Jump to content
Corsair

Getting to Know You for April 2019

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

 

No. Film can have a higher dynamic range than a single digital capture (but that can be mitigated with non-moving subjects). Other than that, there is very little that film can do that digital can't, and a quite a lot that digital can do easily that is difficult or impossible with film.

 

As a professional photographer, I don't see the value.

 

Which is not to say that you shouldn't use film if you have a special reason or if you like the darkroom experience or if you just like to play with old tech.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

Up until about 3 years ago I did, but I'm not certain as to availibility of film and getting it processed where I live now. Also about the only pictures I take are mini related, so using the digital one is really all I need. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

No.

 

I had a film camera when I was in high school and college and I never used it much.  I did have a roll of film that was almost completely used by pictures of the sunset, as taken from my dorm floor's balcony.  Never did get that roll developed.  It's probably long gone.

 

I am not passionate about taking pictures, so film holds no appeal for me.  I am much more pragmatic.  I want good pictures but I also don't want to spend hours developing them (or figuring out if anyone around me can develop film these days).

 

My current camera (and, really, the only camera I've owned in the past fifteen years) is a Fujifilm FinePix Z20fd digital point-and-click camera that I bought on sale in, um, 2008?  I've been debating getting a newer, better (and more expensive) camera but I think I need to learn more before making that jump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

 

Have, yes. Use, no. I'm not a big picture taker and most is to share so digital is easier.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Xiwo Xerase said:

I've been debating getting a newer, better (and more expensive) camera but I think I need to learn more before making that jump.

 

The advice I've given before is that unless you can explain exactly how a specific new camera would be better than your current camera, you don't need a new camera. (The same thing applies to lenses or any other camera gear, btw.) For most subjects in most lighting, any modern-ish camera can get you a really nice shot.

 

There are many reasons this might be so (dynamic range, focus speed, burst rate, whatever). I bought (and don't regret buying) a camera so that I would have a button to make changes to ISO and white balance instead of going through a menu and would have a second wheel to change aperture in addition to the wheel for shutter speed. Those were both speed and quality of life enhancements that were worth it for me. But you should be able to explain at least to yourself why your life would be better after spending that $300 - $6000 than it was before.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

 

No, not really. I still have one (an old Canon body), but I don't really USE it. No darkroom facilities, no real interest in building any.

 

I'm rather fond of my digital camera, and my phone takes decent pictures regardless. ;p

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

Do you still use a film camera?

 

No, don't own one.  I've never had much of an interest in taking pictures so if it wasn't for minis I'd almost never use my old digital.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a digital camera in 2003. Never looked back. 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I haven't printed many of the bazillion pictures I've taken... but that's beside the point :lol:

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

 

I plan on getting back into it this year, but alongside digital, and aim for 1-2 rolls a month...  Most likely the "weirder" (or "artsier") ones like the Cinestill offerings.  Odds are it will be some sort of Canon FD based system, for two reasons.  1) Cheap and plentiful, and 2)they play very VERY well with micro four thirds cameras (if you use adapters, of course).  There's also more native Panoramic cameras out there for film - digital pretty much only has ONE camera you can do this with (Sigma Quattro series).  Note I'm referring to natively doing this, and seeing it in your viewfinder, not thinking ahead and cropping in post, or stitching multiple exposures together.

 

1 hour ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

No. Film can have a higher dynamic range than a single digital capture (but that can be mitigated with non-moving subjects). Other than that, there is very little that film can do that digital can't, and a quite a lot that digital can do easily that is difficult or impossible with film.

 

As a professional photographer, I don't see the value.

 

Which is not to say that you shouldn't use film if you have a special reason or if you like the darkroom experience or if you just like to play with old tech.

 

I definitely have to agree, even if I do still love film photography.  Infrared photography for example, is a LOT easier to do with a digital camera, assuming you take care of all of the other factors (hot spots being the biggest one).  There used to be AeroChrome, but that's been disco'd for a while, plus the sensitivity of most film dies off by 700nm or so, which only gives you near-ir photography.  Digital it's simply a case of swapping which filter you have, and most sensors will see upwards of 1000nm or so.

 

1 hour ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

The advice I've given before is that unless you can explain exactly how a specific new camera would be better than your current camera, you don't need a new camera. (The same thing applies to lenses or any other camera gear, btw.) For most subjects in most lighting, any modern-ish camera can get you a really nice shot.

 

There are many reasons this might be so (dynamic range, focus speed, burst rate, whatever). I bought (and don't regret buying) a camera so that I would have a button to make changes to ISO and white balance instead of going through a menu and would have a second wheel to change aperture in addition to the wheel for shutter speed. Those were both speed and quality of life enhancements that were worth it for me. But you should be able to explain at least to yourself why your life would be better after spending that $300 - $6000 than it was before.

