Full Frame Digital or a "Full Frame" Film Rangefinder

[mikeb380]

Originally Posted by Zenjitsuman

While I love film whether in a RF like my M4 or in my F3hp or F100 or LX, I have to vote for digital. I hope someone will make an affordable DRF soon but digital makes financial sense and allows low light shots even a RF cannot get.

Instant feedback of digital is a great tool for being a better photographer and RAW saves and allows improvement of photos that only a darkroom master could come close to.

Gee, I don't understand your statement. I used my Canon RF with KODAK 2475 film shooting in NY bars and way-way-way off Broadway shows and Village poetry readings, etc and got photos no digital could ever get. With the high noise level of digitals and the poor rendition in B&W there is no way any meaningful low light ( Available light?) shots can be made with a digital camera unless you are in a situation where any film would fail due to reciprocity failure although in my over 50 years I've never encountered such. Sounds to me more like a lack of knowledge than an equipment problem. Best hit the books.

As to earning money with a camera(s) I did so for over 40 years before even considering a digital. The only reason for me to use digital now is that I have a small apartment and very little room for a darkroom. That tied to my lesser income mandates a slow gathering of darkroom equipment so I can get the most from film. I don't believe in sending film to a lab as any work done there is a compromise at best.

I also find that the digital cameras are too light. I find that a Canon F1 with motor drive is perfect for hand holding a 300mm lens. The weight adds stabilization. my EOS 350D is so light that a 200 is pretty iffy for hand holding. I now carry a unipod on my walker to help in that area but it is pretty clumsy for walk around. Most subjects don't stand still while you set up a pod. They're too impatient, I guess.

I just "upgraded" my digital camera to gain more MP and boy was that a mistake! I gave my old Canon 300D to my son-in-law and got the 350D (XT) and is it ever a sorry performer. it is noisy at even ASA 400 and above that is useless. I think I'll ask my SIL to trade cameras with me. Who says "new technology" is progress? All the manufacturers want is to sell any junk they can. I'll stick to my film cameras, especially the Zorkiis, the Canon F1 and the Kiev 88. I'd have done better to put the money for the digital into darkroom equipment. Anyone got a 6X7 enlarger they want to ship out? I have a 4X5 view camera but no room for that large an enlarger.

BTW, I am using a 250mm Jupiter lens from my Kiev on my Digital camera as well as a 200mm pentax lens both of which I can also use on my F1. I bought an adapter to use my FD lenses on the Digital but the adapter was a ripoff. The Jupiter 250 gives me an equivalent to a 560mm lens but boy is it heavy! I'm going to train my grandson to carry it for me. I can rest it on his head with a sandbag for shooting.

Michael

[Frankie]

My way of looking at this subject can be contentious:

The digital camera price premium—a subject of much debate—is really just pre-paying for the recurring film/processing costs up front. If you take pictures—rather than just talking about taking pictures—you must face it, sooner or later.

Whether a SLR or RF depends on what you intend to do, or must do. We all know RF cannot support long lenses—so tout wide-angles? We all know SLR shutters are louder, so some celebrate the soft Leica “clop”? The truth is, if you were a sports photographer, you use a Nikon or Canon, or you are not getting much pay. You wouldn’t care about the shutter noise either.

Some like to think RF users are the poets of photographers. I agree the muse or spontaneity of a poet can be spoiled by camera bulk and weight. If I had a “camera bearer”, I wouldn’t care either…let the poetry flow.

Film v. digital is another subject of much debate. Just remember, film had a couple centuries of development, digital only a decade. However, we do have a choice…going all the way back to char coals, cave man style.

Digital requires computer/software for further artful processing, instead of a dark room. So, how many have dark rooms? A computer is household appliance these days, and costs far less…and needing only desk space. Learning to use a computer is not more difficult than learning darkroom operations and techniques…at least you can see what you are doing, in real-time.

Better yet, bracket (no film/processing costs, remember?) or re-learn how to do a straight shot…thus a straight print, with no need for further processing. Keep the best and delete the rest, RAW, JPEG or whatever had no real meaning anymore.

A new medium begets new display technology. I have recently downloaded a couple D3 samples and examined it carefully on my 22” 1,680 x 1,050 LCD screen. The image quality is impressive…far better than lousy prints I mostly see. And, who has made a 24” x 36” print lately?

[And one day soon, you will have large 1,080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens at home. Imagine a revolving gallery of your prized pictures while you are not watching HDTV.]

