Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Real photographers
Page <<first <prev 16 of 16
Jan 5, 2018 04:57:54   #
James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
 
Al Freeedman wrote:
Please note that the Kodak Retina 111 was not a SLR it was a rangefinder 25 MM camera.

Had a great lens, and small enough to fit in your pocket when folded

Captain Al


He seemed unsure of the model number, perhaps he had a Kodak Type 025 (Retina Reflex)? Either way getting a Retina rangefinder folder is on my list! I'm a sucker for folders, but lack a 35mm one. A Type 011 Retina II would fill the bill unless I hit the lottery and found a pre war model!

Reply
Jan 24, 2018 00:13:41   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
Al Freeedman wrote:
Please note that the Kodak Retina 111 was not a SLR it was a rangefinder 25 MM camera.

Had a great lens, and small enough to fit in your pocket when folded

Captain Al


yes, a really nice german made rangefinder for kodak

Reply
Jan 24, 2018 00:32:51   #
10MPlayer Loc: California
 
Isn't this the third thread this week about analog vs. digital? Get over it. The world has moved on and digital is 1000 times better, cheaper, and easier to use than film. If you like film it's still out there and even making a small comeback, I hear. Go for it.

Reply
 
 
Jan 24, 2018 00:41:54   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
10MPlayer wrote:
Isn't this the third thread this week about analog vs. digital? Get over it. The world has moved on and digital is 1000 times better, cheaper, and easier to use than film. If you like film it's still out there and even making a small comeback, I hear. Go for it.


i would not know about your characterisation of film or analogue. however vinyl records now outsell digital and i've been using film in formats from 35mm to 8x10 for the last 60 years. and i seem to continue to be in the same world as everyone else.

Reply
Jan 24, 2018 06:07:57   #
Shutterbug57
 
10MPlayer wrote:
Isn't this the third thread this week about analog vs. digital? Get over it. The world has moved on and digital is 1000 times better, cheaper, and easier to use than film. If you like film it's still out there and even making a small comeback, I hear. Go for it.


Film is 1,000 times cheaper. Let’s examine that statement. Let’s examine my 2 most recent purchases of camera bodies. A Nikon D500 and Mamiya M645.

I recently purchased a used MF kit - Mamiya 645 - for $438 including a couple of small maintenance items and a few optional parts (bracket, extra viewfinders & extra film inserts). A similarly outfit Hasselblad X1D is $20,140 (tax not included), actually, that is missing the grip, but who cares.

With a differential of $19,702 as the price of entry, I could shoot a LOT of film. Let’s say you want to shoot an even mix of Portra and Tri-X. The average price for these is currently just a bit under $6 @ B&H, lets go with $6. Add to than $2 to develop the film at home for a total of $8.00 or add $15 to send out the film for a total of $21.00.

If you self-process, you could shoot & develop 2,462 rolls of film, or at 6x4.5, 36,930 shots. If you sent the film out, it is 938 rolls or 14,070 shots. A lot of folks who shoot film also process it as that is part of the allure. For me, and the way I shoot film, I will never shoot 2,462 rolls through my M645 and certainly not during the useful life of a X1D. Remember, we have not even figured in the useful life of film versus digital and are comparing a 40+ year old film body with a brand new digital body that will have a useful life, even in consumer application of 10 years or less.

Now let’s look at the D500. When my kids were in the house and playing sports, little league through HS, I shot the games and hosted the team web sites - I shot just over 40K frames on my D200 which I used as a main camera for about 10 years, the last 5 of which the kids were out of the house and I was not shooting tons of shots of sports. So, let’s just attribute 40K of the shots to a 5 year period. Let’s also not factor in costs for lenses as I already had most of my lens kit when I got my D200 as it was preceded by a D70s and N90s - both of which use the same lenses (except for the 12-24/4 DX lens).

My D500 with grip and spare batteries came to about $2,200 last fall - I know, I could not wait for the Christmas special as I wanted the body to shoot my son’s wedding. I could easily replace the N90s for $50 including a grip. This delta is $2,150 which, using the same film cost metrics as above, is 268 rolls or 9,648 shots if you process your own or 102 rolls and 3,672 shots. In this case, even at the roll your own pricing, digital wins - assuming the same useful life. But here is where it gets interesting.

