I don't think film is quite dead yet - not whilst you have to pay
$1,000s for digital SLRs that will give you comparable results to what
a film SLR can offer for a fraction of the price. Maybe a few years
down the road. Personally I am quite happy to continue with film until
full frame DSLRs are at an affordable price and I can carry my lens
collection over.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 10:39, keller.schaefer wrote:
I'll try to avoid the general opinion and will limit this to my
personal
experience...
I do not photograph for a living - but I do take photographs almost
every day.
Over the years I have acquired some ;-) cameras with a variety of film
formats
(including a Minox and a Plaubel 4x5).
I use many of them - not at random, but I often pick a different
camera for the
next film, sometimes even knowing that it might give 'inferior'
results.
Anyway, I just like it that way.
What I have found since I bought the *ist D (my second digital camera)
last
October, is that I hardly use *medium format* any more. I didn't
expect that
(even though I sold a 40mm Distagon to fund the *ist D...) but my 35mm
usage
has not changed that much - I still do slides and happily continue to
put
negative film into a Spotmatic or a Rollei 35 or whatever, every now
and then.
As for less (almost no) medium format film use, I dont really know why
this is
so. One idea is that it is so *easy* to produce good quality prints
with
digital. True, you can match that quality with 35mm film, but
everything needs
to be right : The right film, the right lens, the right framing the
right
exposure, the right lab...
I had always found it *easier* to produce a really good 12x18'' print
from
medium format as it has more reserves, but now digital has made this
even
simpler.
Sven
Zitat von Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I realize this list has a number of clairvoyants and unlicensed
psychologists (hahaa), but I'm still interested in a general opinion.
I have planned to buy a 67II for a number of years. I am now trying
to
determine the practicality of that course.
What if in five years most photography is being done digitally as
opposed to
film? What if it's impractical for amateurs, even pros, to use MF/LF
photography for any but the most eliteist of applications?
Even considering the potential quality of MF over 135, it seems
history may
tell us that potential quality is not the sole factor in longevity and
success. Both 620 and 828 saw their demise, even though they were a
larger
format than 135. If major players (camera and film manufacturers)
are/were
to move away from 135 film, how long is it until they move away from
larger
film formats which currently represent a smaller portion of the
market than
135?
For a fraction of the price of the price of a decent/complete MF
system,
there are other things... hot tub, SCT telescope for
astrophotography... a
surgery my wife has always wanted...
I'm curious, what people think... is it possibly throwing money down
the
drain to 'invest' in additional film equipment? I'm not making a
case for
this, just wondering. The world is currently changing at a faster
pace than
most imagined was possible.
Tom C.
