Resurgence?

Ken N · Aug 11, 2009

wayne naughton said:
http://www.red.com/cameras/ I thought that maybe there would always be a place for film until i read this.When this technology seeps down to the mass market i just can't see any purpose in maintaing a film based system in my workplace.... since christmas i've been working with a full frame 24mpl dslr and i have been printing with an epson 4880. sorry guys,for me 35mm is finished. I still use mf but mainly for personal projects, To be quite honest, i really don't need to have a film camera around at all. Oh, rangefinders are the exception .....wouldn't part with mine for anything....grin

I have one main reason to maintain film in my workplace--the cameras. When Olympus has a digital version of the OM-3Ti and OM-4Ti then we'll talk.

I agree about the image-quality of a 24mp DSLR--it is absolutely amazing. But there is more to life (and images) than resolution and noise/grain free.

Strangely enough, it's my grainy and fuzzy film stuff that sells the best.

winjeel · Aug 11, 2009

Ken N said:
I have one main reason to maintain film in my workplace--the cameras. When Olympus has a digital version of the OM-3Ti and OM-4Ti then we'll talk.

I agree about the image-quality of a 24mp DSLR--it is absolutely amazing. But there is more to life (and images) than resolution and noise/grain free.

Strangely enough, it's my grainy and fuzzy film stuff that sells the best.

I'd argue that the two are different media and give different results. In case you haven't noticed, black and white is still used in cinema and has a place. Despite the automobile, people still use horses, and even the police. Over a hundred years ago we used electric cars, and now we're turning back to the electric car. There will always be a place for film, and I'm sure the public has just gone digital mad, as a way of 'keeping up with the Joneses'. In time, film will become trendy again, but there will always be a place for it. Photography hasn't replaced oil and canvases, you know.

In my original post, that started this thread, I was hoping that there would be more film spotting, and such should prompt the major manufacturers to occasionally release a new film body.

hoffy · Aug 12, 2009

naaldvoerder said:
There must be plenty of Dynax (Maxxum) 9 's to be had on the used market. I cannot see how Sony could improve on that camera. They are build like a tank and must have loads of service left in them....

Drool, Drool.....I have actually read complaints from some forums about the 9 being a bit too robust (read "heavy"). The biggest issue with the 9 is SSM lens support (if you want to look at modern lenses). For those who own one, it can be modified, but only in Germany.

The other interesting thing about the 9 is that it still demands reasonable money on the second hand market.

For me, though, I really need to get my hands on a 7 before they start to dissappear. At least this way, I will have a good modern camera

Back on topic just a bit. The one thing that I have noticed very much about digital and DSLR users as a whole, is the LAMBWooL syndrome – “Look At My Big White Lens”….

Q.G. · Aug 12, 2009

hoffy said:
Back on topic just a bit. The one thing that I have noticed very much about digital and DSLR users as a whole, is the LAMBWooL syndrome – “Look At My Big White Lens”….

It's not as if there is a choice.

Well, that's not true, there is:
You either look like a fool carrying a white lens, or not have a lens.

Any report of a resurgence of film photography is grossly exagerated.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

On a bushwalking trip in 1991 I took with me a Minolta 9000 AF (a recent trade-up from a Konica Big Mini AF compact). As memory serves me, this Minolta did have a clunky, industrial feel to it, with 4 poorly spaced low profile (silver) press buttons (a little fiddly with gloves on); I think this camera was in the Dynax family (can't recall the nomenclature); images shot with this camera (PKL 200 Kodachrome) were recently dug out for reference for revisiting a bushwalking route after all those years.

Beside Canon's T90 (which fpreceded the Minolta 9000 AF), the camera that really put a smile on my dial was the favourite is the Olympus OM4 (plain or Ti). I am not seeing any shortage of availability of the classic marque bodies (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Canon), and many such bodies are in mint condition, seemingly used as mantlepiece curios! I am considering adding an OM4 to my stable of toys.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

Q.G. said:
It's not as if there is a choice.

Well, that's not true, there is:
You either look like a fool carrying a white lens, or not have a lens.

Any report of a resurgence of film photography is grossly exaggerated.

White/grey lenses seem to be the latest toy for the cashed-up "must have" nouveau grandé set. I have a "white knight" from Canon. But I don't really like the white colour, so I cut a dark blue sock (the very latest "it" thing to have for photographers who don't like cold lenses!) and stretch that over it, thus it is my LAMBING (Look at my big indigo gizmo!!) howitzer.

hoffy · Aug 12, 2009

OK, maybe I am being a bit unfair to those users of the Canon SLR ilk who use lenses painted white/Grey. Yes, they are quality lenses and this shouldn’t be discounted.

