Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You don't do it for the money, you do it for the love.
I am somewhat disillusioned by my Digital experience.Sure its convenient, but after the fifth digi-compact died in a decade, and I gulped to buy a DSLR.. perversely:-
1/ Kitting up to get the range of lenses etc I have for film for digital, has cost me more, in the last five years than I ever spent on film and processing i the twenty five before! And I was a winder-jockey! 'Cheap' is relative, and every pursuit will try and consume more time and more money than you actually have to give it! Digital just shifts where you spend, and how many photo's you get for it.
2/ Removing two winder equipped Olympus OM's and their lenses from the camera bag to make space for the electric picture maker.... for SOME curious reason, DIDN'T! Nikon D3200, reputedly one of the more 'compact' DSLR's takes up more space in the camera bag than two winder equipped Olympus OM's, and a dozen rolls of spare film! And the flash gun has had to be evicted to find space for a couple of spare batteries! Who-ever said that digital was more 'compact' LIED... same as they said it was cheaper!
3/ Where the Digi-Compact used to be the 'pocket' camera to support the SLR's or when I couldn't be bothered to faff or lug the big guns about; lack of digi-compact now sees my old Olympus XA2 film compacts back i my pocket.... and more used than the DSLR!
4/ Follow on from that is, that I look at the DSLR, and think "Do I want to Faff?" If not... I leave it behind. If so.... I look again... and pick up my all metal, all clock-work, Sigma MK1 (Richoch copy) and ts M42 screw fit primes! I take fewer photo's, but have to work harder to get them, so higher proportion of 'better' ones... ad I 'feel' like I have actually done something to get them!
Ultimately ts a different way of working; a different approach.. for absolutely sure and certain, IF you are concerned about ultimate image quality; then film still has an awful lot to offer.... 35mm was always a compromise from the start; Medium Format offered so much more, and still does... and it is pretty astounding;
I have a very lovely Ziess Ikonta 120 folder, that was bequeathed to me some twenty years ago; on e-bay you'd struggle to pay more than £30 for such a device; and taking your time, being selective, it would be an awfully long time until you started totting up the processing costs and moaning you could have bought ANY DSLR for the same, to still probably not achieve the same quality of results..... there are an awful lot of old film cameras like that, which are astoundingly cheap, if they aren't SLR's or medium format 'icons' like a Yashica or Miyama or Hassablad.
If you want 'cheap'? Well, there's lots f chap film cameras and 35mmas the most popular, offers most. But again, dodge the icons of the genre, and particularly SLR's and there's an awful lot of incredibly 'good' 35mm film cameras about for not a lot of money, that are were often far from 'cheap' when current, or not very useful non enthusiast 'compacts'; they are just not SLR's! Film can be relatively cheap if you shop about; more still if you home process, and home scan.
And either which way, just as with widgetal, success or failure, good or bad, will most likely be down to YOU not the camera!
Another anomaly.... I bought a dedicated 35mm film scanner in Y2K.... Cost me just shy of £500 ISTR, you can pick them up on the bay now for under £50!!! YET, that scanner chucks out 10Mpix bit-maps, with a colour depth I cant remember... far higher than 'raw' digi sensors. And I still have to down-size even those for almost all practical purposes! I can shoot a roll of film, bring it home and kitchen-sink develop it, and have it in the scanner and be adjusting the scans as I go, and get photo's saved to display pretty much as 'quick' as if I had shot them 'RAW'on the DSLR, and had to clear down the SD card, and review in editor t make display copies.... It's not as quick or convenient as shooting jpg in the electric picture maker, for sure, but barely any more 'faff' playing with sliders, in the greater scheme of things,where remember, any pursuit will beg as much time and money as you let it!
All comes down to what you want to do.... and how much you want t spend.. time and money.
