# Digital, or film…………?



## Nobbythesheep

Good morning everyone,

Which is best, digital or film? I'm aware that this is similar to the 'which is best, quartz or mech?' discussions which go on from time to time, but I believe there's an important difference. Digital images are (usually) stored digitally. In theory they are more easily lost/destroyed than negatives.

To start the ball rolling for film……...

The camera is mechanical. It can always be fixed, and if it is a nice camera has a certain intrinsic value apart from £££££.

Mech cameras are nice to use. And you usually get a good, sharp image.

Mech cameras, apart from high-end and collectors items, are dirt cheap at the moment.

It is easy-peasy to have a digital image of your film put onto CD at the same time as your film is developed. It costs very little and you have negs *and* digital images.


----------



## dobra

In my collection of film and digital cameras, age is a vital factor. A ten year old digi is way over the hill, but my 1960's Rollei will produce colour transparencies which will project up to 8x8 feet images with no grain, and no doctoring needed - probably much more than equalling a 50+ megapixel camera. Another factor is with 12 exposures in a 6x6 film, each shot counts, so composition and settings must be thought through carefully prior to pressing the shutter button.

Although I take mostly digital, there is a temptation to fire off a few quickies, rather than take more time for composing. members of the camera club boast that they have taken hundreds over a short break, but the reality is a large proportion is deleted.

Servicing of older film cameras is more difficult to find a camera techie, but much simpler than a digi job.

mike.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Damn - I was hoping for an argument! :laugh:

Don't forget the bokeh!


----------



## Silver Hawk

In a word...digital.

Don't get me wrong, I love all old mechanical things; I have a few Ariel motorcycles that are over 75 years old. My first "serious" camera was a Ricoh Super Shot 2.4; at some point, I had an Olympus 35mm half frame camera and my first SLR was a Praktica. And then I bought the newly introduced Canon AE-1 --- had to travel from Sheffield to Manchester to buy it; fab camera although I was very jealous of my boss's Olympus OM-2.

At the time, I did all my own b&w processing using a dark room in a University department. I specialized in rock band photography and was regularly pushing HP5 to 1600 and had some success selling my prints to Sounds and NME magazine...didn't both with Melody Maker :laugh: .

Do I want to go back to using these cameras and film --- no. Would I like the cameras still sitting on my desk --- yes, but only to pick up and remember those times. So happy to collect old cameras (I don't) but not to use them. My days of spending hours every evening in the dark room are over....I now spend the same number of hours in Photoshop :laugh: .

So to address some of your points:



There is no excuse in loosing a digital image. If anything, I have too many copies of the same image: its on my SD card, hard drive and stored in Google Drive (cloud)


There is no danger of me scratching a digital image / negative


Per photo, SD cards are a million times cheaper than film & paper


A good digital compact camera would probably cost the same as an SLR camera repair


BTW:

What is the issue with bokeh? That is down to the design of the aperture blades in the lens as I understand it, so ought to be independent of the camera type.

Having bought and used the mirrorless Sony a6000 as recommended by several on this Forum, I'd never go back to an SLR again...digital or film. Noisy, flipping mirrors is so old technology :laugh: .


----------



## aroma

I have to say that I agree with Paul above. I used to love my film cameras and really appreciated the engineering that went into them. As has been said, a 50 year old film camera would still work but come back in 50 years and there won't be many vintage digitals working - I doubt that they would be compatible with the future computer software anyway. In 'the old days' the technology was in the film not really in the camera - nowadays, the tech is in the camera and that is soon obsolete. I hung on to my film cameras as long as I could - the Nikon FM3a was the last of mine and what a beauty it was. I now use Fuji X series - probably because they evoke those lovely memories of film and that Nikon.

However I do love the convenience of digital and the fact that I can process my own photos without getting any messy smelly chemicals out. Have any of you tried film recently? It is now really expensive to buy and to get processed. I did buy a second hand Nikon FM2n with a lovely 50mm lens some time ago and re-tried film but it wasn't a success. No, you have to move with the times - like it or not.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

The problems of working from home - getting started!

Hi Paul, thanks for joining in.

Before I go down to the office to sort out a spreadsheet I'll address just one of your points - *"A good digital camera would probably cost the same as an SLR camera repair"*.

Very true, but a) why limit yourself to SLRs, and b) why pay someone else to do a job which could probably be done by yourself, which is also part of the attraction - just ask the guys on here who do their own watch maintenance.

