lorriman wrote:
According to what I have read film is practically equivalent to about 8MP (bayer not foveon). But to see that you need to do your own prints or possibly use very expensive scanners..
Well, don't be so sure about that. This is what the digital fanatics claim. I used to scan my fujichromes at 4000 DPI with a lowly Nikon 5000 and get a 22 megapixel file. There is grain definitely but the detail is there, and some people scan at 8000 DPI with a drum scanner and still can pull extra detail out.
I believe eventually film will die and I personally sold all my film cameras and went all digital. But I still believe that slide film is still the better medium.
I still shoot with a Contax T rangefinder / P&S as well as with an OM-4T with OM lenses. For the times when you don't want to make the effort to process and print, film still works just fine.
However, I do see film going away eventually. No one is making new 35mm film camera's anymore. Nikon and Canon have stopped production of their 35mm SLR's. Pro labs are getting hard to find even in major cities. I think 645 and large format will still be valid options for the short term, but eventually, photographers will move on to digital once comparable digital gear comes along at affordable prices..... just a matter of time.
I wouldn't use 35mm to scan in - not worth the effort. Might be better off with a 5D + lenses than shoot 35mm and scan and process same.
Andrew, that seems unusually grainy for Velvia 100 and also weird jagged edges on the 100% view. To be able to see the grain in a web size image of the full screen is really strange. Velvia 100 isn't the best for grain (Velvia 100F was better in that regard), but it shouldn't be that bad.
There are still people who want to have real prints, some people still use those old alchemistic BW self made papers of the early times.
I think (super?) 8mm films were sold out some time ago because K stopped to deliver them. There are now some little companies who can deliver it, and this particular market is probably even smaller.
If you can't see the grain you are not actually scanning your film image, the image is made up of grain, it's not supposed to be smooth and grainless at 100%! If your 100% scans look smooth you have a very crappy and blurry scan.
if you look hard enough, you will find people on the internet "proving" that 3MP will beat 35mm.
With my consumer Nikon scanner etc. I put my b&w work roughly equal to a 5D based on side by side prints. If you criteria is "grain-free" then you will give the nod to the 5D, if you like the aesthetic of film you will give it to film.
>>According to what I have read film is practically equivalent to about 8MP
mrladewig wrote:
Andrew, that seems unusually grainy for Velvia 100 and also weird jagged edges on the 100% view. To be able to see the grain in a web size image of the full screen is really strange. Velvia 100 isn't the best for grain (Velvia 100F was better in that regard), but it shouldn't be that bad.
Indeed. My scans of Velvia 100F show even less grain than yours at 100% (and 4000 dpi). Andrew's image doesn't look typical or what I would expect from a good scan of Velvia 100.
Thanks, I agree it looks way to grainy for Velvia 100. I blame the scan at this stage. There are no true pro labs where I live. I plan to set up my Nikon scanner soon and give it another go.
I don't think film will ever be completely gone, it may fade from the general public down to a cult following (probably very likely!), but there will probably always be people who enjoy shooting film, even if the last remaining reason they do so is to 're-live the glory days' and do something analogue.
I don't know how it is in other countries, but in the US many people enjoy seeing things done the 'classic way' or 'the way it used to be', we are very nostalgic in spite of the technology that we have, we still have a place in our hearts for things of the past. The ease of digital is very persuasive to most people, so most people switch, understandably. When anyone (and I mean just about ANYone) sees me setting up an 8x10 camera, they almost always want to talk to me about it and learn about it, or tell me how they used to shoot film and are looking to get back into it sometime, and think that it is very cool that I'm using old cameras. Everyone seems to be still interested in things of the past. And even more so now, I've had several people ask me if I could shoot some Daguerreotype photographs types for them! For how long now has that process been deemed "archaic" in modern society, much less how many people still even know what that process is, or how to do it.. but yet the interest in it seems to be on the rise, even with the very difficult process that it involves.
I like shooting large format film, it's a very relaxing process and gets me away from electronics for a while. Even if I had a digital that gave me the same results, resolution, tonality, grain and everything, I'd still enjoy the big cameras and film the digital 35mm (and certainly the medium format) stuff is plenty of resolution and quality for most people (including me!), I rarely ever print larger than 8x10 or 11x14. 4x5" and 8x10" film is way overkill for what I print, but I enjoy it none the less
I still shoot quite a bit of film, mostly with classic rangefinders but also with film EOS gear along with digital. I don't know that film will ever go away completely since there will always be those who like to use it. And there are also those who started their photographic lives with digital and want to try film on for size. Perhaps it'll be like the slight (very slight) resurgence in vinyl record sales; demand has never completely died out and record companies are selling more vinyl and actually increased the number of outlets to sell them through. Film companies continue to develop films that scan cleaner, and film slrs continue to sell. I didn't realize Canon stopped production of film cameras-I didn't think they did...I understood that they still continue to produce them but stopped development of any new models. I love film and I love digital so it'll be both for me for quite some time.
