Following up on an idea from a dig/film camera thread.
Digital or Film? What should my next cam be?
- Thread starter JonEdangerousli
- Start date
I choose digital- only because I am cheap and do not have the time to open up my darkroom again- also probably because this is the trend of the future.... nope ... just cheap and like to know that I can use my memory card again and again.....
I have a lot more film cameras than digital, but if you're just starting out, the choice is very simple.
If your goal is art, choose medium or large format film cameras and figure out things like the Scheimpflug principle.
If you want to take pictures, go digital.
If your goal is art, choose medium or large format film cameras and figure out things like the Scheimpflug principle.
If you want to take pictures, go digital.
Neither. We should all go back to basics and use asphalt on metal plates just like in the first photograph by Niépce:
The First Photograph
The First Photograph
Dagguerreotypes were much nicer.
I took this shot in Mexico with a D70 using manual mode. I see no reason to shun new technology when it enables you to achieve the results you seek. It was converted to the mild sepia in photoshop. Having them in digital format allows me to share them quite easily. There are many websites that allow this and enables one to share his work with friends, neighbors, etc. This feature of digital technology did not get any hearing in the thread and yet, it is a most valuable development ( my link to smugmug is just one example). Yes, you can scan film and create a digital file, but why bother with this step when you can go right to it with a digital camera.
I recommend the DSLR for Tommy, if, in fact, he wants the slr format at all.
I recommend the DSLR for Tommy, if, in fact, he wants the slr format at all.
That's a gorgeous shot, even at the resolution of a computer monitor. I can only imagine what it must be like printed on photo paper.
On the other end of things, yesterday I picked up a near-mint Yashica Electro 35 GSN at a local antique shop for $25. The previous owner had a 3-volt battery installed (it requires a 6-volt) which could explain why it seems to have seen so little use. From what I've read, they're extremely quiet (even more than a Leica, according to some), and they excel at low-light situations. On the con side, they can't really be used in completely manual mode unless you can shoot in your situation at 1/500 (default when the battery is dead). It's seeming that it complements my Konica Auto S2 well; they each have strengths the other doesn't. I'm running a test roll through it now.
On the other end of things, yesterday I picked up a near-mint Yashica Electro 35 GSN at a local antique shop for $25. The previous owner had a 3-volt battery installed (it requires a 6-volt) which could explain why it seems to have seen so little use. From what I've read, they're extremely quiet (even more than a Leica, according to some), and they excel at low-light situations. On the con side, they can't really be used in completely manual mode unless you can shoot in your situation at 1/500 (default when the battery is dead). It's seeming that it complements my Konica Auto S2 well; they each have strengths the other doesn't. I'm running a test roll through it now.
Just googled the Yashica. Looks like a nice piece of equipment and also seems youi got it for a steal. Use it in good health and post some photos!
Gotta go digital. All your pictures will last forever, and those you don't want to print will take up zero space.
This is truly a beautiful picture. The reason it is a beautiful picture has nothing to do with the fact that you used a digital camera. It has everything to do with the fact that you know what you're doing. And knowing what you're about you know how to create an image like this manually and so you can use any equipment at all and still create images like this. And perhaps even more to the point: you know exactly how to do this again. Because you know what you're doing, you can replicate this picture at any time.
That really was my original point: someone starting out with photography should learn something about photography. Buying a $1,000 or a $10,000 digital camera will not guarantee that they can create anything worthwhile. On the other hand learning how to take pictures will.
And so from my point of view, it is better to learn using the type of equipment that I previously suggested be considered: the A-1 and the Carl Zeiss lens for $100 gets a person one a truly superior camera with a lens made by a legendary lens-maker. I say learn on something like that, and when the novice can, at will, create pictures like the one you posted, then consider moving onto something else like a top notch digital.
The Yashica Electro 35 GSN is a GREAT camera (I have 3 of them). Just be aware that the lense is uncoated, and try to avoid lighting situations where that may be an issue.
Also, the Electro 35 has a tiny rubber pad that comes into play when the shutter release is depressed, and in most cases this pad has disintegrated over the 30+ years since these cameras were made (the Yashica forums refer to this as the POD or Pad of Death). Most of the cameras you find on Ebay will need this pad, along with the light sealing material on the film door, replaced to be usable, but it is something you can do if you have the patience.
But... I have a Nikon D70 digital SLR which I love.