Example - The Olympus Trip. A basic point-and-shoot, but with zone focussing, and a solar-powered exposure meter. And very good glass. They are plentiful (around 8 million were made) and you can buy them for very little but they all need refurbished. This consists of taking off the top cover and cleaning the viewfinder, then taking the lens off and re-greasing the focus and exposure rings. The light baffles will need replaced every twenty years - you can buy them ready-cut on the bay for around £4.00. A film costs around £3.00. Take your time and don't fire off shots like a machine gun. Take it in to be developed. Ge excited. Wait for your film to come back. With a CD it should cost around £7.00 or so.

In ten years time the camera will still be going strong. If you are anything like me the digital camera you bought at the same time will be toast. You also have negs and CDs with your pics on.

I take your point about SLRs though, but there are plenty out there which only need their light baffles replaced (the black foam degrades over 20 years or so and renders a perfectly good camera unusable. An easy fix!


----------



## Silver Hawk

Nobbythesheep said:


> ..just ask the guys on here who do their own watch maintenance.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Silver Hawk said:


> BTW:
> 
> What is the issue with bokeh? That is down to the design of the aperture blades in the lens as I understand it, so ought to be independent of the camera type.
> 
> Having bought and used the mirrorless Sony a6000 as recommended by several on this Forum, I'd never go back to an SLR again...digital or film. Noisy, flipping mirrors is so old technology :laugh: .
> 
> *The bokeh comment was a nod to all those who are hung up on the bokeh from certain lenses. Stupid really - mind the bokeh from my 3'5cm Elmar is really quite good……… :laugh: .*
> 
> *I wouldn't use an SLR either any more, so we agree there.*


 The problems of working from home - getting started!

Hi Paul, thanks for joining in.

Before I go down to the office to sort out a spreadsheet I'll address just one of your points - *"A good digital camera would probably cost the same as an SLR camera repair"*.

Very true, but a) why limit yourself to SLRs, and b) why pay someone else to do a job which could probably be done by yourself, which is also part of the attraction - just ask the guys on here who do their own watch maintenance.

Example - The Olympus Trip. A basic point-and-shoot, but with zone focussing, and a solar-powered exposure meter. And very good glass. They are plentiful (around 8 million were made) and you can buy them for very little but they all need refurbished. This consists of taking off the top cover and cleaning the viewfinder, then taking the lens off and re-greasing the focus and exposure rings. The light baffles will need replaced every twenty years - you can buy them ready-cut on the bay for around £4.00. A film costs around £3.00. Take your time and don't fire off shots like a machine gun. Take it in to be developed. Ge excited. Wait for your film to come back. With a CD it should cost around £7.00 or so.

In ten years time the camera will still be going strong. If you are anything like me the digital camera you bought at the same time will be toast. You also have negs and CDs with your pics on.

I take your point about SLRs though, but there are plenty out there which only need their light baffles replaced (the black foam degrades over 20 years or so and renders a perfectly good camera unusable. An easy fix!


----------



## Silver Hawk

err....I do a some watch maintenance.... artytime:

http://electric-watches.co.uk/


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Damn! Mixed up a quote and reply! Bear with me guys, I'm getting the hang of it slowly……….

Aroma, you bought a great camera, but change your light seals. then find someone who will process your film for you at a reasonable price, and get a CD with your negs.



Silver Hawk said:


> err....I do a some watch maintenance.... artytime:
> 
> http://electric-watches.co.uk/


 Enjoy it?

Of course you do - I checked your website earlier this week - very nice too :notworthy:

You can see my point though?


----------



## richy176

I have an Olympus OM2 and a Nikon F3 sat in the cupboard. Had some great shots with both but would not use film now.

The advantages I see with digital are then number of shots you can take without changing film; ability to change `film' speed without actually changing film; instant check to see if you got the shot; easy to share shots via social media etc.

Partly I think it depends on what you are doing with the camera. My youngest son was very involved in kart racing and I used to borrow a Nikon D700 with good telephoto lens. It was so easy to get good action shots and load them onto the laptop between races. Other drivers used to come round with their memory sticks to get copies (they could then search for the ones with them featured). I don't see how this would have been possible with film.

Having said this, I would have to add that it is also a case of having the right digital for the photography you are interested in.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

richy176 said:


> I have an Olympus OM2 and a Nikon F3 sat in the cupboard. Had some great shots with both but would not use film now.
> 
> The advantages I see with digital are then number of shots you can take without changing film; ability to change `film' speed without actually changing film; instant check to see if you got the shot; easy to share shots via social media etc.
> 
> Partly I think it depends on what you are doing with the camera. My youngest son was very involved in kart racing and I used to borrow a Nikon D700 with good telephoto lens. It was so easy to get good action shots and load them onto the laptop between races. Other drivers used to come round with their memory sticks to get copies (they could then search for the ones with them featured). I don't see how this would have been possible with film.
> 
> Having said this, I would have to add that it is also a case of having the right digital for the photography you are interested in.