I shot my D200 way longer than most folks are keeping digital bodies in service. In fact near the end of the HS sport days for my kids, I was really feeling the ISO limitations of the D200 and was really eyeing the D4, but could not justify that outlay for shooting HS sports. The D500 scratches that itch even better than the D4 at a fraction of that cost. But let’s say the average shooter keeps their DSLR body as a primary body for 5 years. Above we are comparing a brand new D500 with a roughly 30 year old digital body that, aside from being sticky as the rubber coating has “melted” works just like new.

I have every expectation that I could put 100K frames through the N90s before it dies and then replace it with a F100 or maybe even a F5 for $300, give or take.

In summary, for MF, film is clearly the cost winner FOR ME and the way I shoot. Unless you are a pro shooter pumping rolls of film a day through the camera, I suspect that this is the normal situation. Yes, I realize I have not accounted for time spent processing and scanning film or the inability to have the client look at the shots as they are taken. Both of these change the equation for the pro shooter.

For “35mm format”, the value proposition is much closer, primarily due to the significantly lower cost of entry. I have used my D500 which is probably $500 to $800 more expensive than the average DSLR purchase. Again, it depends on how one shoots, but I have grandkids about to play sports and I suspect I will shoot their games, so shoot 10,000 to 16,000 shots per year (I have 4 grandkids versus 2 kids) depending on how many games we can make. With 4 grandkids there are bound to be overlaps. Here, like with my D200, digital wins over film due to cost at those volumes. Let’s also not forget the convenience factor.

For someone shooting a couple thousand shots a year and processing their own film, film may be the cheaper choice, but if you send your film out and shoot any volume at all, digital is cheaper. So, while your statement is probably true in most cases for “35mm format”, I would say it is, in most cases, not so for MF. YMMV.

Reply
Jan 24, 2018 09:01:31   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Shutterbug57 wrote:
Film is 1,000 times cheaper. Let’s examine that statement.


Canon EOS 3 on ebay: $300. Canon EOS 5D mk4: $3500. Difference: $3200. One roll of Fuji Provia 100F: $7. Fuji slide processing mailer:10.59. Cost per 36 frames: $17.59. Number of frames you could shoot for $3200: 6,549. I shoot that in a couple of trips. And we haven't even gotten into different film speeds, the aforementioned time scanning, the better image quality, etc. For 35mm it's a no brainer.

Reply
Jan 24, 2018 09:45:57   #
Shutterbug57
 
TheDman wrote:
Canon EOS 3 on ebay: $300. Canon EOS 5D mk4: $3500. Difference: $3200. One roll of Fuji Provia 100F: $7. Fuji slide processing mailer:10.59. Cost per 36 frames: $17.59. Number of frames you could shoot for $3200: 6,549. I shoot that in a couple of trips. And we haven't even gotten into different film speeds, the aforementioned time scanning, the better image quality, etc. For 35mm it's a no brainer.


We are in basic agreement. As I stated, "your statement is probably true in most cases for '35mm format'". For low volume shooters who don't have a computer, thinking the older generation here, it may make sense to stay with film. Then again, they can get a digital P&S and stick the card into the kiosk at CVS and print what they want. My dad, in his later years, had problems managing the files on the card. He was much happier with a cheap P&S film camera. That, I realize, is a pretty thin segment of the market.

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2018 09:32:15   #
rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx
 
My college classes are full of people who bought what were advertised as "Easy to use, perfect pictures overtime" cameras. After teaching since the early 80s I can say that there is just as much or more to learn in the digital world. If you're easily satisfied with just getting an image, digital cameras are usually OK. But they are highly complex machines that require proper set-up and use. I've gifted SLRs to most of my family and they usually go back to smart phones rather than learn how to properly use the SLR's. I spend much more class time on the camera itself than in film days. As smart phones get more sophisticated they can indeed handle more difficult situations, but I have a large number of pictures I use to demonstrate what smart phone and simple point n shoot cameras and techniques cannot do, or do well. If you want pictures that stand out from the billions taken everyday, you need to understand how to use a camera. There are thousands of cameras that get sold everyday because someone, maybe a child, got into the menu system and got settings changed to the point the owner couldn't get a decent shot and finally gets rid of the camera and goes back to the smart phone. Smart phones have a place, and I have thousands of great shots from mine. But, they are also limited in instances. Here are some hard to do in "auto mode" shots:









