PDA

View Full Version : Old fashioned SLRs


silverwolf
05-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Ever since I left high school years ago I always wanted to get a SLR camera, and finally, 3 years later, I got mine from a pawn shop. Is there anyone out there who still uses non digital SLRs cameras and maybe even brings them to conventions? Or am I the only one left armed with a big tank?

staereo
05-12-2006, 07:16 PM
hehe, today digital has removed the need or desire for chemical based exposing. Todays image sensors pick up a broader range of light, and record truer (often to a fault) than chemicals.

Add to this the fact that the digital workflow is faster, cheaper, and easier, and you end up understanding why film has gone the way of the wind.

Luckily, there are enough people out there still that shoot it for nostalgia and hobby, that it retains following enough to not be thrown to the curb yet.

Lets hope, for nostalgia's sake, that film doesnt go away. Unfortately, the corporations are starting to transfer their focus and they are discontinuing many of their film based products, specifically for the darkroom.

Theres always the nice mystery of double exposing, the darkroom, and just plain not knowing what you have for product until you get your pictures back from the printers.

I have a manual film SLR from the 70s. A minolta. Good stuff.

I never end up using it anymore. My digital workflow just fits easier into my schedule.

Glad to see you enjoying what is fast becoming a medium of yesterday.

Bruce

Jun_Kazama
05-12-2006, 11:08 PM
I've got an old manual, an Asashi Pentax K1000. This camera is my baby, I <3 it and bring to every con. I actually like the fact that its manual. The only downside is that its kinda heavy.
I'd like to get a DSLR eventually but that probably wont be for a long time, even so I'd still probably prefer my pentax.

jtnishi
05-13-2006, 12:30 AM
It's been a while. Admittedly, getting a DSLR was about the fastest way to convince me to leave my dad's film camera at home. But, I'll admit I sort of miss the control that comes from handling a solid heft piece of metal and plastic (mostly metal). And film SLRs are so cheap, too! If I didn't have a DSLR, I'd probably still be bringing a film SLR to conventions just because I tend to like shots from them better than I like shots from, say, an average P&S digital camera, once proper care is taken.

I'm with Bruce. I seriously wish the tech wouldn't die. Realistically, it'll end up relegated to the hobbyists, but there are some things that should stay around. There are some great films out there that are just difficult to impossible to replicate digitally.

That said, I hope it gets a little more relegated, just enough to perhaps knock the price down on some decent medium-format equipment down to the level of reasonable, but not so rare as to start commanding a collector's premium :D

TomodachiFriend
05-13-2006, 04:43 AM
Before digital cameras, I used to shoot film... :D

I kept the old cameras and still use them every now and then. I like the feel and viewfinders of those cameras from the early 80's. Even many of the current pro cameras can't compare to those old ones when it comes to viewfinders.

I've also been comteplating some medium format cameras in the recent month. But I'd have to buy a good scanner with it. But after having checked the prices, it's hard not to want a new DSLR instead.

staereo
05-13-2006, 04:47 AM
mmmmmm medium format.....

Not long ago I would have made a case relating digital backs to a sustained market for medium format cameras. But now that every medium format camera manufacturer, and their brother, has a permanently integrated digital back into a specialized body, ie h2d, m. ZD, etc, I have to agree comletely with Jason, that we might actually see a drop in medium format cost.

Then the question will be, digital back or seperate med format digital camera. hmmmmmms.

Lets face it, med format digital isnt something I need to worry about until some magazines ask for it, and have worthwhile enough projects to justify the expense.

Till then, the best Ill do is rent.

..........

Now I want to cry. Oh well, seems that an interest in photography automatically also gives you an interest at drooling at expensive equipment. Always planning where your next free money is going to be spent, and always making excuses in your head as to why that expensive purchase is crucial to a project that you would like to complete.

Gotta love it.

Bruce

Efecss
05-13-2006, 09:14 PM
I have my Pentax SLR, and hope never to change it. I like the "unknown" factor in all of it. WHile I set up my camera to get the most effective use of the flash and sunlight. Still, the "Did I do it right" part still gives me a thrill.

I know I will go to digital one day, but still keep my film camera. I doubt that film will got he way of the hobbyist. Its kind of like the blacksmith, or the shoe coblers. They're still around. There are some aspects of digital picture taking which will never surpass film. And some things of film which will never surpass digital. Right now, it's a give and take.

In a way, I feel that digital photography will become the new email..... Some observers of culture see that email has taken away the art of letterwritting to a vast degree. Making it sooo easey to jott down a few sentences then shoot it off, saying nothing. And digital photography may come to that. Where you can waste a whole memory card, and never get "the picture" that you so desired.

This is my basic philosophy on the matter. Maybe I'll put this up in a thread to hear other opinions.

jtnishi
05-14-2006, 12:39 AM
I doubt that film will got he way of the hobbyist. Its kind of like the blacksmith, or the shoe coblers. They're still around. There are some aspects of digital picture taking which will never surpass film. And some things of film which will never surpass digital. Right now, it's a give and take.
Well, realisticially, film is close to the realm of hobbyist only already. It's not dead (ie: not quite the way of the dodo), and there's still just enough usage of film to consider it not relegated to hobbyists yet. But right now, many professionals and consumers are making the switch over to digital. At this point, the pragmatics of digital make it more desirable for the average consumer than film. Qualities of film be damned. The current generation of youth will probably signal the end of film as anything but a hobbyist fetish.

The growth of the digital age and the death of film are inextricably linked. Probably the consumers mostly keeping film alive are those who grew up in an age before computers, or in families where a computer might still be considered a luxury, rather than an essential. The rest, are hobbyists, people who want to learn the old tech. For most practical matters upon which people want to take a picture, digital is more than sufficient, and that's what's going to drive things.

Of course, to a certain extent, as long as film is still readily available, it's a perfectly fine age to be in film SLR photography. I'm tempted to drop into medium format lomography, because that's about the only realm where I can actually afford a medium format camera (medium format helgas are dirt cheap, but that's because they're helgas XD). Or maybe I'll get lucky, run into some random swap meet where some unknowledgible person is selling a father's or grandfather's old medium format equipment, without knowing it's value to a hobbyist photographer, and jump into medium format that way.

As a consumer format, film is doomed. As a hobbyist format, though, hopefully it'll still thrive.

TomodachiFriend
05-14-2006, 03:47 AM
It's true that film photography is picking up steam among habbyists despite it's decline. I totally agree with Efecss when he compares digital photography with e-mails. Just look at how people take pictures and take some time to browse through flickr. Chimping around instead of using your eyes and brain is good enough for static subjects or ones which you have control over; but when that magic moment occurs, you only have one shot at making it right. Digital photography has brought many bad habits and they don't help when you want to constantly make good pictures out of fleeting moments. I know digital photography has had some bad influence on me.

Btw, if you want cheap but decent (hence not as cheap as Holga) medium format cameras, you should look at Seagull's.

staereo
05-14-2006, 06:22 AM
Well, realisticially, film is close to the realm of hobbyist only already.................................As a consumer format, film is doomed. As a hobbyist format, though, hopefully it'll still thrive.

Amen, brother! Couldn't have said it better!

Also, as a side, I feel the need to remind people that with dSLRs, the only difference you're essentially dealing with is that your medium is an image sensor and processors instead of a chemical reaction. And unless your'e nostalgic about loading your camera, it's not a whole lot different during the picture taking process.

You can't chimp too well with a dSLR, because you only get an image AFTER your image is recorded. Why? Because just like a film SLR, you're mirror is in the way of the image sensor. In fact, canon dSLRs come with a cap for the viewfinder. This is because just like in film photography, you can have light enter the body via the prism.

When I write an email, a touch of personality is lost in the recording. This is because you aren't getting my writing. And my handwriting is a piece of my character. So to say that digital photography is the email of letter writing, I think it may be a little drastic.

I feel that digital photography is no worse at capturing emotion than film. Sure, its a different method, but one could easily talk about slide film being a different format too.

The fact of the matter is, you are limited in no way by digital anymore. There is nothing that film can accomplish, that you cannot achieve the same goal with digital. Except, digital will be faster, cheaper, and smoother.

Don't get me wrong, I was one of the biggest proponents to film. I was a digital skeptic and really took slowly to the digital world. It's just evolution. And much like in music, when a new style emerges, be it rock, disco, rap, techno, and so on; there WILL be those that will reminisce the days of THEIR music. About how new music isn't really music, and about how it is lacking from the music they knew in their day.

But alas, music will change, style will change, technology too, will change. Doesn't mean its inferior, lacking, or less genuine. It's just new. Different. People have a hard time with change, specifically when it is a change in something they hold dear.

Theres people that chimp, but theres people that did the equivalant with disposables, just as there will be people in sports arenas, 30 rows back taking pictures with their on-camera flash firing.

Some people dont invest themselves in photography the way others do. And thats ok.

Film is fast leaving the profession of photography. As hobbyists we can hope it stays available, even in limited form, for our own nostalgia in the art.

Bruce

Drngd Kreationz
05-14-2006, 07:31 AM
I still toss some good ol fashioned Black and white in my x-700 every now and then. but I mainly shoot digital now

TomodachiFriend
05-14-2006, 04:43 PM
You can't chimp too well with a dSLR, because you only get an image AFTER your image is recorded. Why? Because just like a film SLR, you're mirror is in the way of the image sensor. In fact, canon dSLRs come with a cap for the viewfinder. This is because just like in film photography, you can have light enter the body via the prism.

Well, my definition of "chimping" isn't limited to doing adjustments with live preview. :)

ZiggyB
05-14-2006, 04:49 PM
Drngd Kreationz: Hahahaha, I have to say your avatar is very appropirate for this forum. :D

staereo
05-14-2006, 05:12 PM
Well, my definition of "chimping" isn't limited to doing adjustments with live preview. :)

Yeah, I was thinking chimping also as taking a shot, checking it, taking a shot, checking it.

The reason I don't find this feasable on a dSLR is because no model or scene will happily sit around for you to take a shot and check to see how it looks each time.....

You know?

Bruce

gmontem
05-15-2006, 05:07 AM
I imagine a digital version of Canon's EOS RS and RT that used a fixed pellicle mirror would be a chimper's dream come true! :toothy:

staereo
05-15-2006, 06:07 AM
I imagine a digital version of Canon's EOS RS and RT that used a fixed pellicle mirror would be a chimper's dream come true! :toothy:


LOL yeah... since they probably wouldnt ever use the viewfinder anyways. you bet!

quadrain61
05-19-2006, 07:53 PM
For some photographs, I use a Canon Elan II (Film SLR). I used it before I got a Sony F828 or the Nikon D70s at conventions but there was problems with taking hundreds of pictures. Well I'll have to admit the only time I used it for conventions was Nekocon 2003 when I started to go to conventions. I guess digital helps a lot with time and money when taking hundreds or over a thousand pictures.