 But the cameras still work (or will once you change the light baffles!), and are still capable of good results. And probably will be for many years to come.

I concede that for certain tasks digital is better. I use it myself on the kayak, and for work, where I need instant results. But I'm under no illusions - my digi camera is a throw-away, maybe not for a year or two, but it is a disposable, nevertheless, as are most of the pics.


----------



## hughlle

Digital, because it is always in my pocket anyway. I rarely ever have the desire to carry around a standalone camera. Phones are perfectly capable these days


----------



## dobra

Must say, it's nice to go out with the Rollei TLR, tripod and meter. No batteries to fail.......


----------



## William_Wilson

Silver Hawk said:


> In a word...digital.
> 
> My first "serious" camera was a Ricoh Super Shot 2.4; at some point, I had an Olympus 35mm half frame camera and my first SLR was a Praktica. And then I bought the newly introduced Canon AE-1 --- had to travel from Sheffield to Manchester to buy it; fab camera although I was very jealous of my boss's Olympus OM-2.


 They had Prakticas at my secondary school. After I quit school I purchased a Praktica as my first 35mm. A couple of years after that I picked up a Canon A-1. In my opinion, The A-1 was the perfect automatic camera during the period leading up to autofocus.

As for the topic... The limited supply of specialty films and equipment compared to the myriad of digital benefits make the decision fairly simple. Speaking generally, the use of film is a purposeful choice rather than a necessity.

Later,
William


----------



## xellos99

Depends what digital your talking about. Very cheap digital is not very good but I love my Canon 6d and 40mm pancake lens.

Its quite small, light ( enough ) and can take pictures in moonlight.

And there not disposable in a couple of years, I have a 2008 40d still very good camera.


----------



## William_Wilson

xellos99 said:


> Depends what digital your talking about. Very cheap digital is not very good but I love my Canon 6d and 40mm pancake lens.
> 
> Its quite small, light ( enough ) and can take pictures in moonlight.
> 
> And there not disposable in a couple of years, I have a 2008 40d still very good camera.


 Another consideration with digital interchangeable lens cameras is the fact that the camera may become unrepairable, but the system lenses move to the next camera.

Later,
William


----------



## Nobbythesheep

xellos99 said:


> Depends what digital your talking about. Very cheap digital is not very good but I love my Canon 6d and 40mm pancake lens.
> 
> Its quite small, light ( enough ) and can take pictures in moonlight.
> 
> And there not disposable in a couple of years, I have a 2008 40d still very good camera.


 8 years old - not bad.

My Leica 111c is 75 years old and going strong! The cheapie Trips are usually 25/30 years old.

In defence of the cheapie digi - that's what I use. good for what I need it for, but utterly soulless.










I wouldn't want to take this with a good film camera - digi is excellent for wet stuff…….


----------



## hughlle

You should offer the 111c up for a forum fundraiser. Show of good will, as a thanks for access to the sales section, it makes sense


----------



## gimli

hughlle said:


> You should offer the 111c up for a forum fundraiser. Show of good will, as a thanks for access to the sales section, it makes sense












Misspelled you're. Meme off the net.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

hughlle said:


> You should offer the 111c up for a forum fundraiser. Show of good will, as a thanks for access to the sales section, it makes sense


 :biggrin:


----------



## xellos99

I know what you mean about digital has no soul but I still like the pictures ii can make. I like highly colourful and vivid photos and with a bit of a tweak can get what I like very quickly.


----------



## William_Wilson

xellos99 said:


> I know what you mean about digital has no soul but I still like the pictures ii can make. I like highly colourful and vivid photos and with a bit of a tweak can get what I like very quickly.


 There used to be a whole range of films that provided saturation for various situations, not so much these days.

Oh, one more thing... Nothing runs like a Deere. :laugh:

Later,
William


----------



## Nobbythesheep

hughlle said:


> You should offer the 111c up for a forum fundraiser. Show of good will, as a thanks for access to the sales section, it makes sense


 :biggrin:

Now* that's* what I'm talkin' about!










The pic in the background was taken with the old pre-1950 Elmar about ten years ago.


----------



## jizzle

Film is not dead!


----------



## William_Wilson

jizzle said:


> Film is not dead!


 That is true, and in fact it may never die, but the films that were so great were phased out years ago when they became unprofitable.

Later,
William


----------



## Silver Hawk

I've been thinking about this topic ... :wacko: ...and the same type of question applies to so many different subjects.