Reply
Jan 25, 2018 09:50:31   #
rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx
 
There is absolutely no reason your Spotmatic would only shoot B&W. It would shoot with whatever film you put in it, like all film cameras.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 14:21:37   #
SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL
 
rodpark2 wrote:
My college classes are full of people who bought what were advertised as "Easy to use, perfect pictures overtime" cameras. After teaching since the early 80s I can say that there is just as much or more to learn in the digital world. If you're easily satisfied with just getting an image, digital cameras are usually OK. But they are highly complex machines that require proper set-up and use. I've gifted SLRs to most of my family and they usually go back to smart phones rather than learn how to properly use the SLR's. I spend much more class time on the camera itself than in film days. As smart phones get more sophisticated they can indeed handle more difficult situations, but I have a large number of pictures I use to demonstrate what smart phone and simple point n shoot cameras and techniques cannot do, or do well. If you want pictures that stand out from the billions taken everyday, you need to understand how to use a camera. There are thousands of cameras that get sold everyday because someone, maybe a child, got into the menu system and got settings changed to the point the owner couldn't get a decent shot and finally gets rid of the camera and goes back to the smart phone. Smart phones have a place, and I have thousands of great shots from mine. But, they are also limited in instances. Here are some hard to do in "auto mode" shots:
My college classes are full of people who bought w... (show quote)


Pg.16 Rod those are some fine shots.

Reply
Jan 25, 2018 17:35:34   #
James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
 
rodpark2 wrote:
There is absolutely no reason your Spotmatic would only shoot B&W. It would shoot with whatever film you put in it, like all film cameras.


I used all kind of color print and slide film through my Spotmatic decades ago.......It worked.

Reply
 
 
Feb 4, 2018 11:22:44   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
geodowns wrote:
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way back for 50+ years the only camera I had was a Nikon Ftn, all manual everything. You had to know your stuff, you had to be quick, focus, click... with no previews of your shot to look at. You had a box of filters for every occasions, than you were at the mercy of the lab to do a good job or do it yourself, print it yourself, fix it yourself. Now even a $5000 camera can point and shot. Times have change. I feel like an old fighter pilot with all the glory story's in the past. Young wepersnapers don't have a clue what its like to really be good with the old stuff. Really missing that old Ftn, but someone really wanted it, so I sold it all. Now armed with digital for 15 years, the old cockpits where all analog, mechanical. Now the new cockpits are glass, computers etc. Camera have gone the same route. They take.... I mean capture (sorry) scenes better then the eye can see. Point...&... Shoot. That was easy. Do some creative photoshop and voila, better than the real thing. OK I'll let someone pick this thing apart now. And I still like B17s better than Tanks.
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way ba... (show quote)


i would like to get this "stuck in the past" bs out of the way with regard to film use. this is the same as saying anyone who uses a digital image capturing device has no idea of the basics of available light and available dark.

so, both digital and film are currently used by commercial and fine art photographers - women and men - who have studied and applied themselves to the structures and theories of image making. this is why they are so good. and that's about 3% of the people on this forum. the rest are snapshooters who what everything "easier".

Reply
Feb 4, 2018 17:49:10   #
Photocraig
 
The aperture is still the aperture, the shutter is still the shutter, the meter works (pretty much the same 'cept ASA is ISO), the frame is still the frame (AKA Composition). Most of all, the MOMENT is still the moment. At 4,6,8,10,14 frames per second with continuous (Servo) Focus, it is perhaps, easier to capture the well exposed, focused and composed image of that very decisive moment with even an entry level DSLR than it ever was. And you can "Chimp" to be SURE you GOT it (passed by as it has) or NOT!

I'm still struggling with he transition, too. But my processing lab smells a lot better!
C

Anecdote: As my wife exited a ground tour of a B17 she said, "No wonder they all DRANK!"

Reply
Page <<first <prev 16 of 16
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.