|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 11, 2007 14:10:25 GMT -5
I have a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 zoom in Nikon mount that I prize. Tokina made a 35-135mm zoom that is head and shoulders above the Nikkor of that focal length IMO. One reason I want to eventually acquire the Nikon D200 is that it will meter with those older manual focus lenses.
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Apr 13, 2007 20:26:40 GMT -5
The reason that I've not plunged into digital is that I did an engineering economy chart and for me, film is cheaper. I shoot a roll about every two weeks and at that level the investment in a DSLR, PhotoShop, and printers/supplies makes no sense. In today's market, film, processing, prints, and a CD costs 52 cents a shot. This is not bargain basement processing, but a stand alone photo lab that takes care in what they're doing (they do take a day process film, so no instant gratification). At the end of the day, I have as many quality shots as the digital users. I agree that a camera is just a tool, but the more primitive the tool the more care and thought that has to be used to get the desired results....e.g. I've found that I usually get better photographs from my Mamiya with the inoperative light meter.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 13, 2007 22:26:55 GMT -5
In my case I already was scanning my negatives and processing them on the computer rather than having prints made at the lab so going to a digital camera just eliminated a time consuming step for me (scanning). On our recent trip I shot 800 digital photos with my D100 and my wife shot another 250 with her Canon P&S digital. Buying the film for that many shots, having it processed and printed would have been a considerable investment. In addition, I probably shot twice that many photos but was able to trim out the obvious bad ones as I went rather than ending up paying for having them printed. The memory cards I bought for the trip cost less than film and processing would have cost and I can use them again. I'm not claiming there is no longer a place for film. But there are some advantages for digital--particularly when you are shooting a lot of photos.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Apr 14, 2007 9:55:41 GMT -5
The reason that I've not plunged into digital is that I did an engineering economy chart and for me, film is cheaper. I shoot a roll about every two weeks and at that level the investment in a DSLR, PhotoShop, and printers/supplies makes no sense. Shooting film and having the negs developed & scanned to CD is a perfectly reasonable alternative to getting a DSLR. I do this a lot with colour C41 films. Where film becomes a challenge for me is B&W. I like to shoot emulsions like Tri-X and APX100 that I develop myself then scan. The results are often excellent (and much better than I can achieve with digital for B&W) but the scanning is, for me, a drag. I do it anyway, but I limit my B&W film shooting somewhat so I don't have to do too much of this. The C41 B&W films are pretty decent, but their tonality is quite different from traditional B&W emulsions. Gene
|
|
paul7
Contributing Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by paul7 on Apr 15, 2007 12:19:45 GMT -5
Just curious...when was the last time anyone took a home movie using film? My sense is that super 8 film gave way to digital handicams a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 15, 2007 19:16:50 GMT -5
Last time I shot super 8 was probably the late 1970s or very early '80s. Haven't missed that at all. Most people haven't apparently as there isn't a very strong movie camera collecting community that I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Apr 16, 2007 5:38:12 GMT -5
I just sold a Minolta Super 8 movie camera, and I was suprised how fast it went. There was a period in the early to mid 1970s when all I shot was Super 8, so there's a lot of things that I only have on movie film. Then I got into video cameras and there's a lot of things that I only have on video. It wasn't until the early 1980s that I got back into shooting film. I have stacks of photos of my children as they were growing up, but there is much that is on video tape that is lost forever. I've found that when I shoot photos of events with the grandchildren and family things with my digital camera now I don't end up saving much of it. It stays loaded on my computer until there's is too much clutter and I end up dumping everything. That's the same scenario as movie film (never gets watched anymore) and video (tapes got old) and now digital. Like it says on the Home Page here folks...Film Lasts Forever, and if we don't keep our charished moments on film I fear it will be Lost forever......