Also, the Electro 35 has a tiny rubber pad that comes into play when the shutter release is depressed, and in most cases this pad has disintegrated over the 30+ years since these cameras were made (the Yashica forums refer to this as the POD or Pad of Death). Most of the cameras you find on Ebay will need this pad, along with the light sealing material on the film door, replaced to be usable, but it is something you can do if you have the patience.
But... I have a Nikon D70 digital SLR which I love.
You know, as much as it pains me to say so, I vote for digital. I wouldn't have said this 5 years ago, but today, for me at least, the choice is obvious.
I've used 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras and loved every minute of it. Of course, just like the whole shaving thing, my wife thought I was insane to carry around a 20+ lb 4x5 view camera and tripod to take landscape photos, but it slowed me down, made me take my time, and there was somewhat of a Zen quality to the whole thing.
I also did my own darkroom work and I have to say that using modern digital cameras and Photoshop processing just cannot match the "magical" experience of using a darkroom.
All that being said, digital is very convenient, it saves time and money, and the quality, when compared to 35mm film, is excellent. Just about anything you would want to do in a darkroom with film,you can do with Photoshop and digital.
I've used 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras and loved every minute of it. Of course, just like the whole shaving thing, my wife thought I was insane to carry around a 20+ lb 4x5 view camera and tripod to take landscape photos, but it slowed me down, made me take my time, and there was somewhat of a Zen quality to the whole thing.
I also did my own darkroom work and I have to say that using modern digital cameras and Photoshop processing just cannot match the "magical" experience of using a darkroom.
All that being said, digital is very convenient, it saves time and money, and the quality, when compared to 35mm film, is excellent. Just about anything you would want to do in a darkroom with film,you can do with Photoshop and digital.
makes great sense. Many people speaks about 'wet darkrooms' when considering the virtue of Photoshop.
If you guys love the Yashica Electro 35 please consider also the tiny (but effective) Ricoh 500G... great camera. Also, another similar camera is the much-ignored FED 50 (soviet production), small heavy strange camera. Always liked it (I have a crack for soviet optical equipment), but up to now I was unable to find a good one. Russian rangefinders are sometimes excellent (they are old German designs) , but you need a good mechanic to keep 'em working.
The low price is attractive anyway and the optics are often really good.Ah, yes, I read about this over at rangefinderforum.com. I'm keeping a look out for it, and I'll be replacing the light seals soon. I'm in the midst of my first roll through it.
Light seals are very easy to replace: get onto the 'bay and look for a seller named "interslice" $6.00 gets you a repair package from this fellow. He has light seal packages for just about every make of camera, they come with full instructions with pictures for many cameras, links to a repair website and even a tool to use.
I appreciate the head's-up; I've bought from Jon before (five years ago) and resealed one of my cameras then. He just told me the foam he has now is better than what he had then; not that it was bad, just that this is better (there seems to be a better variety, too). I ordered the $9.99 kit, as I've got several cameras to do besides the Yashica.
Here is the best page I have found for info on the Yashica rangefinders...
http://www.yashica-guy.com/
But as much as I love the old gear (especially my Leica IIIFrdst), I still have to vote digital.
http://www.yashica-guy.com/
But as much as I love the old gear (especially my Leica IIIFrdst), I still have to vote digital.
I adore the old style stuff, and still use my Pentax Spotmatic F as well as my Roliflex. Even at that I would encourage you to go digital!!
As I contemplate digging out my old developing tanks and buying some D-76, I realize that one of the things I like about traditional photography is that there's almost an element of alchemy involved, and that if one does things just right one could channel the spirits of Man Ray or Berenice Abbott to influence one's own work. (Of course, that never works for me.)
I love a lot of the work done between the world wars, and I presume that a part of that "look" is the fact that there were no high-speed films available. I want to try some Efke 25 ASA and see how it works for me.
Which leads me to a question: With traditional film, each film stock, whether it be Plus-X, Tri-X or whatever (and the developer used, too), has a certain look to it. Can that same sort of thing be accomplished digitally? I'm curious.
I love a lot of the work done between the world wars, and I presume that a part of that "look" is the fact that there were no high-speed films available. I want to try some Efke 25 ASA and see how it works for me.
Which leads me to a question: With traditional film, each film stock, whether it be Plus-X, Tri-X or whatever (and the developer used, too), has a certain look to it. Can that same sort of thing be accomplished digitally? I'm curious.
