I don't believe it is a 'debate' of film versus digital.
The rational point is that digital is an alternative, at this time with film also available. Like so many other photographers I use both film and digital (in arts practice and production, the foundations of exposure relating to film, composition, symmetry and visual literacy hold much, much more weight than the number of megapixels on your sensor). Film and digital have respective advantages and disadvantages, efficiency and knowledge bases. Unfortunately, digital photographers are often found wanting in terms of foundation knowledge in photography, with the result that we are being flooded with mediocre, pedestrian and Pshopped imaging.
Those other photography forums (photonet, among) with gloating beards and bulging wallets... the posters could do with some gravity in their education before they rant on about digital only; as a poster above says getting involved with them in that debate is a sure way to start a flame war. I do get a laugh from many of the types posting 24Mb images on the web for viewing...
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.
Originally Posted by wayne naughton
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.
Originally Posted by Ken N
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.
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.
Originally Posted by naaldvoerder
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”….
Last edited by hoffy; 08-11-2009 at 11:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: LAMBWooL - my new phrase of the day!
It's not as if there is a choice.
Originally Posted by hoffy
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 08-12-2009 at 01:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.