What do you care if the chip size is DX or FX? Who says the 24 x 36mm format had to be the standard forever? It was a make-do compromise of surplus movie stock to begin with, remember?

I believe the Nikon FX/EXSPEED image quality had brought the subject to a head. If a DSLR has been achieved, why not a DRF? We all know…deep down…the M8 was a disappointment fringing on insult. If that was all Solms can do then someone should kick its ass, it’s about time. By Photokina ‘08, history might just repeat itself.

Kodak had a painful transition from film to digital while many others simply waiting to die. Kodak’s new slogan should well be:

“You push the button…we [and others] have already done the rest.”

Take pictures.

[ederek]

"OR" questions can be interesting... maybe there's a way around this one....

Already had a 5d and wouldn't give it up, so picked up a Kiev for a song. Hello manual. Hadn't used film in 8 years. Gossen DigiSix to help with exposures.... Uh oh, the Kiev is having mechanical problems! Hhmm, what to do? Adjust the g.a.s.!

So, it was an 85 1.2L for the 5d, OR an M4, 50 Summicron, 135 Elmarit and a Microtek M1 Scanner.

Well, the M4 is on its way!

To feed the scanner, will need to add a setup for developing B&W film. This shouldn't cost much more than a couple filters for that 85 would have. Wanted a film scanner anyway, and to Ruben's point, the rest of the digital darkroom is common for both systems.

Looking forward to the best of both worlds...

[blazeicehockey]

A full frame DSLR with the capability of a D700 but with the size of an OM4 please, and with fast <f2 glass available between 15 and 90mm

[JonasYip]

I have both poll options, but I voted FF DSLR since I rarely use any of my film RF bodies since going (non-FF) digital RF.

(I purposely avoided reading the rest of the responses because I can only assume it quickly devolved into the same old same-old: digital/film, RF/SLR, apples/oranges...)

EDIT: Someone else probably said this, but if the other option was FF digital RF instead of film then my answer would be RF.

[urban_alchemist]

MP and full-frame digital M...

Why discriminate?

[MaxElmar]

Originally Posted by tedwin

For work 99% digital, FF would be a preference for image quality, high ISO & depth of field. But being Nikon user comes with the added expense of a lens change (17-55 & 12-24 being my usual choice, both DX) So stuck with DX for the time being.

For personal 100% film, rangefinder. Just opening the flap on my DSLR bag switches my brain on, I can use my ZI brain off. Which is why I like it.

So I would have to tick both boxes.

Man I hate to "Me too" - but - Same here. Not so much "brain off," but different, more relaxed part of "brain on" with Bessa.....

Oh, and since I'm a Nikon guy from the heyday of film, no lens issues with FF (FX in Nikon speak) for me.

[stuken]

Until digital enlargers become more commonplace, I will shoot film.

[sojournerphoto]

I voted FF digital - I am fortunate, but a 5D/1Ds3 is more versatile than an film RF. But I love using the RF and so do that as well. It would be nice to split it work/pleasure, but really it's more need/mood.

Mike

[Socke]

Originally Posted by photogdave

I'll never understand the "digital makes financial sense" argument.
Canon 10D in 2003: $2500
Canon 40D in 2008: $1200
Trade in value of 10D on 40D: $200 (if you're lucky!)
Leica M4 from 1971 still going strong today: Priceless!

Just having a little fun folks. Don't take it seriously!

Hm, Canon D60 2400 Euro in April 2002 and now in the hands of my nephews. Inbetween I shot some 60.000 frames.
Some 5500 rolls C41 incl. development are around 33.000 Euro, good deal as far as I'm concerned :-)

Edit:
My math has left me! It's only some 1700 rolls and 5100 Euros
Still a good deal

[narsuitus]

Since I don’t need another film rangefinder, I would select a full-frame digital like the Nikon D3, Nikon D700, Hasselblad, or the rumored Fuji S6.

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

By "FF" you do mean "full-frame", right?

Yes,
Another question? With Digital you have less tonal range than print film. Digital seems more like shooting slides. But then you have RAW which allows one to open the range. Problem is then I am not a photographer, I am a computer person. With film, the development is more forgiving, but requires physically riding my bike to Costco, etc. (actually a good thing). other thoughts?

