Daniel, I understand your angst! I started with an Olympus C4040, then it was an Olympus C5050. Then I got a Minolta A1. From there I bought a digital Rebel and then I had to have the 20D. Considering how long the 20D (while great for what it can do) will be 'current' and considering the high rate of turn over for dslr's, there is no way in h*e*double L that I would shell out the bucks neccesary for 1 series Canon.
On the flipside I have an old Graflex 22 that still works and that I still use. Also have a Horseman LE that I think I'd had run over with my VW to destroy; it'll also be with me for a long time.
Gosh, is there a point to all this rambling on? You betcha!
Get your medium format system - you will use it for years. If you have to sell your D70 to finance it, then go for it. It's not like you won't be able to buy another for pennies on the dollar in a few months. If you can keep the D70 then by all means, do so.
The important thing is that you keep shooting. After all, it's not the camera but you that supplies the creative force behind the lens. And if some digital measurebator tells you you're insane and that you won't be able to get film for *insert camera model here* then tell them to go pound salt. Then you could politely suggest that they seek professional help for their irrational fear of film.
Have fun with whatever you pick up
Edit: Just thought I should add that there is nothing wrong with digital capture. I guess I might have come off as harsh because I just hate it when someone bashes someone else's gear.
One important question--
what lenses do you have? The lenses should hold their value better than the D70 since future film and digital Nikon SLR's will still use them.
He may have more money in glass than body, in which case some of the arguments presented are not totally valid.
While we were all sleeping, Canon just announced an upgrade... EOS 350D. I wonder if Nikon is countering with an upgrade that will plunge the price of the D70.
HUH????? was there a question here?
go for the film man, go for the film...
Keep the D70. I have one myself and there are plenty of things one might use it for. In my case, photojournalism stuff where transmission time is critical.
But also get the MF setup. Even if all you get is a Holga or Seagull TLR, spend a few bucks and get MF. The first time you see what kind of stuff comes out of a freakin' 6x6cm negative, you will be STUNNED, I promise.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
hah! that has to be the funniest line I've read today
Originally Posted by eric
"Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image."
Thanks guys. The lenses I have are
Nikon 10.5 Fisheye
Tamron SP90 Macro
I also have a F65 and 50mm f1.4 which I'd keep for happy snaps. Basically, it really seems like the Rollei is a bargain.
Also, can anyone tell me about the Lenses? None are "PQ", whatever that means.. and some are Rolleigon.. can someone explain what difference this makes?
My shooting style is landscape and family portraits. I've only been doing photography for 18 months, and digital has been great to learn on (instant feedback). You can see some samples of what I shoot on my site.
The reason the Rollei gear is soo cheap, is that its just not well known in Perth, Western Australia. Theres no dealer or shop which really sells it, so its not used by many pro's here.
I couldn't afford to buy the Rollei gear and keep my D70. Id probably end up getting the Linhof either way, as its also cheap. The advantage of the Rollei to me is that it seems easy to use, and not just a studio cam.
Hmm analog photographers users group. We are supposed to help you decide between a digital and a film camera? Seriously I have a digigizmo. It was top of the line for about 90 days. It also makes a good paperweight. As to film disappearing, I think those who do oil painting lamented the demise of their supplies when photography showed up in the 1800's. It may get more expensive (might even approach the cost of replacing digital stuff, but that I seriously doubt will happen) we will have film around for at least our life time if not our grand kids lives.
GO FOR THE ROLLIE
Regarding film dying, people often compare the situation with records giving way to CD and, more recently video tape giving way to DVD. The situations are different. With records, the companies found that they could get us to pay more for something with worse sound quality (if you looked after the records and played them on a proper turntable) and that was cheaper to make, transport and store. We might even buy records we already had just to get them on the new medium. With DVD likewise, they could get us to pay a lot more for something (possibly marginally better) that was cheaper to make transport and store.
OK, film makers like Kodak and Fuji make digital kit. Ilford make Inkjet paper, but if you look at their published numbers, traditional media are still the bulk of their turnover so they don't have the same motivation to dump their traditional products. There is a certain amount of evidence for panic with non mainstream lines being dropped, but the film maker that keeps its nerve should clean up. The demand is still vast and some film makers don't make anything digital. They thus have a very strong motivation to keep selling us film.
So... this friend of yours... where can I meet him?
Originally Posted by snaggs
If you really can't keep the D70 (which is likely to get hammered not next year, but next week when Nikon announces a new line-up)... go for it.
If you tone it down alot, it almost becomes bearable.
- Walker Evans on using color