Film Versus Digital

I have just updated my DL2 for a Kr. And what a fine camera it is! I would have liked a K5, but simply could not justify the extra £500.00 for the extra features, namely waterproofing, pentaprism, and even better ISO ability.Yes, that amount of money seems excessive considering the admirable ability of the Kr.
The point I would like to make is that we are all updating our cameras far more frequently than when we were using film cameras.
I bought a Pentax MX in 1977, adding a Super A ten years later, followed fourteen years later (because I felt I needed autofocus) by a MZ5N.
All of these are fine cameras, still in use, but not often, I have to admit. Given the same lens, as long as the shutter speeds and metering were accurate, they all produced identical image quality. Even the top of the range LX would have the same IQ.
Someone (and they were many) buying a ME Super back in 1980, would not even think about updating. What was the point?
I would guess that most people buying one of 1stD series would now have updated, probably more than once.So, although we no longer have to pay for film, the cost of our photography is probably higher, due to the considerable amount of money we have to shelve out to keep our cameras up to date. And, unlike film cameras, most improved features do make a difference. More pixels, better sensors, bigger rear screens, video etc.
And what about trying to convince the wife that you really do need a new camera? Surely dear, she will say, your present camera takes good photos. Why do you need a new one?
Very hard to explain to someone who thinks a camera is a camera, full stop! She's probably right, but we just cannot resist the latest, improved models. What will we be using in twenty five years time? The mind boggles.
And then, if you use a compact as well......?
I know we are all enjoying our photography more than ever, but don't run away with the idea that it is cheaper.

Interesting. I just received a roll of color slides today. Can't wait to see them in a slideshow. I'd even do more film photography but as my friends are awaiting the photos two seconds after they've been taken, I can't resist the DSLR. And of course there is much more features on DSLR than on a film camera, including image processing etc. Which consumes quite some time - in contrast to shooting slides and only developping them.

Overall though may it not be cheaper? There are no costs involved in shooting a digital image (unless we count the cost of charging the battery...)and we shoot a lot more images.

When upgrading, the outlay is mitigated by whatever we sell the existing camera for.

I'm not saying there is no cost, but it might not be all that great and would certainly be less than the cost of using as much film as we use digital.

I take your point, John. But I always end up giving my old cameras away to family members!
It probably is cheaper overall, But I just wanted to provide some food for thought.

Upgrading is not mandatory either, bit like cars. I have a friend who runs around in a Morris Minor that she bought brand new and it will probably see her out. Others seem to change their cars every year.

In 3 years of shooting digital I've taken almost 6000 photos (many of which are scrap or only of interst to me). I'd hate to tot up the cost of all those 6x4 prints even from printhouses that give away a free film.

Over that previous 40 years I still had oodles of scrap pics which were paid for up front and now I only pay for the ones that I need and think are really good. Also relatively speaking digital cameras are much cheaper than their film counterparts were.

What will we be using in twenty five years time? The mind boggles.

Hi Malcolm.

In twenty years time, I will have exchanged my camera for a harp, that’s assuming I am can get through the pearly gates, ??. I have been a good boy honest .


Take care.

Chris R.

Next few years (5 years?) will see us all moving to mirrorless, they'll end up the size of compacts, lenses will be the size of compacts, and we'll all argue about why DSLR (optical viewfinder / analogue / bigger sensor) is better than mirrorless - or micro-mirrorless (just made that up (the term) - it's the idea that you'll have a interchangeable lens on the front of a compact camera... which certain people are rumoured to be doing).

For me the digital is great. No need to think about the cost of each frame, I can afford to bracket my exposures and all that. Check out the results straight away and adjust on the computer. Print some, share some, marvellous!

But..........

In the last year I have started processing film again. Bought myself a lovely old 4x5 camera and you just have to develop the results yourself. Set it up, adjust the lens, tilt, shift all those camera moments to play with. Hours of fun before you even load the film and press the shutter!

Both are different but similar. Both have their place, not always the same place. May not suite everyone but I'm enjoying myself, learning new things and trying to capture an image the way I want it.

I have just returned to the world of film, mainly because I hope it's going to help me regain my shutter release discipline.

After many years of shooting with a Minolta X-300 35mm SLR, I went digital. First I had a point-and-shoot that gave me lots of manual control over the shot and then I discovered the K10D and the opportunity to explore some wonderful bits of Pentax glass.

Initially I was very happy with my results, but in the last couple of years I've found myself taking loads of shots, most of which are either total rubbish or frustrating near misses. In both cases, I'm certain that this is due to lack of care and attention when framing the shot. I think this poor technique has come about because digital makes it so cheap and easy to take loads of shots and hope that one of them will be good.

So, in an attempt to remedy this situation and re-learn my former composition techniques, I went back to my Minolta, thinking that the costs and barriers of working with film would help me find my way back onto the path.

Unfortunately it died after the first shutter release. After a brief period of mourning, I purchased a Pentax Z-1P and a couple of rolls of black and white film. I plan to go out as soon as the boss lets me, but I fully expect it will take a couple of weeks to use up the films (whereas with digital I could easily take 72 exposures in a single afternoon's stroll). If my therapy works, then I'll post some pictures...

EM

[/quote]Interesting ethos. My story is contrary ...

Having digital and the ability to take a lot of shots without worrying about film/developing costs has actually helped me improve my photography in leaps and bounds.

I don't just rattle loads off in the hope that some turn out OK, I do consider every shot even though I do take a lot of them. I can easily take 2000 in a days shoot

.... but taking a lot of shots has allowed me to learn through the feedback of perusing them after the shoot what works and what doesn't.

Anyway, horse for courses and I hope it works for you.

My sentiment sits more with Epithets - came to digital from film, so tend to spend a bit more time looking at the subject, usually landscapes, to see where the best angle/composition is.

Digital's instant feed back does alow you to correct obvious errors - vignetting due to overstacking of filters, poor combos of apperature & shutter speed, unwanted intrusions into the shot etc - which don't appear until you get the film processed. And most helpful of the lot, change ISO repeatedly as the light and subject requires. Brilliant for safaris and the like when you start/end the day wanting 800 ISO and within an hour are down to 100 ISO.


Steve

Better equipment body and lenses can certainly buy improved image quality, that is true on film or digital but canot buy a more creative eye. It was many years ago I moved from 35mm film to medium format film, always shooting monochrome. Medium format was far more disiplined than 35mm with only three prime lenses and 12 shots on a roll. However the lower cost of film or not upgrading were offset by darkroom costs. There will always be an argument over the advantage of a more concidered approach of say medium or large format film, still used by many professionals, and digital. Myself I converted to digital with enthusiasm my wife in a flash had my darkroom convereted to an en-suite bathroom no more smells. However when I look back over twenty five years of photography my most creative pics have been taken on the most simple equipment.

I won't be.

Best regards

I converted from a canon T90 to a pentax k-x about 6 months ago. My observations are as follows:
Lovely to be able to take so many frames
great to be able to look at the exposure histograms.
Not so taken with autofocus, so have carried on using manual focus lenses.
So much easier to play on the computer than in the darkroom.

have now lost all shutter discipline.
the thing I miss most of all is the beautiful grain available with films like HP5+.

I used to shoot film too, but the instant review capability of digital has really improved my shots. On film, by the time I got my slides or prints back my errors were long forgotten

The quality of images from the K7 far exceeds anything I've shot on film... even at moderately high ISOs, huge prints are possible. As an experiment I printed off a small part of an ISO500 photo at what would be almost A1 if the whole shot were printed, and the quality is more than acceptable viewed at a couple of feet.