romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The biggest difference was the skill of the photographer. To anticipate the point of peak action and be framed and focused for it took experience. To know lighting, film speed, reciprocity, DOF, color temp and calculate all of these in your head was a skill most of today's photographers have no knowledge of.That is why we see posts asking "how do I shoot a wedding next weekend?".What $50 tripod should I buy? Why are my images out of focus? What camera settings should I use on vacation next week?

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

You didn't develop it- you had it developed! Get your own darkroom equipment and chemicals and the cost will go down.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

You are right-you could pack 2 film bodies and 4 or 5 lenses in a 2 tier gadget bag and it would weigh less than 1 D300 and 5 comparable AF-S lenses.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

-----

Ah, the good old days of film photography. Who could forget the drying marks, the dust embedded in the gelitan matrix, the newton rings, the fuzzy corners because the film curled slightly in the rails, the poorly developed E6 (E4) slides that were too magenta, the development streaks from uneven agitation. Just thinking about those glory days makes me want to sit down and listen some vinal records with their inimitable pops, scratches, and hisses.

-----

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I know I have shot more film than digital to this date. I am catching up on it though with my D7200 while wondering when the D7300 will finally show up. I used to shoot the now boat anchor Bronica SQA for everything. I still have the three primary lenses and several backs to go with it. I was able to unload my Canon 35mm and its lenses when I had the chance but the Bronica was still in high use when I sold them. Personally I find no problem carrying around four lenses and a spare body of the Nikon variety especially considering I do not have carry 12 rolls of film plus the film backs anymore. Yes I tried a point and shoot after my retirement but that made me come out of retirement just to afford new glass and newer bodies. Just last week I shot about 4500 or more pics that I turned into the studio. This week about the same. I do find throwing away the bad shots in sports photography got a lot easier and less costly. I can actually us my motor drive in full power mode now where in film days I had to make sure what the drive gave was worth the film and processing. So no the extra weight is worth every penny of the glass it is made of.

phyprof

I shoot digital, B+W film, and when I have nothing else(which is unusual) I use my iphone. I have new zoom lenses but find my preference is to carry some of the manual focus/manual aperture lenses from my film days. I can carry a 24mm f/2.8, 35 mm f/2.8, 50 mm f/1.8, 85 mm f/2, and 135 mm f/3.5 easier than the 24-70 lens. If it is cold weather I can drop the lenses in different pockets wth spare battery and memory cards and travel light.

If my vision were not as good, as someone said, then I would use autofocus lenses. I have been blessed with good vision and this is my preference. I am not saying it is better than taking a 24-70 mm and a 70-200 mm lens. This is just my preferred kit.

These lenses are tack sharp and very light weight. I sling my camera with one lens over a shoulder and my tripod is slung over the other.

A different choice and only an alternative. It depends on how you prefer to shoot.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The biggest reason for not going back, besides declining vision is the best processes of the film era are no longer available. I miss Kodachrome! I also miss working in a Dye Transfer Lab. Both processes used materials no longer manufactured by Kodak. Yes, I use Lightroom and other digital manipulations now, and like the brilliance of metallic prints. But when I pull out an old cull Dye from a box in the basement friends are amazed at the sharpness and color saturation of the process. ThenI explain that each of the colors-Cyan, Magenta and Yellow can be removed with a different solvent and airbrushed or painted back in as needed. The process was always labor intensive and expensive, but makes color prints from Kodak or Fuji in the sRGB gamut look faded and dead in comparison. It is even difficult to find "real B&W papers, not RC, coated richly with silver". There are some- all foreign made. Prints on these are outstanding.

Harry_in_England

Vinyl? It's wax cylinders for me all the way!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have gone back - The Canon FD 400mm f4.5 is a great lens - I could never afford one back in the film days - but NOW I do have one for digital - and I love the light weight and IF with the tip of one finger !

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Go back? Certainly not, but I have no need to. I have an AE-1, a T90, a Contax 137 MD quartz, a Yashica FX-1, a Zenit E and an assortment of lenses, and my Brownie 127. So I can use film if I wish. On the other hand I do like old manual focus prime lenses, and have a select few adapted for EOS digital use. They don't serve the same function as modern autofocus lenses -I agree with SS on that - but they are good from a creative perspective and I personally find them enjoyable to use on a digital camera. With adapted chipped mounts I get the full function and quality of the original lens and focus confirmation. With Magic Lantern I get even more functionality. For me it is the best of both worlds, I can have the peace and tranquility of manual focus film photography combined with the immediacy, flexibility, and quality of digital methods, including much mirrorless functionality. Not to mention the advantages of computer-based post processing tools.

We also have a collection of vinyl LPs, cassettes and magnetic video (VHS / MiniDV) , but I/we just slowly transfer them to digital media as time permits. It isn't the media, but some of the content is just no longer available in a digital medium. Digital media can be processed in many ways, so precious stuff can be restored to some degree.

Go back? Never. Stay with analog / film / old lenses, for some purposes for sure.

I don't commute to work on a horse or a steam train either.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

What's wrong with wire recorders?

Impressionist

There are a few things it might be nice to go back to but except for the wider selection of film, photography has never offered so many options. My old Minolta MD glass work better on my Sony a6000 then on my Minolta XD-11. Still use the old Minolta camera along with my Nikon FM2n. Glass from the FM2n work fantastic on my D7200. The question was about satisfaction level and really don't feel a whole lot different. Most interesting thing to me is I have no use for the autofocus film cameras I have. They were wonders in technology, but found them to waste film. Photography has always been fun. If I ever get it right I'd worry.

phyprof

I would love to commute to work on a horse. If I worked in the same area as I live that would be my preference.

There is a special feeling that you get riding a horse that no car can duplicate. And your off road capabilities are better than any atc or other 4-wheel drive vehicle. Dirt bikes are too noisy and don't nuzzle you when you rub their heads.

pendennis

After being a bit idle in photography for several years, I decided to dive in again, and upgrade, with a different focus on the art. I bought a D500 and a D750; and added several lenses specific to DX format. I already had a number of FX/35mm format lenses, and have still added a few. No regrets for the chosen format. However, the clarion call of film hasn't gone away, despite having sold all my film equipment a few years ago. I remedied that by locating a Mamiya 645 Pro TL kit, and now I've added a number of lenses for it. I also like shooting a TLR, and a local shop had a very nice C330s, which I bought just for the 6x6 format.

The Mamiya even with a larger screen and split image, is still a bit difficult to use, but I owe that to the laziness of using nothing but AF on the Nikons.

I've gotten some test results back from 120 transparencies scanned, and I'm headed out this week to shoot more film.

Oh, and by the way, 35mm is back in play for me. A local seller had a mint condition F6, and it's getting its initial shake out now.