What do you use 35mm vs digital

[Guest]

Hi,

I was curious how many people have gone digital (P&S or SLR-size) 100% or still use the 35mm format?

What is your reason why you currently prefer one over the other. What have been your expectations before you bought a digital and what is your experience afterwards?

I just bought a cheap Olympus camedia with something like 1.3 MB pixel (P&S) last February and realized that I used it a lot more often then I expected it. Of course the image quality is not very good (in Zeiss terms), but the convenience factor is amazing.

Also no developing costs, makes it easier just to try some shots, I would not have done before - and they turned out to be very nice "memory shots"

dirk

 

[Guest]

Dirk,

I shoot both. I lean more toward the digital end for professional work primarily using a Nikon D1X for 35mm SLR fast focus type work, and a Contax 645 with a Kodak 645C Digital Proback for MF needs up to ISO 400
( beyond 400 I go back to film )

I still shoot film with certain cameras like a Leica M & R as well as with a Contax N1. All of which do not offer digital alternatives ( the Contax N Digital is not an alternative until they work out the bugs).

For goofing around snapshots like you use your P&S for, I use a Canon D30 which was my first digital camera 2 years ago. It's quite small and easy to use, so it took on the role of "fun" camera when the bigger guns came on board.

Even the film I now shoot is converted to digital via a 4000 dpi scanner. I haven't been in my wet darkroom for a year or so. Epson has just launched printers that will totally eliminate any need for me to visit a photo processor for prints ever again.

Digital is one of the greatest teaching tools to ever come along. With it you can refine certain techniques instantly, make adjustments accordingly, and reshoot. Once I've expermented with digital, I transfer the learning to the film cameras. This has greatly improved my success rate with film.

 

[Guest]

PS; the above wedding reception shot was taken with a Contax 645 & AF35mm/3.5 Ziess lens w/ Kodak 645C Digital Proback (96 megabyte file output).

The actual image was printed to 13" square, and featured so much detail that you could zoom in on the distant table and see what people were eating!

 

[Guest]

> Hi Dirk,

When digital cameras first came out, I bought a Casio in UK, and tried to use it as a P&S. AT that time, the quality of prints I got from such a rudimentary machine left me unsatisfied, so I sold it. I would like a digital P&S, if only for putting pictures on the web for my children overseas. But - right now, I won't buy a digital camera, because : 1. You buy one today and the better one comes out the week after, and you get nothing for yours. 2. The power problem means you must always carry a charging kit when travelling, and I often travel to places without power points. 3. Storage is difficult without some other piece of hi-tech kit (that also keeps changing), and nobody has yet come up with a satisfactory solution for archiving one's work with total security. I still have useable Kodachromes that are over 40 years old and can still be used "as new". 4. While I love the idea of never buying film again, the thought of spending even more time in my computer room appals me. I would rather be out with my film cameras (2 G2s, a T3 and , very soon, the N1 !), shooting. I will let someone else do the processing. It seems to me to be just as expensive with digital, BTW, what with the price of paper and inkjet supplies, as it is for film and processing.

Just my dos centimos worth. Robin

 

[Guest]

Dirk, Robin,
Robin is right in that not much is saved in processing display prints. However, film and processing is where the savings are realized. Where a roll of 36 pictures cost a total of approx. $6 to $8. digital cost $0.(once your flash card is paid for). Also, you do not pay for
proofs that you do not want . If say 5 images out of 20 warrant printing that's all you pay for.
Yet the real point of digital printing from a camera or film scans is creative control. It isn't called a desk-top darkroom for nothing.
I finally have control of color prints the way I do B&W in the darkroom. That in itself is worth any hassle.

 

[Guest]

1/2 film and 1/2 digital now

I use a Coolpixs 2500 for daily journal shooting plus a M6 and especially my R8 and Minilux for film assignments.

I can't wait to get the Lumix. The images are stunning from that suxer.

 

[Guest]

I added a Canon G1 as a digital addition to my Leica cameras some time ago. I use my M6 and R8 most of the time, but use the digital for "family shots", where I can show the pictures that evening on the TV, etc. I also send digital images to my son in Florida and he reciprocates. I saw the first pictures of my new grandson this way! I am really in a quandry about making a major committment with digital, however. I committed to Leica some years ago and would dearly like an M or R digital camera to use with my Leica lenses. Right now, my choices seem to be to move to a Canon or Nikon digital SLR, or go with a Digilux1 if I want to stay in the Leica lineup. At 4.0 megapixels however, I don't see the Digilux1 as a major improvement over the 3.3 mpx G1). I also don't see Leica coming up with anything in the digital M or R area any time soon. I am not particularly anxious to add another camera system (Nikon, Canon, Contax, etc.) to my current line-up, but this may be the avenue I eventually take.

Anyone with similar thoughts, anxieties, etc.?

 

[Guest]

Dirk; I started shooting digital format with the Nikon D1 about 3 years ago and almost immediately converted about half my paying shoots to that format. I still shot film for my personal work. When the D1X came out, I picked one up and almost immediately turned my business 100% digital. I do mostly magazine work, and editors are coming around to the point of recognizing that digital has many advantages over film and is here to stay. One primary advantage is that I rarely have to haul lighting equipment around in order to control the color of a shoot environment. I can do most of it in camera, and the rest of my color correcting in Photoshop. Also, there are the obvious advantages of no film and processing and being able to preview the shoot while still at the location.

Until recently, I still carried my M6 around for street shooting and personal work, but I got a Digilux 1 as soon as it became available and now I carry it instead. In the last year I've spent perhaps 2 hours in the darkroom, though I do occasionally miss getting my hands wet.

I can't see getting rid of all my film cameras at this point, or the Focomat V35 gathering dust in my darkroom, because when I see the ethereal qualities in some of the b&w images posted in the gallery, it reminds me that digital has not yet eclipsed film. This will change in time, as new digital cameras move into the 15 to 20 megapixel range and beyond. We're still in the early stages of this revolution, after all.

 

[Guest]

Dick; Here's my opinion on your question. I would be amazed if Leica did not at some point come out with a high quality Digital R-type body that would use their lens system. It would be suicidal for them to ignore this end of the market. Of course, we all know they tend to drag their feet a bit when it comes to keeping up with the competition. Hopefully it won't be too far off.

As to a digital M, I don't believe this is feasible due to back focusing with the M lenses. I would expect Leica to instead put research and development into the Digilux line.

 

[Guest]

Purchased a Minolta Dimage 7 w/5 mpx about a year ago. So far I use it primarily for taking picts and portraits of the family and our pets.

What I like is the the Apo zoom/macro lens, the ability to change iso ratings for each pict as well as switching between color and B&W without having to carry multiple camera bodies, lenses, etc. It's also very lightweight.
As with every piece of serious electronics I had to re-read the manual a number of times. Quite different from my M6, with which I went out and photographed without even perusing its manual.

I don't like the fact that it does not have an optical viewfinder. I am not at all enamoured with the small electronic display on the back, and its electronic SLR viewfinder I find almost useless. Hence my preference for my Leica SLRs or M6 for serious photography.

I guess I could have gone with the very high end Nikon or Canon DSLRs, but I also do not want to add another brand to my camera stable.

As Brent mentioned I'm also hoping for a serious DSLR. Perhaps with one of the Foveon X3 chips.