35mm SLR - why?

[SilverGlow]

And your argument is but an ad hominem attack that fails to controvert a single fact I wrote. Thanks for the compliment.

Once again:

"I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies, because they are there.

But I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files, because there are none there."

And, "thousands of old timer film shooters" who are now digitalistas can't change that fact.

It is sad that you are VERY MUCH like "digitalistas".

It is exceedingly wrong, backward, and stupid to be a "digitalista".......AND a "filmista" too!

It is far better to be an admirer of art, a creator of art, a person that can be called an artist, or in your vernacular an "artista".

Be an "artista"...get into pictures, be a "picturista", and be open, tolerant, and respectful of other forms of photography

And as to "digitalistas" and filmistas? they BOTH are all fools, and BOTH miss the point ;-)

Not all film lovers are of the exact same mind!

We all have our own opinions and not all of us attack, belittle, or pass on outright lies about other mediums. Some of us film lovers are respectful of other forms of photography, other formats, other techniques.

[totalmotard]

The question is: what benefit does high-end 35mm SLR cameras provide a newbie coming from digital? I know what's special about other film camera types and formats, but wanted to know why one would bother with 35mm SLR (since it seems "almost digital" in use).

I'll give you another insight. I have a Nikon D700, it is an amazing piece of equipment. Now I have the perfect set of lenses to use with this camera. All full-frame and none of which are AF-S. 3 are AF-D and two are G but not AF-S. Now for casual shooting this D700 is a bit of a beast. Solid metal frame, built like a brick *house. It doesn't fit in my motorcycle's tail pack. I want something light and full-frame that works with all my lenses. A D90 is a crop frame, works with my lenses but it's not full frame. If I want to go wide I'd need a different lens. D3000 and D5000 won't even auto-focus the AF-D lenses besides being crop frame. Answer? Nikon N80, all the features I need and I'm used to shooting with, works with all my lenses and weighs about half of what the D700 weighs. I get an almost new one for $89. So I run a roll of Tri-X through it and I'm hooked on film again. I pick up a Nikon FE cheap and then a couple of MF lenses, and now I'm having real fun and I'm looking for more bargains. So I guess the N80 functioned as gateway back to film, I'm even thinking about selling the D700. The only thing holding me back is there ain't any film that will shoot like D700 does at 12800 iso.

[Naples]

It is sad that you are VERY MUCH like "digitalistas".

It is exceedingly wrong, backward, and stupid to be a "digitalista".......AND a "filmista" too!

It is far better to be an admirer of art, a creator of art, a person that can be called an artist, or in your vernacular an "artista".

Be an "artista"...get into pictures, be a "picturista", and be open, tolerant, and respectful of other forms of photography

And as to "digitalistas" and filmistas? they BOTH are all fools, and BOTH miss the point ;-)

Not all film lovers are of the exact same mind!

We all have our own opinions and not all of us attack, belittle, or pass on outright lies about other mediums. Some of us film lovers are respectful of other forms of photography, other formats, other techniques.

That's nothing but a response ad hominem. Thanks for the compliment.

All I have done here is point out the fact - denied or at least challenged by digitalistas - that digicameras do not produce images but rather mere computer files comprised entirely of 1s and 0s (apparently that undeniable fact drives digitalistas batty).

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Now, I have nothing against computer generated files. In fact I use them all the time, via my wife's digicamera.

But I'm not going to sit idly by while digitalistas come here and try to claim that their digital files (1s and 0s) are the same as the extant, physical images created by light upon film. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[MattKing]

I must admit that I do find the most recent, top-of-the-line film SLRs to be somewhat intimidating. I tend to prefer something more straightforward (no screens or menus or multiple defaults).

I probably would be more vulnerable to the digital siren's call if they came out with an OM2n with a full frame digital sensor.

I might even accept auto-focus (heresy!)

[totalmotard]

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Maybe digital should be photo-[light]-logos-[information]-ophy. Photologosophy, now that's a mouth full.

[jphendren]

After selling my Nikon F5 to finance a Nikon D2H in 2004, and going through a Canon 5D, and a Canon EOS-1Ds, I have returned to film exclusively. I have decided that I just don't enjoy the digital workflow that is associated with shooting DSLR's; I much prefer looking at Velvia 50 slides on a lightbox. I currently own all of the top dogs in the 35mm SLR world; the F5, F6, and EOS-1V. You simply cannot buy a DSLR that is built as well, and with all of the features of these cameras, for anywhere near the price of the above mentioned cameras. When 35mm Velvia 50 is scanned on a Nikon Super Coolscan it rivals the best DSLRS for detail, but the color is FAR superior IMO. I could only imagine how much detail can be captured with a drum scan! I also do not miss those stupid dust bunnies on the sensor, what a pain.

Jared

[Pumal]

I do not accept Digital nor AF

[e-k]

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Your etymology is a little off . -graphy is to write/record; it does not mean image.

Now, I have nothing against computer generated files. In fact I use them all the time, via my wife's digicamera.

But I'm not going to sit idly by while digitalistas come here and try to claim that their digital files (1s and 0s) are the same as the extant, physical images created by light upon film. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

They're not a physical image in the same way as film but it does not follow that they are not images.

e-k

[Naples]

Your etymology is a little off . -graphy is to write/record; it does not mean image.

They're not a physical image in the same way as film but it does not follow that they are not images.

My source says "graphy" is derived from the Greek "graphein" which means “to draw". A "drawing" is an "image". Hence "photo[light]graphy[drawing or image]" is defined as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface". This excludes digicameras, as no image is produced on a surface sensitive to light; rather a computer file of 1s and 0s is generated and placed on a disk.

Yes it does follow that digital files are not images. How is a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s an image? It's not. It's mere code that can be read by certain software to create an image, but the computer file itself is not an image. Conversely, a negative or transparency is itself an image.

[2F/2F]

So then when you admire a fantastic picture shown at a show or exhibit or museum, your opinion of this picture does not change when you find out later that it was made with a digital camera

What does this have to do with what I said, originally, or in response to your prior comment to me? We are not discussing our opinions of others' work based on the medium used. We are discussing why 35mm film is still useful to us even though digital cameras can do so much.

What you said I said (that it is "about the medium") is in fact the opposite of what I said. I said that it is about the results and about the process, and that these are why I usually use film: because digital usually does not meet my criteria for either results or for process, but film does.

How does that equate to me saying it is "about the medium," or to me "[losing] my way," as you say that I have?