Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 19, 2006, 6:40 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 69
Default

Hey all,

I don`t see this question discussed much anymore, and since I am not knowledgeable on the topic, I am curious if it is because there is now a conclusive answer to it. What, if any, are the advantages of Film SLR over DSLR?

A few come to mind, right away, though I am not sure how legit they are:

1. SLR bodies are nowadays much cheaper.

2. 35mm still hasn`t been matched by digital... or has it?

3. I don`t remember where I heard this, and I`d love for someone to elaborate for me, but I heard that SLRs are able to make certain measurements through the lens, that DSLRs can`t due to internal body dimensions... Does anyone know what I am vaguely remembering here?

Hmmm... ok, thats really all I can think of right now. If anyone has any others, I would love to hear them... also, if someone can correct or elaborate upon my three points that would also be most welcome.

- Bpp
Ballpointpenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 19, 2006, 6:50 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5
Default

well I can't think of any pros of using a normal SLR except for everyone saying "oh the quality of my slr pictures are never going to be matched by a dSLR because you would need 10000Megapixels or more.."
However, where I live at least, getting decent film ( fast or slow) is a pain, I have to order online, which honestly is just not worth the hassle IMO.
I've seen a same picture taken at the same spot, controlled lighting, with both dslr and slr, and differences to the naked eye are very hard to find if not imposible on small prints such as 6x4, which is what most people print out.
IMO, Film will never be replaced, because people love oldschool.
I for one, prefer shoot, shoot, shoot and not spend a dime on film , which is why dSLR come in handy...
Anyway, maybe someone else has a better answer As i'm all pro dslr :P
maudit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 9:31 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

While 35mm film equipment is getting cheap (especially old MF stuff) the cost of film and developing would still pay for your digital body in short order. Or the lack of shooting 30+ variations of an idea will lengthen your learning curve.

Your probably thinking of flash metering. With film a reading is taken off of the film itself during the exposure. Not possible with digital because of different reflective properties, so a pre-flash is used instead.

35mm film varies, some is good, some is junk. The best slide film compares more favorably to digital than cheap 400 speed stuff. At high iso, I think its pretty clear that digital is way better than film. At low iso, and slide film, there are some valid residual arguments. In general, 6mp replaces 35mm. 10mp should be the final nail in that coffin, and 16mp is getting well beyond typical 35mm results (good enough that some people are able to use it where they once used medium-format).

Of course, thats just my opinion and a compilation of other opinions I've read. Some people disagree. Violently even. Meh, its about the pictures, not how you get there.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 10:12 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

Vinyl records to cassette tapes to CD's to ipods...VCR's to DVD's to Tivo...technology marches on. You can't stop it. The thing I liked about film was that everyone could use the same sensor (film) and photography then became lens choice, lighting and composition. I learned on film, changing lenses from normal to wide-angle to telephoto (Zooms? No Way!) and processed my own film; squinting as I emerged from the darkroom, hands reeking of fixer (print tongs were for sissys). I mastered the fine art of burning and dodging with an enlarger and timer, not Photoshop.

I must admit, however, that nowadays I enjoy the convenience of digital; seeing my images quickly, discarding the duds and working with the keepers. I try to do as little post-processing as possible, using filters and such to get the shot right the first time.

My only regret is that, with digital, everyone with a computer fancies themselves a photographer. Right, and on-line trading has made everyone a stockbroker.
stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2006, 3:30 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

The one big advantage of film is, or was, that every 35mm camera ever made could use the latest technology sensor. With digital every time there's an improvement in sensor technology, such as higher resolution or better dynamic range, you have to buy a new camera. I say it was an advantage because I'm not sure how much develepment will go into film now that it is a declining market. I read recently that film use is declining by 10% per year, except for disposable cameras which is still a growing market.

I'm using a Nikon D70 and I look enviously at the new D80 but can't justify the expense. That said at the sizes I print out, generally 12x8 the D70 6Mp is great and I don't think more Mp or film would be better at this size.



Ken


Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2006, 6:49 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 69
Default

Thanks guys,

Thats more or less what I expected. Theredoesn't seem to bemuch of a reason to invest in 35mm at this point.

tmoreau, which older MF stuff are you referring to?

Thanks,

- Bpp
Ballpointpenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2006, 8:16 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I think film is still a valid medium, and at the cost some of the bodies are nowadays, it's not a bad idea to keep a film body and some film around. I recently picked up a nikon F100 for about 1/3 of the normal price. I envision using this when I fear my lower end DSLR bodies don't have the sealing or build quality in the elements, such as at the beach, in light rain, etc. That being said I've only shot about 3 rolls of film this year (down from about 100 a year in the late 90's, and early part of this decade), and that was a specific request from a client who loved some work I did for them a few years ago, using AGFA portrait film. For day to day use, digital is way too convenient, cheap, and immediately satisfying for me to ever envision myself shooting alot of film in the future. Pro labs are hard to find, as are the film emulsions I prefer, and although I still keep my favorite films in the freezer (and will continue to keep buying them), my film days are few and far between. Quality wise, my 6mp DSLRS are equal to film in most situations that I've encountered. I'm even comfortable doing 16x20 prints from these cameras.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2006, 8:11 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

Ballpointpenner wrote:
Quote:
tmoreau, which older MF stuff are you referring to?
Manual focus, particularly Konica. I bought a Autoreflex TC and a few lenses for under $50 that are reputed to be some of the best of thier time. I dont think Pentax and Nikon are real cheap because the lenses are intercompatible, Canon is fairly inexpensive, Minolta MD is pretty cheap, but Konica more than the others. I think this is because the way they designed the lens mount dosent allow them to be used on any other system adapters or not.

I do like the feel of a completely mechanical camera and the feel of the manual focus rings, and I want to try some Velvia eventually because I've seen some really interesting colors from that stuff.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 6:08 AM   #9
DSG
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Default

tmoreau wrote:
Quote:
Ballpointpenner wrote:
Quote:
tmoreau, which older MF stuff are you referring to?
I do like the feel of a completely mechanical camera and the feel of the manual focus rings, and I want to try some Velvia eventually because I've seen some really interesting colors from that stuff.
Thats not unusual IMO, Iuse a DSLR and I dont have a single AF lens in my kitbag so to me, my DSLR is a completely mechanical camera!

And film has NO benefits over digital at all,IMO.

Regards

DSG


DSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2006, 11:44 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

What about for night time photography? I heard that film is better for night photography since long exposures on even the best dSLR still cause noise to occur, while with film you don't have to worry about noise. Is this true?
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 AM.