[Tuolumne]

I shoot lots of slide film. I used to shoot it almost exclusively in the film era (80s and '90s). So, the dynamic range of digital is not a big issue with me. I have lots of film cameras already, so I don't need another. I'm toying with the idea of getting a D700. Also toying with the idea of getting an M8 now. Can't decide. So, I didn't vote. I'm also toying with the idea of leaving well enough alone. I love my R-D1. Why mess things up with another girl friend?

/T

[sojournerphoto]

I'm really not convinced that digital has that much less dynamic range than film. But then digital (liek film) is a very variable feast. My daughters G7 shoots jpeg only and hasn't much dynamic range really. My 5D and 1Ds3 both have very high dynamic range in comparison - but I shoot raw as a matter of course and understand how to expose with those cameras. Both far exceed any slide film I've ever used and in practical terms don't seem that different and certainly not worse than colour negative film. B&W may offer a little more in the right ircumstances though - I've not really put that to the test.

(With no intent of starying a war - I use both)

Mike

[Darren Abate]

Both. I have both, and I use both for the applications that each of them is best-suited. They are two totally different styles.

Since I shoot professional editorial though, what I would REALLY like to have is a full-frame digital version of my Zeiss Ikon. Now THAT I'd pay good money for, as I could use it on assignment, and it would nicely replace my aging R-D1.

[italy74]

Hi
I voted for the rangefinder because it's a completely different way of shooting.
Owning a Zeiss Ikon and a 35 F/2 would be really a dream. I realized it was better the 35 after a short street test in Modena.
However, I'd need also an excellent FF DSLR to pair with my F6 and don't bother on two sets of lenses.
Rather, I wonder why the OP didn't included also a FF DRF in the options...

[Gaspar]

This is a great question. I have been toying with the idea of buying a second hand Canon 5D now that they are obsolete but despite it having fantastic image quality it does not give me what film gives me which is the ability to use different "sensors" whenever I please. With film I have so many different films to choose from and each has a different "fingerprint" with a digital you are stuck with one size fits all.

[charjohncarter]

I like your attitude, Gaspar.

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by kshapero

Simple question: Money aside for now, would you rather have a Full frame Digital Camera, like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D or would you rather have a quality Film Rangefinder like a Leica, ZI or its ilk?

I do have Leica and ZI film cameras, and I would rather shoot with them than with one of the large DSLRs you mention. But if the choice were a full-frame digital rangefinder (even if a little physically larger than my Leica M), then I would rather have that. I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.

What I really wanted this year was a way to get a second digital M body for less than the price of a second M8. Leica perhaps knows what it's doing bringing out the new mammoth S-2, but I was hoping their photokina surprise would be a Panasonic-built body that took M lenses.

Most of my prints on the walls here are from film images, but really--film is just getting to be more and more of a hassle

[jwhitley]

As someone who started with digital but is getting increasingly into film (*cough* can't wait for the field camera to arrive *cough*), I'll go with the film camera option. Apparently I'm a sucker for process.. but the results are fantastic as well. The top-end DSLRs are outstanding tools as well, but film rocks for my current needs. Interestingly, I felt that my early learning curve was greatly aided by digital due to the instant feedback cycles. But as I progress, film and wet darkroom work is forcing me to improve my skills further and paying dividends for the time invested. Even when working with digital, film work has substantially improved my photography.

Taking "full frame" film camera to mean 35mm.. a Zeiss Ikon would fit the bill perfectly. But I'm really aiming for the Fuji/Voigtländer folder right now.

[sniki]

I do vote FF film camera, nevertheless I could indulge myself with a FF digital rangefinder - when and if any.

sniki

[snip]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

Now, if the "new 5D" (due "any day now") is worthwhile...

It is very nice indeed, I have fondled a pre prod model and can assure you it is teh bomb

I have the original 5D and use it sometimes, it makes me feel empty inside.
Film makes me happy.

//Jan

[snip]

Originally Posted by Tom Diaz

I'm not sure my M lenses have enough coverage to cover a full-frame sensor even on a larger camera body, but I am sure someone will chime in and tell me.

Your M lenses cover a 35mm film frame yes? A "full frame" digital sensor is the same size as a 35mm film frame, so to answer your question, yes it would fill a "full frame" digital sensor, it would not work with larger sensors such as the one found in the S2

//Jan

[jody36]

I would like to have an M7 period. Only camera left I want. I will not waste money by paying those high prices for a digital. I love my digital camera but didnt pay much for it. just a user here and dont need the expense of big camera cause Im getting no return.