Picking up on the hintmation of DoF and cost though..... 35mm film is probably short changing yourself. I like it, it is a pretty good compromise. Umpety decades ago I got some Ilford B&W in 35mm and 120, and did some back to back experiments with a borrowed Hassablad,my OM4, and my XA2.... and MY conclusion was, yeah... MF is probably 'better'.... but practically I was never likely to exploit it! so I pretty much stuck to 35mm for the cost and convenience at an 'acceptable' quality... widgetal... debate on whether its reached the same IQ as 35m or even that of MF... who cares.. ultimately... they all offer an excess, for most practical purposes; use what best suits the job...
B-U-T there is a certain tactile joy in using old mechanical cameras, and on the DoF issue, the wonderfully gradual focus fade you are only 'just' starting to see on 35mm/FF is that much more apparent on MF and larger... it is about the only 'thing' that really makes me want to exercise the old folder really.... hence IF that's what you are hoping to experience, then a 'cheap' 35mm SLR is as I say probably short changing yourself, and a 120 camera probably where you should be looking..... as suggested, if you don't go hunting the icons of the 'pro' TLR's like the Yashica or Miyima, or pay over the odds for the cheap Russian Lubitel, there are some astounding 'bargains' to be found for under £50.. and for the opportunities to exploit them.... well, you aren't going to be spending a fortune on film or processing, even if you don't home soup and scan! Though.... get carried away? Like any hobby, you can start spending a lot of the bank-manager's money!
Its not about what may be 'better' or what may be 'cheaper'.. ts about what compromised YOU are prepared to make in the mix..... the 'love' not the money.
For £50 or £80? Rather than asking... go grab a Lubitel or possibly etter, an old folder of the bay and a roll of 120 or two.... suck it and see.....grab a tank and a chem-kit and have a crack at kitchen sinking your film.. you'll either be 'hooked' or the camera will be back on e-bay in January, and you'll be out of pocket by less than dropping a spare SD card in an event field! And richer by the experience and knowing whether it's something you can get any benefit from, either in enjoyment, results or effects.
Give it a Go, its the only way you'll know!
I am somewhat disillusioned by my Digital experience.Sure its convenient, but after the fifth digi-compact died in a decade, and I gulped to buy a DSLR.. perversely:-
1/ Kitting up to get the range of lenses etc I have for film for digital, has cost me more, in the last five years than I ever spent on film and processing i the twenty five before! And I was a winder-jockey! 'Cheap' is relative, and every pursuit will try and consume more time and more money than you actually have to give it! Digital just shifts where you spend, and how many photo's you get for it.
2/ Removing two winder equipped Olympus OM's and their lenses from the camera bag to make space for the electric picture maker.... for SOME curious reason, DIDN'T! Nikon D3200, reputedly one of the more 'compact' DSLR's takes up more space in the camera bag than two winder equipped Olympus OM's, and a dozen rolls of spare film! And the flash gun has had to be evicted to find space for a couple of spare batteries! Who-ever said that digital was more 'compact' LIED... same as they said it was cheaper!
3/ Where the Digi-Compact used to be the 'pocket' camera to support the SLR's or when I couldn't be bothered to faff or lug the big guns about; lack of digi-compact now sees my old Olympus XA2 film compacts back i my pocket.... and more used than the DSLR!
4/ Follow on from that is, that I look at the DSLR, and think "Do I want to Faff?" If not... I leave it behind. If so.... I look again... and pick up my all metal, all clock-work, Sigma MK1 (Richoch copy) and ts M42 screw fit primes! I take fewer photo's, but have to work harder to get them, so higher proportion of 'better' ones... ad I 'feel' like I have actually done something to get them!
