Same here, I also don't have much use for mine except for high ISO color, 800 and up. For that it is a true weapon.
Originally Posted by totalmotard
Lovin' my 35mm film cameras though, especially for astia 100f and b&w in general.
I think your question is a little like asking "why would one choose to eat a banana when strawberries are available?".
Originally Posted by rippo
The answer is simply that one chooses what tastes better and obviously, what tastes better, what one wants to eat at any given moment is completely subjective.
I think that the answer to your question is kinda the same. One chooses a 35mm SLR because one wants to shoot film. Why would one shoot film in such a small format given the current state of the art of digital SLR? Obviously, one shoots film because one wants the look and the experience that can only come from film. Further, one shoots digital because one wants the look and experience that only comes from digital. There is nothing in there about one is better than the other...that is all subjective. The two produce completely different results and require completely different skill sets.
As an (extreme?) example, if you want the look of Kodachrome, you must shoot kodachrome. There is really no way to get that look from a digital SLR. There is simply no way for a viewer of a digital image to have the same experience as the viewer of a projected kodachrome slide. (yeah, I know that digital images can be projected...anybody who says they are the same experience has not seen a kodachrome slide show.)
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
I would have to agree.
Originally Posted by jphendren
I came from playing with 35mm point and shooters as a kid, and wanting an SLR but not being able to afford one (oh how I wanted that nice looking Pentax MZ-50 in the camera shop window...and what a dissapointment it was when I got one for $0.99 on eBay after I had played with some really nice SLRs!) to not messing about with cameras for a couple of years after my camera died, to finally grudgingly joining the digital revolution with a Nikon Coolpix, and then the revelation when I had a play with a friend's Fujica ST605...and he showed me how cheap they were now.
One year on I havec I think 15 cameras at last count, stacks of lenses and light meters and filters and all the junk that goes with them, and all in I have spend around $1k...
As I said earlier, my Canon EOS RT does 95% of the cool stuff a 5D would do, but it cost me $80 for the camera and $60 for the lens...as opposed to $1k+ for a secondhand 5D Mk1...
Also I like the permanence of a real tangible piece of film (except for when the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!) and the colours of a Velvia slide are not quite matched by any digital I have seen (although I am the first to admit I have seen some WONDERFUL images from DSLRs...) and I also like actually projecting slides.
The modern autofocus SLR does for me nearly anything I would possibly ask of a DSLR at a fraction of the price, and lets me shoot film which I love.
I do carry a digi pocket camera, use it most days for snapshots or even to record the settings on a manual SLR for future reference, and I do scan my negs and slides as I don't have a darkroom so I get prints done of the digi files, but the 35mm SLR just gives me great results at a great price so I will continue to use it.
Originally Posted by derwent
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The real image is formed behind the lens. The light from this real image strikes a surface sensitive to light: film, CCD or CMOS sensor. A latent image is formed.
Originally Posted by Naples
With film you develop it and yes at that point you have a physical image again (although for a negative it could be argued that this isn't a true image as it isn't an accurate representation of the object that was imaged).
With a sensor, the information is stored physically in some form of memory but remains a latent image until it is subsequently displayed.
I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say here. To the average person, there is no practical difference between the image on a piece of developed film and the latent image produced by a digital camera. One's going to get stuffed in a box somewhere, having never been looked at, or one's going to get copied to some hard disk somewhere.
To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".
Both negatives and the latent images stored in files from a digital camera are generally intermediate steps. The negative, in and of itself, is not the end goal, the print is. For digital, viewing on the screen or a print may be the end goal.
So people can read clots of chemicals on a gelatin-based backing sheet and series of electrons on a magnetised surface. I'm missing out in life.
:oYou didn't! Poor kitty...
the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Oh good lord -- digital vs. film. Film vs. digital. Each side trying so hard to convince the other.
(actually, I'm a film guy, but even I get tired of watching this unfold.)