But I stand by my comment. There nearly appears to be as many cashed up novices buying 5D MkII with 100-400 L lenses around as Soccer mums with 450D twin lens kits.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

Well, let them. The novelty of lugging around a huge kit (especially that highly specialised behemoth, the 100-400 L coming in at 1.3kg!!) and a 5D in whatever "yet again" reincarnation will soon wear off. I promise it will. These are the combos you see in 2H windows in mint condition. More for show than for professional practice.

clayne · Aug 12, 2009

Q.G. said:
Any report of a resurgence of film photography is grossly exagerated.

Disagreed.

hoffy · Aug 12, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
Well, let them. The novelty of lugging around a huge kit (especially that highly specialised behemoth, the 100-400 L coming in at 1.3kg!!) and a 5D in whatever "yet again" reincarnation will soon wear off. I promise it will. These are the combos you see in 2H windows in mint condition. More for show than for professional practice.

Aint that the truth. I think that DSLRs are the gadget de jour at the moment. Give em a few years and there will be an awful lot of second hand digital equipment on the market and not simply because they are obsolete (which they will be.)

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

Q.G. said:
[...]Any report of a resurgence of film photography is grossly exaggerated.

Disagree.

xtolsniffer · Aug 12, 2009

I went to a fancy dress party the other day with the theme of the 1970's. I went as a kind of 1970's paparazzi photographer, big curly wig, flares, drooping moustache, that sort of thing. Took my Nikon F3HP with the MD-4 motordrive and a big metz hammer-head flash (ok, the F3 was introduced in 1980, but it's close!) partly as a prop, but mainly to use to photograph the event. People were amazed that the camera actually worked, and it did get a lot of appreciative comments about it being a 'proper camera', which of course it is....

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

hoffy said:
Aint that the truth. I think that DSLRs are the gadget de jour at the moment. Give em a few years and there will be an awful lot of second hand digital equipment on the market and not simply because they are obsolete (which they will be.)

"A few years" !?
I'd give them 12 months at the most before the next sparkle catches their eye and they fall over themselves to be best dressed on the old block...

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

xtolsniffer said:
I went to a fancy dress party the other day with the theme of the 1970's. I went as a kind of 1970's paparazzi photographer, big curly wig, flares, drooping moustache, that sort of thing. Took my Nikon F3HP with the MD-4 motordrive and a big metz hammer-head flash (ok, the F3 was introduced in 1980, but it's close!) partly as a prop, but mainly to use to photograph the event. People were amazed that the camera actually worked, and it did get a lot of appreciative comments about it being a 'proper camera', which of course it is....

Sounds a lot of fun to me. As a one-time user of that kit (Nikon F3HP + MD4 + METZ grip flash) this is one very heavy pup to cart around. I toured around Tasmania (Australia) on my bicycle in 1983 with this very kit bouncing up and down in the handlebar bag! That was all that would fit into the biggest bag available at the time! Talk about adding ballast to the front end!!

zk-cessnaguy · Aug 12, 2009

hoffy said:
Aint that the truth. I think that DSLRs are the gadget de jour at the moment. Give em a few years and there will be an awful lot of second hand digital equipment on the market and not simply because they are obsolete (which they will be.)

The scary thing is how badly dSLR equipment depreciates. I picked up a KM7d with grip, a ton of batteries and a 35-105 lens for NZD $500 as my 'I don't care if it goes overboard' digital kit for on my sailboat. 3-4 years ago that was (at least) $2500 worth of gear. The cam is still totally useable, but because it's not got a bazillion MP it's essentially worthless.

xtolsniffer · Aug 12, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
Sounds a lot of fun to me. As a one-time user of that kit (Nikon F3HP + MD4 + METZ grip flash) this is one very heavy pup to cart around. I toured around Tasmania (Australia) on my bicycle in 1983 with this very kit bouncing up and down in the handlebar bag! That was all that would fit into the biggest bag available at the time! Talk about adding ballast to the front end!!

It was quite a weight, but it was impressive, and the sound of that motordrive, classic! I used a Metz CT-4, with the Metz nikon adaptor that fitted over the rewing crank, and one unexpected down side was that for vertical shots my nose kept pushing it off the contacts. I don't know if this is a consequence of poor design by Metz or the size of my nose.

Incidentally, a few weeks back someone gave me a nikon D100. Tried it, didn't like it, it's just not the same.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

xtolsniffer said:
It was quite a weight, but it was impressive, and the sound of that motordrive, classic! I used a Metz CT-4, with the Metz nikon adaptor that fitted over the rewing crank, and one unexpected down side was that for vertical shots my nose kept pushing it off the contacts. I don't know if this is a consequence of poor design by Metz or the size of my nose. [...]

