why do you shoot digital... film is so much better!

[Phil V]

Guys, what's better if printing both formats, will film produce sharper results than digital can?

What size film? compared to what digital?

 

[Ivan S]

What size film? compared to what digital?

Lets keep it the same, lets say 6x4 the usual snap shot size that used to fill albums, I am guessing that film wins:shrug:

 

[TheTimeChamber]

Less and less places process. The press no longer shoot film. Wildlife shots are mostly digital or youll be screaming through films. Digital allows higher isos. Digital is a more friendly format. Unless tou have a specific need for what film gives then why use it? No one will use it for general photography due to the downsides stated in this thread.

I think there are about £25 places that do online processing, let alone the large amount of snappsnaps that fill our high streets. The press will use what ever they want, and they are starting to move away from having in house photography teams.

Film is a friendly format, it hasn't talked back to me yet. And do you really use the 25,600 ISO on your camera? Even on my digital, I rarely go above 1600.

We use it because we can. Until you have held a slide film in your hand, you don't quite know the feeling it can give you (similarly, a well shot digital will give you the same, but you cannot hold it). You seem to have some chip on your shoulder about people still using film, or you are trolling for the fun of it.

It is like comparing vinyl and MP3's. Some people cannot see the point at all, whilst others can. It is called freedom of choice, whilst the mass markets have rammed digital down every bodies throats, some people still want to revel in the old ways and experience what it used to be like and not have everything instantly. Why do you think Holga has done so well, or the fact the bands still run limited releases of the Albums on vinyl?

The downsides only seem to come from people who haven't really tried film, and they are relatively minor downsides. If there were major downsides, it wouldn't have been the medium of choice for over 100 years.

 

[skysh4rk]

Less and less places process. The press no longer shoot film. Wildlife shots are mostly digital or youll be screaming through films. Digital allows higher isos. Digital is a more friendly format. Unless tou have a specific need for what film gives then why use it? No one will use it for general photography due to the downsides stated in this thread.

Your primary argument is that digital is more convenient and flexible, a point I wouldn't really argue against, but at what point do aesthetics come into play? Surely this should be a primary consideration when taking a photograph?

Film produces a unique look that is distinct from digital. This film look isn't inherently 'better' than digital, but it has a look I enjoy, along with its other benefits, such as crazy dynamic range and great skin tones, so it's often great for my own general photography.

I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but it would be unfortunate for folks to simply dismiss it without ever considering it, as you get can some great results with it.

 

[barratt1988]

Your primary argument is that digital is more convenient and flexible, a point I wouldn't really argue against, but at what point do aesthetics come into play? Surely this should be a primary consideration when taking a photograph?

Film produces a unique look that is distinct from digital. This film look isn't inherently 'better' than digital, but it has a look I enjoy, along with its other benefits, such as crazy dynamic range and great skin tones, so it's often great for my own general photography.

I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but it would be unfortunate for folks to simply dismiss it without ever considering it, as you can some great results with it.

You see there youve given a specific need for film, the film look and skin tones. Thus it isnt general photography. Very valid point. Again I guess it comes down to pp also? Having a dark room or what sort of things out like to do? Panos are very simple on digital and also you have hdr which im not a great fan of. But that goes a little further than a film cameras dymanic range.

Id love to have a play with film but it would be a rare format but what I no about it it does seem fun.

 

[norters]

Also (I'm sure the LF people will correct me of I'm wrong) for a few hundred quid and some patience you can be shooting 8X10 film and be getting results you'd struggle to get even with the most whizz bang thousands of pound 01001101010111 kit

If you've never seen any of that stuff printed properly and BIG I recommend you do.

 

[Laudrup]

The size of an 8x10 field camera, film and processing put me right off. The work of Rodney Lough Jr and Gregory Crewdson I enjoy looking at though and they use large format.

 

[skysh4rk]

You see there youve given a specific need for film, the film look and skin tones. Thus it isnt general photography. Very valid point.

Well, I personally find film useful for my own general photography, as I just can't get the same colours and tones out of my digital equipment, but I acknowledge that others might not have the same preferences or needs. I guess it really depends on what you require for your own general photography.

Again I guess it comes down to pp also? Having a dark room or what sort of things out like to do?

There's not a problem getting images scanned if you wanted to do some pp on the photos. You have the option of staying analogue or scanning it to digital if you shoot in film.

Panos are very simple on digital and also you have hdr which im not a great fan of. But that goes a little further than a film cameras dymanic range.

With film, you could just simply buy a panoramic camera. You can shoot all sorts of crazy formats and aspect ratios in film, no crazy trickery required.

Id love to have a play with film but it would be a rare format but what I no about it it does seem fun.

It's far from rare and if it were past its prime, the motion picture industry wouldn't still be relying on it so heavily. Give film a shot

 

[Ed Sutton]

The downsides only seem to come from people who haven't really tried film, and they are relatively minor downsides. If there were major downsides, it wouldn't have been the medium of choice for over 100 years.

Some have used film, because it pretty much was the ONLY choice in the 20th century!

The factors which are now seen as the negatives (no pun intended!!) of film weren't apparent before digital revealed them.

 

[barratt1988]

Well, I personally find film useful for my own general photography, as I just can't get the same colours and tones out of my digital equipment, but I acknowledge that others might not have the same preferences or needs. I guess it really depends on what you require for your own general photography.

There's not a problem getting images scanned if you wanted to do some pp on the photos. You have the option of staying analogue or going digital if you shoot in film.

With film, you could just simply buy a panoramic camera. You can shoot all sorts of crazy formats and aspect ratios in film, no crazy trickery required.

It's far from rare and if it were past its prime, the motion picture industry wouldn't still be relying on it so heavily. Give film a shot

I may just do that. I know you can get pano camera but again its another body isnt it. And by rare I ment for me id maybe use it once or twice a year tops. I just love the flexibility I get from digital. It really is an all in one machine. But you cant get that film feel.

One thing I dislike about digital is it seems to promote data storage and not physical prints. My gf recently got me a hama portfolio to show my work but also to have something physical in this crazy digital world we live it haha

 

[skysh4rk]

I may just do that. I know you can get pano camera but again its another body isnt it. And by rare I ment for me id maybe use it once or twice a year tops. I just love the flexibility I get from digital. It really is an all in one machine. But you cant get that film feel.

One thing I dislike about digital is it seems to promote data storage and not physical prints. My gf recently got me a hama portfolio to show my work but also to have something physical in this crazy digital world we live it haha

Well, I'm not sure what brand of cameras you use now, but if it's a well known brand like Canon or Nikon, you can usually pick up a film camera just to try it for quite cheap.

For instance, I bought a fully working Nikon F801 that uses all of my Nikon lenses for £5.40 off of eBay. I bought a Nikon F80 for £20 and that has a nicer body with more controls than my Nikon D5100!

So, get a camera, purchase a £1 roll of film from Poundland, and then you're ready to go.

Edit: Be careful though, I started by simply buying a cheap Nikon to try my hand at film and now I have a collection of medium format film cameras occupying the spare bedroom

 

[Grendel]

Thread cleaned. One member is taking some time off for personal insults.

We've posted about this often enough - If you can't say something or make your point in a civilised and polite manner then don't say it at all.

 

[big soft moose]

Why shoot digital or film , Daguerreotype is where its at

 

[Steve]

Why shoot digital or film , Daguerreotype is where its at

I'm planning to attend a daguerrotype workshop later this year. Really looking forward to it. They really look beautiful.

 

[Steve Smith]

I'm planning to attend a daguerrotype workshop later this year. Really looking forward to it. They really look beautiful.

That should be good. I went on a two day albumen printing course last year. If I could afford silver nitrate, I would do it myself at home.


Steve.

 

[Andysnap]

Oh no the fustys have hijacked the thread and are holding it to ransom.....

A beige, stealth invasion...nice

 

[swanseamale47]

I'm planning to attend a daguerrotype workshop later this year. Really looking forward to it. They really look beautiful.

I used to do bromoils, lovely feel but very time comsuming.

 

[simonblue]

The big thing for me is cost i can shoot more with digital than film,and i like to get out with my cameras

 

[acetone]

My customers won't buy negative film but will buy digital files enough said.

 

[big soft moose]

that was why I swapped to digital - I was doing about £200 a month in film and D&P so laying out a grand on a DSLR made perfect sense at the time.

 

[skysh4rk]

At this point, all of us understand that you can basically shoot forever and achieve instant results with digital cameras. No one really needs to explain that that is a big reason for using digital gear.

Convenience, however, is not an aesthetic quality and it does not make our photos look any better. Most people would acknowledge that there is a unique look to film (not necessarily a better one) that digital sensors have not yet managed to capture; a look that still makes film relevant.

Certain professionals aside, it's also not really that much less convenient for most folks, especially amateurs, to shoot film. You can also get as involved or uninvolved in the development/scanning/printing process as you want and you can get some great results (in analogue or digital form) for very little outlay (you can pick up a cheap £10 body and use your existing digital lenses in most cases).

If you're willing to swap lenses/filters/etc. to achieve a certain look, why wouldn't you be just as willing to swap the sensor/film that's recording the light for that look?

Anyway, I post in the hopes that someone like myself a year ago comes across this thread and is encouraged to give film a try, although I'm not really sure that anyone is actually listening...

My customers won't buy negative film but will buy digital files enough said.

I'm assuming that you're joking with the suggestion of offering only negatives to a customer? :shrug:





Anyway, I'll stop feeding the trolls now.

 

[Steve Smith]

although I'm not really sure that anyone is actually listening...

I heard you. Your post makes sense.


Steve.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

I am in a field in the middle of no-where, surrounded by tents and motorbikes, snapping away.

"Oh! That looks like a good camera. I'll have to have a look for you photo's on Face-Book when I get home"

THIS is why I shoot digital. Arguments over image quality, convenience; cost? Yeah... valid, but entering the esoteric. The bottom line is this is the twenty first century, and the digital delivery medium is what the audience 'expects'.

I have twenty or more albums on the shelf; I doubt any-one has looked at anything in most of them in fifteen years. In fact? Doubt that any-one much looked at any of them at all!

Happy-Snap envelopes were handed round in the playground or living room or office, fresh from the chemists; oohed and ahhed over, then dumped in a draw, probably only making it to an album years later when the draw was chocka-block full and some-one thought to 'sort them out'.

Most of the film photo's I have ever taken, and that runs into many many thousands, have never been viewed at anything but 4x6" standard print size.

And in fact, I found that more people took more interest in SMALLER prints.... Used to put up 10x8's.. People would often not even notice when I changed what was in the frames... they saw 'Picture' and unless something in it caught their eye that was ALL they saw. Put up some groups of 5 or 6 4x5's in their place... people had to get up close to see what they were looking at, and consequently actually consciously LOOKED at them.

So, to a greater degree, the potential resolution of 35mm was often pretty redundant; a half decent 110 cartridge camera could have made decent enough prints that sort of size.

But a photo's very reason for being IS to be looked at. Doesn't matter how good it may be technically; how well exposed it is; how sharp it is; how wonderful the composition.... if No-One looks at it!

"I'll have to have a look at you photo's on Face-Book when I get home"

THAT is where they will be looked at. THAT is where their reason d'etre is fulfilled. That means that ultimately whatever I shoot is going to end up in digital, less than 1000pixels on the longest edge!

With that as the bottom line... matters little what the initial capture medium is. AS LONG as the pictures reason d'etre is fulfilled.

And unfortunately, for all the ills and excesses of face-book, it DOES fulfil photo's reason for being!

And, little reality check to the ‘aficionados’ or ‘connoisseurs’ striving for something of more elevated aesthetic, quick to dismiss, ridicule or diminish ‘popular’ photography….. such photo’s, having an audience actually looking at them, giving them reason, often have more real ‘worth’ than elitist exercises, displayed to a minute audience who may ‘apreciate’ their technical merit, but who probably actually derive very little actual ‘joy’ from it!

But Digital, for better or for worse.. is part of the digital age, and a convenience for making pictures (almost) ready for immediate digital delivery.

And THAT, really, being blunt, is about the ONLY thing digital offers over film.

Almost EVERYTHING that people say makes digital better... are features or functions adapted or adopted from film cameras. A lot more, is NOT in the camera but on computer, where 'Post-Processing' has similarly adopted and automated conventional techniques of the Dark-Room. YES even Panoramic stitching!

All that digital has done is made it more convenient, and perhaps.. more 'accessible' ... the matter of 'cheapness' still being rather mute.

Digital ISN'T free photography... electric still costs money! May be 'cheaper', but I think a lot of that is that the costs are more 'transparent' as you don’t see them coming directly out of your pocket every time you have to buy a film or pay for processing.

