Old school versus new school?

Question

Which one do you prefer and why?
1.35 mm film SLR
2. Digital SLR

Answer 1

Digital.

I switched to digital 6 years ago after working in the field of photography for 30 years. I haven't regretted it yet.

Don't get me wrong regular film is wonderful also.

Digital now has the quality of regular film.

After the intitial expense of buying a quality digital camera the benefits list goes on and on.

Many more exposures can be taken with minimum amount of baggage to carry around.

Plug into the computer and there are the images.

No expense in proofing your work. Not everything has to be printed. Print only the ones that you want.

Much easier editing with programs such as the Adobe Photoshop series products. Espcically handy for those oops in photos......

Reusable memory sticks. No film expense.

Charge the camera and go. No more batteries to contend with.

The computer basically becomes ones darkroom.

No more chemicals to buy and smell. No more stained hands from being in chemicals.

However there is a magical moment when one does see the print developing in a darkroom.

Good luck with your decision.

Answer 2

For me personally if it were 35mm slr or digital slr I would have to go with digital. To begin the 35mm format was really never about quality so much as it was about speed and convenience which is why it was and still is in some cases the choice of camera for many photojournalist and commercial photographers who are on tight deadlines. In terms of the quality of 35mm: sharpness, tonality,color and scalability medium format and large format film was and is still far superior. For example the megapixel equivalent fuji velvia film in 4x5 format is around 240 megapixels whereas the equivalent megapixel rating for the same film in 35mm format is about 16 megapixels. Considering that high end digital slr's (excluding hassleblads 39megapixel h3) approach that territory, I would rather stick to digital slr's. Digital slr's also have less signal-to-noise issues. Since both digital and 35mm slr photography is about convenience and speed, digital is just faster and more convenient. However, if we are talking quality, forget both digital and 35mm slr's, give me an old slow 4x5 camera. However, in terms of the cost factor, digital can be just as expensive as film if you factor in ink costs, computer maintenance, hard-disk storage,software and software updates, cf cards etc...lots of hidden expenses associated with digital that people just don't consider.

Answer 3

I have to go old school. The 35 mm left me in control of how long it was developed, what kind of effects I gave it, etc. The digital is pretty much up to the camera and the machine which develops it. As a photographer, there is not much input I have to change that. It takes the art out of it.

Answer 4

I've worked as a photographer for the last 21.5 years and I'm sorry digital was invented.
Every nut, bolt and screw on my Nikon film cameras from circa 1982 can be found in the marketplace.
Spend three grand on a top of the line digital camera and in two to three years support/repair is difficult to find. People want digital. So now I'm shelling out three grand every three yrs vs one grand for a great film camera every 15-20 years!

Answer 5

New school all the way baby!
I prefer digital because its soooo much easier to see results, and edit. Initial cost is slightly higher, but you save by not having to pay for film and processing. Also, your work isn't left at the mercy of strangers to process.

Answer 6

i like both. i have a little digital camera that i love and i would love to get a new nikon digital slr. but since i have the 35mm system already i use it when i want. i wouldn't give up my mamiya 645 pro either. i love working in the darkroom and smelling fixer but i also love farting around in photoshop. can't we all just get along. lol.

Answer 7

Dr J is much better and has better fundimantels and abilities then Kobe. Dr J ought to lose because LeBron can macth up him in protection and may be chance in offense Dr J ought to lose because Dirk is respectable defender yet he can hit jumpers from anyware and to take care of his attacks on the basket Dr J ought to triumph over Duncan because he's swifter,more desirable and could use his atheltic abilty Dr J ought to triumph over Howard,he will make offensive calls and dominate on offense Darko(Dirk Nowitzki fan)

Answer 8

35mm film SLR

The quality of film versus digital.

Answer 9

digital is a bit of a consumer joke. Manufacturers in the computer field kept coming out with new chips, faster chips, and other accessories so that by the time you took your computer home and set it up, it was already out of date.

So the same thing takes place in photography with digital cameras. First 1mp, then 2, then 3, then 4 and this will go on ad infinitum as long as there are early adopters in the market - and there are zillions of them. An early adopter is the person who needs to have the most up to date things and pays big bucks for his personality disorder. Basically, they pay for the research and development of the products and if you wait for a short while, that very product will be cheaper.