Yes, I remember clearly the adaptor locking over the rewind crank, which I still consider to be a unique and clever feature for that particular camera. Remember you can always remove the pentaprism on the F3HP if your noggin gets in the way (!). I had many problems handling that beastly combination (additional to carrying it all), chiefly because I have small hands but loved the infamous kerr-clunk of the mirror and the industrial tone of the m-drive. I went from the biggest to the smallest (that being the OM4Ti). Of course, if you needed to scare the living daylights out of others carrying e.g. a tiny OM1n, the F3HP+MD4+Metz was a sure fire way to start a lengthy conversation on "suitable travel cameras", and many an interrogation lasted well beyond the allotted meeting time of the monthly touring club meetings!

xtolsniffer · Aug 12, 2009

Well I seem to be going in the opposite direction, I started with an OM-1, then moved to F3, and now am up to an RB67. If you REALLY want to scare people, whip out the RB67 with a multi-angle grip and start using that. They seem to think you must be from the radiological protection board.

clayne · Aug 12, 2009

I have 3 F3s, 2 with DE-3s, and 1 with a DE-2. Never considered them to be that heavy or crazy - but I don't use motordrives.

Prest_400 · Aug 12, 2009

xtolsniffer said:
If you REALLY want to scare people, whip out the RB67 with a multi-angle grip and start using that. They seem to think you must be from the radiological protection board.

Your post woke up my curiousity and I went to the bay to see prices. A complete RB67 set for about 300$!
It can be used as a Self defense weapon, too. I seen an RZ67 in display on a shop, and It was a huge!
It must be heavy and a bit clumsy; but may not really be for my type of photography.

xtolsniffer · Aug 12, 2009

Surprisingly it's not that heavy. Yes it is bulky, but it's well designed and everything seems to be in the right place for your hands. With an RB67 and one lens you can easily go for a walk, and I find I take less kit than I did when doing 35mm, so on balance the weight is the same. I quite like loading it up with Reala and using it to photograph my children when out, though that does get some funny looks, but I've also had many people come up and start discussing their own MF cameras and how much they'd like to start using them again, which I guess is where this thread started.

Q.G. · Aug 12, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
White/grey lenses seem to be the latest toy for the cashed-up "must have" nouveau grandé set. I have a "white knight" from Canon.

That makes you a member of the 'cashed-up "must have" nouveau grandé set' then.

Poisson Du Jour said:
But I don't really like the white colour

And you are by no means the only one who does not!
But what are you going to do? Have one, or have no lens.
(Or put a sock over it, of course. Yes... )

gr82bart · Aug 12, 2009

Naysayers keep saying this thing called LOMO is just a fad and its participants will fade away, but it keeps growing and growing amongst the youngsters. I met up with a Yale Lomo Club here and there are over 100 members. The Creative Arts Workshop which has one of the few darkroom courses left around has about 6 youngsters taking the darkroom course - shooting with mostly LOMOs and ToyCameras.

http://www.lomography.com/
Dead Link Removed

Regards, Art

Ken N · Aug 12, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
I went from the biggest to the smallest (that being the OM4Ti). Of course, if you needed to scare the living daylights out of others carrying e.g. a tiny OM1n, the F3HP+MD4+Metz was a sure fire way to start a lengthy conversation on "suitable travel cameras", and many an interrogation lasted well beyond the allotted meeting time of the monthly touring club meetings!

By the time I load the OM-4T down with the Motordrive-2, 35-80 F2.8 zoom and the T45 handle flash, my kit will scare animals and small children too.

An F3 with a compact lens really isn't that big of a camera, but not quite as small as an OM.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 12, 2009

Ken N said:
By the time I load the OM-4T down with the Motordrive-2, 35-80 F2.8 zoom and the T45 handle flash, my kit will scare animals and small children too.

An F3 with a compact lens really isn't that big of a camera, but not quite as small as an OM.

I think the OM-4T kit described is much, much sexier than the F3 (the Ti version even more so!). Cannot recall precisely the lenses I had, except at one stage I did have a Zuiko 70-200 (?) tele zoom which was just awful optically; a 50mm and a 28mm and an Olympus top-mount flash (OM32??). For small hands the OM4 even with motordrive is 'just so'.

Unfortunately, my OM4Ti was destroyed when the rack top case it was on jettisoned from the back of the tandem I was on gaining speed downhill, and was run over by 3 cars following (May 1985). It was a pretty devastating end. It was replaced in July that year, at a time when it cost AUD$470 for the body only.

The only thing I scared way back then with humungous machinery was my Mum who thought spending "obscene amounts of money" on cameras will "surely land you in the asylum". Unfortunately, Mumsy went in first, while rehab for me didn't work at all. It just didn't. I cut off that joint's electricity, gas and water, then escaped on my bike, on the run for 2 years living as a bushman ... all the while continuing to learn photography and photograph the world I passed through on two wheels. Love it.

Resurgence?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency