in effect they have to learn *more* - both the old ways and the new. Similarly my son is studying structural engineering. He is having to learn structural calculations long hand from basic mechanical principles. he will *never* do this in the real world - computers do it all using complex programs which he will have to learn how to use.

Surely it is the same with photography? To be a truly competent professional (not that I am) in today's photography world, you have to understand both the old ways *and* the new d****l ways, so surely more has to be learned, not less?