Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 15, 2006, 1:09 PM   #1
mcdaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32

Just curious. I have a great milolta maxxum, with 3 lenses, which I will always keep, still want to learn more about manual use. Of course, digital is more fun , can see it right away. I was wondering how many of us stiil use 35mm as well as digitl?
mcdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 15, 2006, 1:49 PM   #2
Senior Member
eric s's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

This absolutely isn't what you mean, but....

I use 35-mm & digital. I've got all film lenses on a digital SLR.

If you buy a point-and-shoot camera (fixed lens camera) then there is some reason to use 35mm film cameras. Once you upgrade to a digital SLR, there is little point in going back to film (there are reasons, but I can only think of one or two.)

Even a few hard core "they sell their work" friends of mine have switched to digital.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2006, 6:09 PM   #3
mcdaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32

Thanks so much for the reply. I wish I could afford an slr. I have a canon S2IS.
mcdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2006, 6:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,540

I haven't shot film in two years, and plan not to shoot any film for the forseeable future.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 7:41 AM   #5
mcdaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32

Terry, thanks for the comment. Do you really get the quality? I guess you must. What kind of camera do you have? Do you print at home? Just curious. Thanks.
mcdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:22 AM   #6
Senior Member
Meryl Arbing's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436

I wouldn't think of giving up my film cameras. They are too good and produce such fine images that it would be foolish to stop using them.

I don't have a dSLR and the main reason is that I don't really needone since I have my film SLRs.

As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is getting the image and that means that I have the tools at hand that will get the job done. I can't afford to throw away a working and proven technology because it might not be the latest and greatest 'cool' thing.

If I want to post my film images on the web, I have a scanner that allows me to get 6Mp (3000x2000) images out of a 35mm frame. The fact that I can get that level of file out of one of the cheapest 35mm film scanners (2400dpi) is impressive and, if I upgrade the scanner (and they are getting cheaper everyday) to common 4000dpi (5711x3880)...I can 'upgrade' the resolution of my shot. Don't forget that a 16Mp pixel dSLR produces a shot of only 4992x3328...so the 4000dpi scanner is significantly higher than that...and significantly cheaper.

Once the image has been converted to digital, I have the same editing and adjustment capabilities as any other digital photographer.

Also, in posting shots on the web, nobody will be able to tell whether the shot wastaken with a $200film SLR (and scanned to digital) or came right out of a $2000dSLR and that means YOU will have the last laugh.
Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:26 AM   #7
Senior Member
amazingthailand's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 851

I have been shooting since the 60's. I have shot mainly 35mm, but I have also had a number of medium format cameras.

In 2002, I bought my first dSLR. I have not shot film since. In 2004, I sold off my 3 medium format cameras.

I am not saying digital is better than film. Film still has some advantages over digital, especially in larger formats. The sheer convenience of digital makes it so appealing, but it also brings with it a whole new set of issues, such as archival storage for the digital images.

I still keep my Nikon F2, not because I want to shoot film again, but because it is a great old camera than I have had since the mid 70's.

amazingthailand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:46 AM   #8
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

Most people are convinced that the image quality of pictures of the 6-8Mp DSLRs is equivalent to even very fine grained film.

Most are convinced that the quality of the 13-16mp cameras like the 1DsMkII and the 5D is equivalent to medium format film.

Most are convinced that the quality of the medium format digital backs is far better than what was possible on medium format film.

Some are not, who cares?

Film is no worse than it used to be, so if the advantages of digital don't convince you then stick with film. Digital is a working and proven technology as much as film is, for all that it hasn't been around as long. The cost advantages for people who shoot lots of pictures are massive; most pros find that the equipment (which lasts for 3-5 years pays for itself within 6-12 months).

I haven't put a single roll of film through my SLR since I got the 20D. The advantages to digital are compelling for me. This applies whether I print my own pictures or not (mostly I do).
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:58 AM   #9
Senior Member
jlacasci's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117

I've been shooting for over 20 years and recently got serious with digi. IMHO I don't think I'd go back to film but only because film doesn't fit what I'm doing now.

I'm shooting with a Canon 20d with L series Lens's so the quality is fantastic. However, I don't think the images would compare to some of the stuff I shot with my two and a quarter Blad with a Zeiss glass.But, folks were paying me big bucks to shoot with that equipment (weddings,models etc...).This is comparing apples to oranges though.

I'd love to own a full frame dSLR, but for now...
I'd saythe images with my digi system compare very well to what I used to shoot with35mm film. Not to mention the money and time savings.

For example, this weekend I shot 4 basketball games at a local middle school tournament. I shot around 800 images. In the old days, I'd have to have contact sheets done. If you figure 36 exposures per roll of film that's 23 rolls. I'd estimate nearly 225.00 dollars minimum in film, developing and contact sheet costs.

It took me less than 2 hoursin CS2 toprocessthe images and postthe good ones on-line for sale. I can charge a very reasonable price for prints in this way and the images are available a short time later. I guarantee within 24 hours. There's just no easy or inexpensive way to do this with film.

I haven't sold my 500CM, and probably won't for some time. Don't really use it much any more, but the type of stuff I'm shooting today doesn't lend itself to medium format. I don't think there'sanything I couldn't do with a good dSLR/lens compared to 35mm film.

Just MHO.
jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 9:09 AM   #10
Senior Member
aladyforty's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964

four years ago was the last time I picked up my film slr. For two years Ive had aDSLR and will never go back to film. I never had a darkroom when I used my film camera and so I had no control over the processing of my photos. Since Ive gone digital my photography has improved 500%:!:I now have full control of my photos. I recently went to the ANZANG wildlife photographic competition display and 90% of the winning photos were digital with the major winner being shot with a DSLR. If you take a look at some of the photos in this competition (the majority appears to be digital, at the display the camera type is recorded under the photograph) you will see that the images are as good as any film photo.

aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:44 AM.