OT 35mm SLR camera

[newshound]

Complete non sequitur.

TNP is exactly right (on this occasion) :-)

[newshound]

Except for reciprocity failure.

I loved my Yashica electro 35 cc for the same reason. But with its lowest film speed setting 25 ASA, you couldn't increase the exposure with K II (which IMHO was the finest colour film ever made, 25 was never as good). It needed a couple of stops at 20 seconds, IME.

[dennis]

Speak for yourself dave.

[therustyone]

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus. Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.

[dennis]

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then processing it digitally?

[dennis]

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a digital camera?

[dennis]

The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages of doing so.

[RobertL]

There is market for them; take a look on eBay.

For example: a Nikon FM3a (35mm film camera) in mint condition goes for ? ?500+

I still shoot quite a lot on BW film (processed to slides and also scanned) . I take the view that if someone finds a box of slides in the attic when I'm dead and gone, they might take a look at them. A box of old disks tha t nobody can easily read will just be dumped.

Robert

[newshound]

In some countries, I believe the "sound" is a legal requirement to discourage covert photography.

[Nick Odell]

Horses for courses innit. Film isn't "better" than digital any more than vinyl is better than CD or VHS is better than DVD: they are all artistic media and in my opinion with quite different qualities and strengths and weaknesses.

I have several digital cameras and they are absolutely brilliant for some kinds of work: I tend to use them for the more industrial kind of photography where accuracy and precision are what I'm looking for. But since the price of film cameras has tumbled to the point where I can easily afford to buy the kind of kit I could only have dreamt of in the past I've been doing a lot more work with film in recent times.

Another factor I've discovered is a sort of analogy with quantum physics where the act of observation affects that which is being observed. Example: I was photographing a demonstration which was processing down Avenida de Mayo in Buenos Aires this February just gone when I realised that the protestors were "opening up" to me in an entirely different way compared to passers by with camera phones and the press with their state of the art gear. Why? It was my twin-lens reflex medium-format film camera, that's why. I captured "stories" more than "photographs" that day.

Nick

[Andrew]

I take the view that if someone finds a box of slides in the attic when I'm dead and gone, they might take a look at them. A box of old disks that nobody can easily read will just be dumped.

Precisely. How much 'important' work is sitting on 8 inch floppies or 5.25 inch hard-sectored floppies, or Amstrad WP disks, or even 3.5 inch floppies now that few PCs have a floppy disk drive ?.

Just remember not to store your E6 or Kodachrome slides in the wrong sort of plastic boxes.

There is a black and white print of my relatives taken in 1886 and apart from some surface crazing, it is as good as the day it was taken.

Once the 'free cloud storage' surrupticiously becomes chargeable a lot of 'brilliant' pics taken by the happy, snappy, selfie brigade are toast.

[Cursitor Doom]

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/ reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

[tabbypurr]

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.

NT

[Paul Giverin]

I'm not so sure. I've got a high end full frame DSLR body with some expensive lenses. My DSLR is fantastic in low light with very useable shots at ISO 12800 and even ISO 25600 with some tweaking in Photoshop.

However, for B&W I shoot film. I've got five 35mm bodies and one medium format body. I found that it was very difficult to get a digital B&W print that didn't have some sort of colour cast. I personally think that a wet print B&W photograph has a unique quality that a digital print can't match. I've got my own darkroom and I do love the process of developing the film and making prints from the negatives.

The one thing that film can teach to digital users is economy. A 36 exposure roll of B&W film costs about £6 so if you are using your shutter like a machine gun it will soon get very expensive. You have to choose your shot carefully rather than firing off 10 shots and hoping that one of them is good. Does that really matter with digital..... well some DSLR bodies cost £2000 and more. They do have a finite shutter life and if you are firing off 10 shots to get one good photo then your expensive camera might not last as long as you hope. There's also the matter of viewing and storing all those shots.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wot e said.

When I find I can get better grain, better speed, and better color rendition off digital, I know where my money is.

And then get the pictures printed professionally onto gloss paper for the keepers at less cost...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Eh? Minidisc was brilliant. For certain things. Mainly pro or semi pro use, as well as replacing the cassette.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different 'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1" lens on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which made for problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which type of camera might be in use.

If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera.

[DerbyBorn]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Also "Angle of View" is easily visualised in ones mind.

[DerbyBorn]

With film you have to work with the ASA of the film throughout. A Digital will change the ASA value.

[Huge]

If you let it.