Ultimately ts a different way of working; a different approach.. for absolutely sure and certain, IF you are concerned about ultimate image quality; then film still has an awful lot to offer.... 35mm was always a compromise from the start; Medium Format offered so much more, and still does... and it is pretty astounding;
I have a very lovely Ziess Ikonta 120 folder, that was bequeathed to me some twenty years ago; on e-bay you'd struggle to pay more than £30 for such a device; and taking your time, being selective, it would be an awfully long time until you started totting up the processing costs and moaning you could have bought ANY DSLR for the same, to still probably not achieve the same quality of results..... there are an awful lot of old film cameras like that, which are astoundingly cheap, if they aren't SLR's or medium format 'icons' like a Yashica or Miyama or Hassablad.
If you want 'cheap'? Well, there's lots f chap film cameras and 35mmas the most popular, offers most. But again, dodge the icons of the genre, and particularly SLR's and there's an awful lot of incredibly 'good' 35mm film cameras about for not a lot of money, that are were often far from 'cheap' when current, or not very useful non enthusiast 'compacts'; they are just not SLR's! Film can be relatively cheap if you shop about; more still if you home process, and home scan.
And either which way, just as with widgetal, success or failure, good or bad, will most likely be down to YOU not the camera!
Another anomaly.... I bought a dedicated 35mm film scanner in Y2K.... Cost me just shy of £500 ISTR, you can pick them up on the bay now for under £50!!! YET, that scanner chucks out 10Mpix bit-maps, with a colour depth I cant remember... far higher than 'raw' digi sensors. And I still have to down-size even those for almost all practical purposes! I can shoot a roll of film, bring it home and kitchen-sink develop it, and have it in the scanner and be adjusting the scans as I go, and get photo's saved to display pretty much as 'quick' as if I had shot them 'RAW'on the DSLR, and had to clear down the SD card, and review in editor t make display copies.... It's not as quick or convenient as shooting jpg in the electric picture maker, for sure, but barely any more 'faff' playing with sliders, in the greater scheme of things,where remember, any pursuit will beg as much time and money as you let it!
All comes down to what you want to do.... and how much you want t spend.. time and money.
Picking up on the hintmation of DoF and cost though..... 35mm film is probably short changing yourself. I like it, it is a pretty good compromise. Umpety decades ago I got some Ilford B&W in 35mm and 120, and did some back to back experiments with a borrowed Hassablad,my OM4, and my XA2.... and MY conclusion was, yeah... MF is probably 'better'.... but practically I was never likely to exploit it! so I pretty much stuck to 35mm for the cost and convenience at an 'acceptable' quality... widgetal... debate on whether its reached the same IQ as 35m or even that of MF... who cares.. ultimately... they all offer an excess, for most practical purposes; use what best suits the job...
B-U-T there is a certain tactile joy in using old mechanical cameras, and on the DoF issue, the wonderfully gradual focus fade you are only 'just' starting to see on 35mm/FF is that much more apparent on MF and larger... it is about the only 'thing' that really makes me want to exercise the old folder really.... hence IF that's what you are hoping to experience, then a 'cheap' 35mm SLR is as I say probably short changing yourself, and a 120 camera probably where you should be looking..... as suggested, if you don't go hunting the icons of the 'pro' TLR's like the Yashica or Miyima, or pay over the odds for the cheap Russian Lubitel, there are some astounding 'bargains' to be found for under £50.. and for the opportunities to exploit them.... well, you aren't going to be spending a fortune on film or processing, even if you don't home soup and scan! Though.... get carried away? Like any hobby, you can start spending a lot of the bank-manager's money!
Its not about what may be 'better' or what may be 'cheaper'.. ts about what compromised YOU are prepared to make in the mix..... the 'love' not the money.
For £50 or £80? Rather than asking... go grab a Lubitel or possibly etter, an old folder of the bay and a roll of 120 or two.... suck it and see.....grab a tank and a chem-kit and have a crack at kitchen sinking your film.. you'll either be 'hooked' or the camera will be back on e-bay in January, and you'll be out of pocket by less than dropping a spare SD card in an event field! And richer by the experience and knowing whether it's something you can get any benefit from, either in enjoyment, results or effects.
Give it a Go, its the only way you'll know!