Interestingly enough, this is something I've wound up having to go through recently...  I really, REALLY wanted the new Lumix G95, as it has a few things my current camera doesn't, or at least are annoying on...  Significantly lower dark current energy (long exposure noise), to the point where if it's how some rumours are (GX9 sensor and processing) it would be one of the cleanest micro four thirds cameras on a three minute exposure (the GH5S pretty much wins in that department), a slight bump in resolution, and dedicated easily accessed buttons for white balance, ISO, and exposure compensation without having to be a contortionist to use them.  Oh right, and it would use the same batteries as my G85, which is handy.

 

The problem?  it's $1,800 CAD, and they're only offering it as a kit with the Lumix 12-60 lens...  Which I already own.  Europeans got the newly redone 14-140 lens as a kit option, but not North America...  So I did a quick calculation on what that same amount of cash could get me, especially after discovering that the Lumix G9 (a really nice stills camera, albeit larger than the G85) is $200 CAD cheaper than the G95 at the moment...  Yeah, I could get the two lenses I want (PanaLeica 15mm f1.7, and Lumix 42.5mm f1.7) as well as send my G85 in for full spectrum modification, and have money left over to buy a few of KolariVision's filters too (since they'd be needed after modification).  Yeah, uhm...  I'll take the lenses.

 

Still is tempting to get the G9 though, as it would be a lot easier to pursue my nighttime photography passion without having to carry around a tripod...  Only thing is whether or not it's worth that $1,600 CAD to me for the moderate bump up in what the body can do (like actually be able to do long exposures)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the form factor of M4/3, especially for the recreational kinds of photography I do for myself. But I'm so used to a DSLR from both work and personal shots that it would take a lot for me to change at this point.

 

The weight, especially if I'm carrying more than one lens, can be a real pain, and might be the thing that gets me to switch eventually (a D810 with a 24-70 is a bit of a tank), but I really like seeing directly through the glass for serious shots. And the bigger photosites really do help in low light.

 

There's a certain advantage to lots of mass when you're shooting handheld as well. I was able to get about a 35% hit rate on handheld shots at 1/4 - 1/2 second the last time we went to Carlsbad, for instance, which I don't know that I could do with a smaller and lighter camera.

 

Meh, it's all tradeoffs. You pays your money and you takes your choice. ^_^

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wound up choosing micro four thirds almost by accident... Well, a bunch of research thinking I wanted a hybrid camera (I've yet to shoot any video with it, and I've had it a year and a half now), and how I felt weather sealing was an absolute must (I... Get nervous having my camera out when it's raining, so, uhm, yeah...  And have decided if I truly want to get soaking wet and have smeared glasses vision, I'll just pick up an Olympus TG-5, because it laughs at Alberta rain - it might have trouble with sideways omg I can't see anything New Zealand rain though)... 

 

Okay, fine, one of the final determining factors was I only had $1,200 CAD to spend, and lo and behold, that's what the G85 was.  The D7200 I really wanted  at the time was $500 more, and since I was so adamant about the weather sealing I didn't look at the competent, and fully functional D5x00 series cameras... 

 

I do suspect weight plays a factor for me though, since I'm the camera mule, which means at the moment that's two bodies and thee lenses... Eventually will be two bodies and six lenses plus other random stuff (water, and snacks).. ^_^;;;

 

One of these days I wouldn't mind taking a DSLR out for a spin to see how they are (aka what I'd like and such about them in actual usage)...  Doubly so given that all the micro four thirds cameras I really enjoy the feel of have DSLR styled grips to them.  A coworker owns a D7200 paired with the Sigma lens that popular for all in one landscape (18-135 I think?) and while it is noticeably heavier, I'm curious how it feels in use.  He's also pretty much asked if he can give the G9 a whirl if/when I buy one..  I'm still debating.  I do like it, but we are talking a lot of money for what truly is a few more megapixels, better in body image stabilization, the ability to actually take decently long exposures (although bloom can be an issue alongside some hot pixels), and that Nikon style power switch.  Oh, and the hair trigger shutter release button.  Right now it really is lenses versus a new body, and I'd greatly prefer the lenses, doubly so that 15mm PanaLeica.  The 42.5mm is more because I actually wind up shooting a decent amount of photos at what a "standard" portrait lens is good for (my 12-60, upon analyzing, tends to be at either 17-18mm, or 40-42mm when in use... Ignoring use for minis anyways, where I take two more steps back and have it at 60mm to isolate more of the background clutter).  Oh, and the quasi-macro capabilities it has, that sucker can focus in pretty closely. 

 

But yes, definitely have to agree - use what works for oneself, and know the tradeoffs you're accepting with what you choose ^_^

 

Such is also why, despite wanting one, I probably will never get the Olympus 60mm macro lens.  It's an awesome lens, but.. I'm almost never anywhere near that close (and if I was, knowing me I'd make use of the Olympus 40-150 to get close, but not disturb what I making photos of) 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

I did a long time ago, but digital cameras have completely replaced them as the superior technology. There are no longer any film processing areas around anymore, they've changed to digital picture printing centers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Corsair said:

Question for April 19, 2019

 

 

Do you still use a film camera?

 

Not for filming.

 

I do own a small Nikon Camera which I use mainly for taking pics of my minis.

Everything else I film/take pictures off is by smartphone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...