You have a point about obsolescence but that's the case with much of todays technology, although I'm not sure I could pull out my first SLR and it would be in working order without a tune up. My very first camera does work, but the film stock and bulbs are the problem.
Does anyone still use a 35mm film camera?
- Thread starter HAMSTER INSPECTOR
- Start date
Wow, simply amazing. While those old cameras still work, when you can get film for them, give me a DSLR any day. You buggy whip makers can argue your points til the cows come home, don't bother with me - I am over here where the future is. Enjoy living in the past. Things that can be done with digital can't even be fathomed by the film users.
And for the purists who believe that film is the be all and end all of reproducing pics? Film is just a bastardization of the Daguerreotype of photography. Now THERE was a process!
And for the purists who believe that film is the be all and end all of reproducing pics? Film is just a bastardization of the Daguerreotype of photography. Now THERE was a process!
The first digital I had was through work. It was a Fuji Fine Pix with 1.2 Megapixels and a puny memory card. I was very hesitant to use it and thought it would be a huge pain in the ass. At the time, the camera, car, and a card reader for the laptop was something like $1,200.00. The card reader was defective and killed the memory card resulting in a "Card Error" At the time, I needed a memory card and I was working on the east coast of Canada in Gaspe. They had never seen a digital camera (though they knew about them) and had to order me a car for something like $140.00 from Montreal. I can't remember the size of that card, but it was only a few MB.
I still have my Minolta 35 mm camera. Don't use it much, but I have no intention of gettng rid of it. It takes great pics.
Some of us still enjoy watching black and white movies without sound made in 1915. Insert smilie here.
I still have my old Pentax SP500 with a standard, telephoto and wide angle lense, and Vivitar flash. I almost never use it. Digital is way too convenient, and since I've got my Nikon DS80, I get good quality as well. Cheaper for the amount of shots I tkae too. I am not even sure if Kodak is making slide film anymore - rumour has it the last run, with a 2 year shelf life, was the last.
Buggy whip, I resent that comment and the cow come home on their own every day without fail. Now if I can get my steam tractor going, I'd run you over.
Last edited:
As an example of the 'buggy era', Nikon makes a film camera body to this day, and it is upwards of $2-3k for the professional. I pity you for your closed mind. 'nuff said.
Last edited:
Your loss. I've never seen anyone turn down a session on a Stradivarius or a Guarneri because it's old technology.
I'll take a Leica M7 Rangefinder over anything in it's price range any day. It's guaranteed to work every time with colour dynamic you can only dream of in digital cameras twice the price. Oh ya, it's a film camera.
Many audophiles argue that vinyl has superior sound to CDs and turn tables are still very much around.
I wonder if the same is true of digital vs. film?
I wonder if the same is true of digital vs. film?
Lol, do you even know what you're talking about?
Digital doesn't even have the dynamic range that film does. It's the sensors, and plus, digital produces a harsh MTF skew where film is more soft and transitioned. Although I use MOTION PICTURE Cameras, when the VISION 3 film stock came out, it had 2 more stops of dynamic range in highlights than the top Sony CineAlta, and with film you can over expose or underexpose by 2 stops and produce some very excellent prints.
Most digital SLRS have 7 stops of dynamic range, where what I use has 14 stops. Plus, I can upgrade my camera's recorder, (film), where you have to buy a whole new camera!
Good luck with the "Made in China" stuff. I'll stick to the Made in Germany label.
Yes. The difference is getting smaller and eventually in time, will match, but when I don't know. For Joe Public, it's really good now.
Ok, to be absolutely precise, it will reach a point where the difference will be so infinitesimally small that it won't make a tinker's damn to the human race. Happy now?
Kind of like taking a measurement in time and being always able to cut it in half. After a while, who cares.
What is that that reason and what is the standard? It's popular, common and expanding but I've never heard any one of note call it the standard. That like say that Ford is the standard for the automobile.
I didn't say I had a Leica M7, but have had one in my hands and it took three adult males to pry it from them. But I have used Leica optics a lot and I've seen nothing come close, NOTHING!! Try a pair of binoculars or a spotting scope from Leica and all others will be like army surplus.
Most field photographer I know, not studio jockeys, have a Nikon FM series or Leica M series camera in their kit for good reason and it's not ballast.
On a somewhat related subject, does anybody know if they are still using tape when they shoot a big budget $100 million movie?
Nice 'Blad!
Ah well, all I have is the M4-P that I bought back in 1985. And people still wonder how I get those shots that are impossible with their digital boxes.