Early adopters are fun to watch. They will pay 5x the price for the big brands, not knowing what they are getting. I saw one walk into a stereo store one day and pay $20 dollars for a "reference tape" for their tape player all the while not knowing that the same tape, but not with their brand name on it, is sold in that very store for $2.50

Probably 95% of people responding with "digital" are themselves really without the best of the line at present. There is only one camera out there with a true 35mm sensor, or chip, and it will cost you more than 3000$$ depending on the glass.

People speak of the cost and speed of digital photography. That, my friends, is a farce. I can shoot a roll of 35mm color film, and there are professional films and consumer films, and take them to Target or Walmart and have them developed within an hour for five bucks a roll. Then I can take the pictures that I think I would like to have enlarged, scan them into my computer, and run off 8x10s. I have about 1500$ tied into my 35mms, and they all take the same lenses, whereas you will have 1200-1500 for a consumer grade digital. Surely you don't want to print every picture on the card, but you have to consider printer expenses into the cost of every picture that you print. Ink cartridges are expensive and my printer takes 8, so I got the printer for $90 bucks but every time I need a refill, I will pay between $10 and $15 per cartridge. And for that, I pay for the convenience of having the pictures within 5 minutes after taking them instead of an hour. I will only make a printer copy of a 8x10 to get an idea of what it will look like, then take my negs to the pro shop to get them blown up - one day turn around.

I can take the film to a professional processor, wait a couple of hours, and have it in contact prints as well as a digital disk with all the pictures which have a size of about 9mb in high resolution. Enlargements are not that expensive, especially when you consider the cost of printer ink. So most of mine are done through a professional processor rather than Walmart which is a bit cheaper and gives you a crappy disk

Film is, therefore, much cheaper since you can buy the cameras that I have for about $75 in near perfect condition and the lenses at ridiculously low prices unless you are going for special lenses which have a smaller market. Most of the time when I go on a shoot, I take 3 35mms with me as well as a 67 camera with several backs. Each camera will have a different film in it and each back will have a different film in it.

I am not quite what you call a "hobby" photographer and I do not take snap shots. Any time I am using a camera, the odds are tht I will have it on a tripod and all of my cameras have a mirror lock in them so that if the situation is critical, I have no vibrations from the mirror going up when I take the picture. I bracket every shot, so on a 120 roll which will give me 10 negs, I may get three usable pictures out of the thing - but they will sell for nice $$.

But if you are hooked on digital, you are hooked. Most of the questions that are asked in this group are basically questions that can be answered by reading a short book on photography - which you should be doing instead of posting your questions and getting a variety of answers, some of which are incorrect or partially correct.

You can buy a Nikon, Canon, Olympus and a variety of other 35mm slrs and have most of the lenses that you might need for less far less than the cost of a digital. I don't like zooms with a large range. There is too much loss in quality when you use, for instance, a 18-200mm zoom because of moving elements inside the lens.

The price of digitals will come down as the market gets filled. Professionals with digitals are returning to used camera houses to buy film camera right now because of color abberations and digital noise in their pictures. The most famous brand in medium format is upping their production of their film cameras and making digital backs and option. I could get a digital back for my RB67, but at $15,000 to $20,000, I can't see the value - I will not have the quality.

All of my cameras are at least 30 years old and one of them is 44 years old and they all work. The only service cost that I incur, unless I drop something, is a cleaning and adjustment that cost me 100$ every 2-3 years. However if you are interested in moderate quality, then a digital might be where to go. There is no comparison between film in a 35mm and the highest price consumer camera (D80 Nikon is not the highest price, but it is a commonly used camera - it is a consumer model). The $2500-$3000 Canon professional camera, the one with the 35mm sensor or chip, will not give the same quality as film under any circumstances assuming that the photographers are equally experienced.

To get good 35mm cameras, go to garage sales. The first thing you need to know is something about mechanical camera and something about how to properly evaluate a lens. I but A1 and AE1 Canons, good cameras, complete with a bag of lenses for 35$$ and know that they work. All I do is to clean them up a bit and sell them for $150 each for the cameras plus what I can get for the lenses. More often than not, I can make 10X what I spend with very little work.