35mm SLR - why?

[Poisson Du Jour]

A 50 Megapixel Hasselblad back costs costs $50,000.

For that price, you could set up a very nice gallery to display the best of your analog-produced images and the none-the-wiser digi crowd will crow: "gee, they're beautiful digital images — what camera did you use to take them?". <sigh> It never ceases to bloody amaze me that people associate the type of camera with the end-result quality of the image. Bit like Ma's tasty scones: "Gee, they're lovely scones. You must have a great oven...".

Sirius, is that the CFV39 Hassy digi back (39MPX) because I've seen it recently. I think it's about $63,000 here in Australia. I believe one wedding snapper locally has one on Novated Lease (wise!), like his company car.

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, is that the CFV39 Hassy digi back (39MPX) because I've seen it recently. I think it's about $63,000 here in Australia. I believe one wedding snapper locally has one on Novated Lease (wise!), like his company car.

And it is not even a full 6cm x 6cm!

Steve

[MattKing]

Because:

1) even with all the bells and whistles, there are far fewer important options that are only easily accessible 3 levels down in a confusing series of menus;
2) have you ever tried to get transparencies for projection from a digital file?;
3) if you like to actually print from a negative, with a DSLR you are out of luck.

[rodrickreidsma]

...But what advantages, if any, would one choose to shoot a late-model full-featured film SLR over the d-word equivalent? Seems to me that using an EOS-1V or a Nikon F6 would be an "almost digital" experience, but fall short.... I'm not asking for a D-versus-A discussion. I know better than that! I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?...

I'm a bit late to the party, it seems, but thought I might add my bit:

I shoot with an F5 and chose it for a number of reasons. First, it is one of the most advanced film cameras Nikon has ever produced, combining fast and accurate AF, 100-percent viewfinder image and spot metering all in one package.

Secondly, it uses film. One of the most wonderful mediums I have found for rendering images. I prefer it over digital (although I do use a DSLR for a significant amount of work).

Truth be told, I've lusted after the F3HP since I began as a photographer, yet the F3 lacks spot metering. And yes, I could simply use a F100, and have, but there is something very robust about the F5 that simply "fits" for me. Upon seeing mine for the first time, my mother commented that it looked like a Hummer. I think she's very right about that.

It's a wonderful tool and very, very affordable, as are many advance film cameras. So my question is, if you're going to shoot film, why NOT choose one (F5, F6, 1N, 1V, etc...)??

[phaedrus]

I use a Nikon F6 because it disappears. And a Leica because of the lenses and the swift way of photographing without an interruption from the mirror.
With document film developed in half-tone developer, both can give you a negative quality reaching and surpassing medium format with much more portability.

[Cesium]

I absolutely love my EOS 1n. I learned on a canon DSLR and have a lot of canon EF lenses already, so it was a no-brainer to stick with a canon 35mm SLR when I wanted to give film a try.

You can always shoot in full manual, using spot metering, and manual focus if you want a more raw feel (I do the latter two, but still use autofocus). Having the more modern features available is an added bonus for when you feel like using them.

[keithwms]

What advantages, if any, would one choose to shoot a late-model full-featured film SLR over the d-word equivalent?

Film slrs are a dime a dozen, get one or two and play. Treat it roughly, have fun. My current fave is the fm2n. I have plenty of reasons to use it in lieu of my fancy schmancy dslr, especially for b&w. Can't remember when I last needed a battery for the fm2n, maybe a year ago? Last week I was out wading in a stream with it, without a care.

That said... I do think the argument for a film rangefinder is considerably stronger, to be honest. There is still, after all these years, no drf that I would care to possess.

[ntenny]

That said... I do think the argument for a film rangefinder is considerably stronger, to be honest. There is still, after all these years, no drf that I would care to possess.

This is off topic, but I really don't understand this problem. Why isn't it a cakewalk for someone to produce a good d*g*t*l rangefinder? It seems like all you have to do is stick a CCD where the pressure plate would be. (Actually, for those of us who love our film cameras but occasionally have a use for a digital image, why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.)

But I digress. To get back on topic, I spent my afternoon at a 4th birthday party, photographing children with an AE-1, and reminded myself of why I keep coming back to that camera. I do wish I could have aperture priority, but only because I'm lazy; on the really important criteria it's just a brilliant camera, one of the best examples I know of "everything you need and nothing you don't". Remind me: Why did we spend the last thirty years watching our cameras grow more features?

-NT

[steelneck]

This is off topic, .... why can't someone produce a CCD with the same form factor as a roll of 35mm film? Stick it in your existing camera and you're set.

Someone actually did it already back in 1999, eleven years ago!
http://web.archive.org/web/199910120...iliconfilm.com

They where a bit too early, their visions was a bit ahead of the technology, they ended up with a terrible crop factor of 3.33, max ISO was 100 and only enough memory for 24 pictures. They never produced anything but some prototypes until their money ran out and the company went bankrupt.

Now why do not someone else take up this truly great idea? Well, we live in a world of patents where the purpose of patents has become inverted. Once upon a time the purpose was to encourage the development of new technology for the benefit of society, today it has become a tool for closing out competition and keeping technology out of competition in society. So, in about 10 years, when the patents expire around 2020 this "e-film" maybe can be produced. But will there be demand for it in 2020?

[haplo602]

because you can ?

the latest and greatest film bodies (maybe exception are Leicas, Nikon F6 and FM2/FM3 bodies) are still very good tech and also very cheap. if my F100 breaks down, I simply have a new one for 200 euro or so. try that with digital. also with film, no matter what camera you are using, the taking medium is the same.

simplicity of controls. film bodies have everything we need for photography and nothing much to distract. the digital ones have too many options for the digital part that do not interfere with photographing, however they do have influence on the results.