Tobin28 wrote:
Never used a rangefinder before. Maybe I should look for a used M3.
then don't drop the big bucks on a Leica. For persons like yourself, who have never messed with a rangefinder before, and don't know if you'll hate it or love it- i'd suggest at MOST, a used Bessa. The R2A is a great place to start, if you plan on shooting 50mm or below. 40mm and up, i'd go with a R3A.
My personal opinion- the Nikon FE2 is one of the greatest cameras ever made- and you already have an awesome 50mm f1.4 to put on it. Buy an FE2 for ~$150, and enjoy it! I love mine so much i got a second one for my wife- and she loves it to. It's her first "manual" camera, and it was very easy for her to get the hang of.
These cameras are nearly indestructible, have a great built-in meter, sweet finder, and are easy on batteries. Last time i changed mine was.... never. I bought it over a year ago from another FM'er, and i've probably put 200 rolls, if not more, through it. I shoot on Ap-priority 90% of the time, and almost every shot on the roll is generally exposed nearly perfect to my tastes.
I love film, but I do not use it for paid work anymore unless the client wants it.
For personal work, I will use film for a majority of the time. I love B&W, and I feel that this is one area where digital can't touch....yet. A properly exposed negative printed on fibre base paper and toned will still run rings around a digital B&W print, IMHO. I will load my M6, Rollieflex, Mamiya RZ67, Holga or Crown Graphic with HIE, APX, Tri-X or Delta 3200 and go shooting!
If you've never used a rangefinder before, maybe a Olympus RC etc. or Yashica RF would be a better start than a Leica-M which will be $1000+ (min) just to get started.
I personally like rangefinders because they offer a different shooting experience... though if I was forced to make a choice between the two, I would stick to SLRs...
though, come to think of it, even a M6 will be less than decent mid-range DSLRs... so maybe just get the M3 (or M6)... Cosina/Voightlander makes some very nice moderately prices lenses for the camera as well...
Cosina makes some excellent lenses, and an M6 is an excellent camera. One of the best ever made, IMO.
Personally, i can't stand the RF patch though. I just can't get used to it. Took me a Bessa and a Hexar RF to figure that out. Some people are just "SLR" people, like myself. Definitely try it out, but you might be horribly disappointed.
I got a yashica rangefinder, and it is great fun to use and has an amazing amount of detail/resolution power in its 40/1.7 lens (I paid like 40 usd for my gsn :P ). We have a darkroom at the university, so I try to use it as often as I can. But my dslr is a bit more practical from day to day.
ISO1600 wrote:
Cosina makes some excellent lenses, and an M6 is an excellent camera. One of the best ever made, IMO.
Personally, i can't stand the RF patch though. I just can't get used to it. Took me a Bessa and a Hexar RF to figure that out. Some people are just "SLR" people, like myself. Definitely try it out, but you might be horribly disappointed.
Someone is selling a m6 for about 900-1000 USD here now (this is norway one beer costs 10 USD.. :P ), is that a fair price? A m6 for 90-100 beers?
ulrikft wrote:
Someone is selling a m6 for about 900-1000 USD here now (this is norway one beer costs 10 USD.. :P ), is that a fair price? A m6 for 90-100 beers?
I would skip the Leica M's and go straight for a Mamiya 6. Scanned Leica M files will make a 5D look like the bargain of the century. If you want grain and twisted colour, then invest in some photoshop filters that can simulate film effects.
A Mamiya 6 is another matter. It can match a 5D for image quality, and it's a great rangefinder experience. It's a great balance of pocketability and hand-friendliness, with a huge viewfinder. It will blast away the M experience and M quality for about the same price. The only limitation is the not-so-wide apertures, but 6x6 HP5 pushed to 1600 or 3200 has a beautiful look, especially if you develop in Microphen.
I have a bronica etrs-i that I use for that purpose, but I love the size of the yashica.. light and small rangefinder perfect for carrying around when I'm not having my domke with 30d + 50 1.4 + 24 1.4 + 85 1.8
??
the digital 35mm (and certainly the medium format) stuff is plenty of resolution and quality for most people (including me!), I rarely ever print larger than 8x10 or 11x14. 4x5" and 8x10" film is way overkill for what I print, but I enjoy it none the less 