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Apr 16, 2007 8:16:43 GMT -5
I collect cameras because I am interested in old mechanical widgets and a cameras are big enough to see properly but smaller than rotovators. I also like to conserve or preserve old equipment for the younger generation to see. (what a noble principle ;D Paul asked when was the last time I shoot 8mm. In the early 1970s. After that I only shoot with film cameras until the first U-matic and VHS videos became popular. You may read my thoughts or to be honest most of them is thought by more clever brains only my opinion is equal. www.lauro.fi/accessories.htmwww.lauro.fi/ihagee.htm#evolution
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Apr 16, 2007 10:08:49 GMT -5
Hi Reiska,
I agree with your thoughts on digital evolution not revolution.
In their present stateof evolution electronic chips, as in computer chips, are wonderful but really quite ignorant things. All they can do is add and subtract, and then only zeros and ones.
The wonder is that they do is so fast!
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 16, 2007 10:23:55 GMT -5
On our recent trip there were 47 prople in out group. The only film camera in our group was one couple who was using shoot and throw away cameras--and they had intended to get a digital but never got around to it. I was the only person with a digital SLR.
Just my general observation of other tourists was only two I remember had film SLRs--one older Canon and one I didn't get close enough to identify. Hard to blame people. They can carry a digital camera smaller than a pack of cigarettes and produce photos better than what the average point and shoot film camera could do 5 years ago.
I took a Nikon F4 and FM and several lenses on a cruise last year but that wasn't a hassle as we operated out of the same "room" for the whole trip. Carrying that gear on our tour would have been a hassle--a new town virtually every day plus the one carry on bag rule leaving the U.K. would have given me real problems.
Of course analog, (film) is really just as ignorate as digital. The film simply records information on the emulsion just like digital records what is projected on a sensor--no real difference, really.
|
|
|
Post by herron on Apr 16, 2007 11:31:45 GMT -5
I don't recall seeing a single film camera, other than mine, on our cruise last summer. Lots of P&S digital...few DSLR (except mine). I got a few conversations started the day I had the old Zeiss folder with me...same when I brought the Mamiya 35-S rangefinder. No one commented on the DSLR (or the Mamiya NC1000, the day I hauled it around)! My wife complained a few times about me lugging all that stuff around. But I pointed out it was me lugging it. I think perhaps she figured she could get another outfit or two in the case, if I had left some of the film stuff at home!
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Apr 16, 2007 13:25:54 GMT -5
My wife and I will be taking an Alaska cruise in early June. I'll keep an eye out to see how many (if any) film cameras I notice. I'll be travelling fairly light -- Pentax DSLR and a few lenses, Pentax Super Program for SLR B&W (sharing the K lenses), Olympus XA on my belt, and a pocket digicam I like using. I don't plan to use them all at the same time :-)
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 16, 2007 14:54:28 GMT -5
Gene: We cruised from Seattle to Skagway with stops at Juneau, ketchikan and Victoria. I used the F4 (heavy) on board and took my FM when we went ashore. Something like the XA would be great, too. The longest lens I took was a 135mm and on board an 80-200mm zoom would have had its uses--especially since carrying it wouldn't have been a problem. I would recommend at least a 28mm equivalent (18mm) for the DSLR if you can swing it for WA although you probably could get by with a 28mm (42mm digital). I managed to survive with it in Europe and you won't find that many cramped scenes in Alaska. You'll have a ball and gain 10 pounds--the food is great!!!. Actually, I didn't gain any weight despite putting away 7 lobster tails one night (they were small ones)
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Apr 16, 2007 19:59:28 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. We're looking forward to the cruise. I'll be at sea on my birthday!
I hear the food is terrific. I hope I can stay disciplined and eat (mainly) cardio-friendly food.
I don't have anything that wide yet for my digital, alas, but I have a 24mm prime. I have a Tamron 28-200 that's not bad and will have it on the DS2 most of the time. I expect the XA to get a lot of use, and I hope to take a lot of shipboard shots in B&W with the Super Program.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 16, 2007 20:13:59 GMT -5
What cruise line are you sailing with?
|
|