I'd love to own and use a fountain pen, but it's not going happen purely from a convenience point of view. Although in this case, the output from a fountain pen is a clear winner over any ballpoint pen or roller ball etc

I'd love to have all those LPs that I used to own, but having ripped all my CDs to mp3s only a few months ago, all my music is now a collection of anonymous files backup in a Cloud. No artwork or sleeve covers to hold. But once again, convenience rules.

But in other areas of my life, things are less clear. I love wood burners although even a modern one is still less convenient than a ghastly 1960's modern gas / electric fire. I have a couple of 1930s motorcycles: they leak oil, give me back ache, always break down (usually when it is raining), and they do not always get me from A to B as they were originally intended. Then surely in the analogous argument "Car, or old motorbike........?", car would win, but it doesn't.

<rant over>


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Silver Hawk said:


> I've been thinking about this topic ... :wacko: ...and the same type of question applies to so many different subjects.
> 
> I'd love to own and use a fountain pen, but it's not going happen purely from a convenience point of view. Although in this case, the output from a fountain pen is a clear winner over any ballpoint pen or roller ball etc
> 
> I'd love to have all those LPs that I used to own, but having ripped all my CDs to mp3s only a few months ago, all my music is now a collection of anonymous files backup in a Cloud. No artwork or sleeve covers to hold. But once again, convenience rules.
> 
> But in other areas of my life, things are less clear. I love wood burners although even a modern one is still less convenient than a ghastly 1960's modern gas / electric fire. I have a couple of 1930s motorcycles: they leak oil, give me back ache, always break down (usually when it is raining), and they do not always get me from A to B as they were originally intended. Then surely in the analogous argument "Car, or old motorbike........?", car would win, but it doesn't.
> 
> <rant over>


 Well put. I recognise that it's an illogical argument, because clearly digital is much better than film for some applications.

I just think film is better overall  . And I like the sound of those bikes too………..


----------



## Silver Hawk

Nobbythesheep said:


> I just think film is better overall  .


 Ah, I guess we'll have to disagree on that then. If I could have only one of each subjects / formats I mentioned, it would have to be:



Digital camera


Ballpoint pen


MP3 music


Gas fire


Car


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Silver Hawk said:


> Ah, I guess we'll have to disagree on that then. If I could have only one of each subjects / formats I mentioned, it would have to be:
> 
> 
> 
> Digital camera
> 
> 
> Ballpoint pen
> 
> 
> MP3 music
> 
> 
> Gas fire
> 
> 
> Car


 You forget that:

a) this is the internet, and therefore largely unreal, and b) in the real world you need stuff with soul around you.

In the make-believe internet'y world, with only one choice I would have:



Film camera with plenty of film and Boots just down the road.


Ballpoint pen.


Radio, Macbook, and CD's.


Central heating.


Car.


And no television whatsoever. :thumbsup:


----------



## Silver Hawk

Nobbythesheep said:


> You forget that:
> 
> a) this is the internet, and therefore largely unreal, and b) in the real world you need stuff with soul around you.
> 
> In the make-believe internet'y world, with only one choice I would have:
> 
> 
> 
> Film camera with plenty of film and Boots just down the road.
> 
> 
> Ballpoint pen.
> 
> 
> Radio, Macbook, and CD's.
> 
> 
> Central heating.
> 
> 
> Car.
> 
> 
> And no television whatsoever. :thumbsup:


 You're cheating...as people do on the internet :tongue: . You're added items that were not mentioned in my previous list: Boots, computers, central heating.


----------



## Nobbythesheep

Silver Hawk said:


> You're cheating...as people do on the internet :tongue: . You're added items that were not mentioned in my previous list: Boots, computers, central heating.


 Sorry.

Damn! Ok then (mumble) - digital camera, but can I keep my 111c as a paperweight until Boots opens please? artytime:

Woodburner defo.

What happens when the digi turns up it's toes?


----------



## mach 0.0013137

I have quite a large collection of old film cameras dating back to the 1930s including Leicas & Contax plus the wonderfully eccentric English made Periflex but I haven`t used any of them in the years since I became a vegetarian due to the gelatin in the film base. Oh & please don`t bother with the old " but you`re not supposed to eat it" line, I`ve heard it all before :wacko: :laugh:


----------



## dobra

Old Olympus C-7070 with pro glass, RAW and spot. Bought it from chap who hated the convoluted menu system. Produces acceptable images, the one below taken hand held at 0700 this morning on the Wight.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/Olympus-Camedia-C-7070-review










Mike


----------



## dobra

Tools of the Trade










mike


----------