As many have griped; modern Digital cameras are consumer electronics; built down to a price and a finite service life... some-where around five years 'normal' use. Fact that we can grumble apples and oranges comparison between ‘old’ film cameras and ‘new’ digital, is something of testimony to the fact that the product life of old film cameras was generally to a much higher standard; I still have thirty forty, fifty or more year old film cameras still in working order, still being used. I have chucked away half a dozen digital cameras in the last five years!

Cradle to grave; 'total costs', IF you added them all up, even the ones you DONT see, like the power being used when you are viewing the pics on face book; as well as replacing expensive lith-ion batteries, or later the camera they fit, Digital is NOT 'free' after buying the camera...

Film? Well, after buying and processing that, and getting a hard print in your hand? ACTUALLY viewing that, IS free photography!

And actually, commercially processed film prints? £1.50 at ASDA to get a roll of 36 Develop-Only. £5 for D&P, means the prints are £3.50 a set or just less than 10p each.

Three frames per sheet of A4 out of the computer-printer? Well, a set if inks for mine is near enough £30.... And I know for a FACT that I wont get , over 100 sheets of photo's from them at 'photo' settings, and that's without the cost of decent photo-paper to put it on!

Digital ONLY earns its keep and remains 'Cheap' IF it remains in the digital realm, delivered and viewed digitally. But even then, its not costless. JUST 'convenient'.

And it gets pictures to where they CAN be viewed and have ‘reason’ for being; to be enjoyed by people who want to look at them. HOWEVER they were initially captured. And THAT is what REALLY matters. ENJOYING pictures.

 

[Steve Smith]

HOWEVER they were initially captured. And THAT is what REALLY matters. ENJOYING pictures.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I actually enjoy the process of using film including the developing then printing in a darkroom.

Many people (not you) state "the picture is all that matters". It might be all that matters to them, but not for me. I hate post processing on a computer.

You are right that digital adds convenience. I will also state that I think it makes photography easier - at least easier to know that you have got what you wanted as you can take a few shots, check, repeat, etc.

If anyone wants to argue that digital is not more convenient or easier I will ask why did people abandon film in their masses to go to digital?

People don't change the way they do things to make it more difficult or more inconvenient. And most of this happened when the best DSLRs were around 6MP so it certainly wasn't for quality.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Certain professionals aside, it's also not really that much less convenient for most

You can work professionally with film. Peak Imaging offer a film service to wedding photographers. You send in your films for developing and printing and they send you proofs. They also keep the scanned files so you just re-order whatever prints, etc. you need using the numbers on the oproof prints - just the way my father used to do it twenty years ago.

Instead of coming home from a wedding and spending hours in front of your computer post processing, you can send off the films and relax letting the lab do the work.

If you put a value on your time, there is no real increase in cost.


Steve.

 

[DowntonMini]

Well, I'm not sure what brand of cameras you use now, but if it's a well known brand like Canon or Nikon, you can usually pick up a film camera just to try it for quite cheap.

For instance, I bought a fully working Nikon F801 that uses all of my Nikon lenses for £5.40 off of eBay. I bought a Nikon F80 for £20 and that has a nicer body with more controls than my Nikon D5100!

So, get a camera, purchase a £1 roll of film from Poundland, and then you're ready to go.

Edit: Be careful though, I started by simply buying a cheap Nikon to try my hand at film and now I have a collection of medium format film cameras occupying the spare bedroom

Sorry if this sounds like a silly question but do the lens form Digtal cameras work on film cameras I have a D3100 if so and I could pick a cheap film body I would be very tempted to do this in the future

 

[Phil V]

You can work professionally with film. Peak Imaging offer a film service to wedding photographers. You send in your films for developing and printing and they send you proofs. They also keep the scanned files so you just re-order whatever prints, etc. you need using the numbers on the oproof prints - just the way my father used to do it twenty years ago.

Instead of coming home from a wedding and spending hours in front of your computer post processing, you can send off the films and relax letting the lab do the work.

If you put a value on your time, there is no real increase in cost.


Steve.

Those 2 statements are contrary though.
I too used to send off my film 20 years ago, and shooting 3 rolls of 15 on was quite expensive. But the market is very different now, I couldn't justify charging what I do for delivering 1/4 the number of images the competition does. And my skill levels mean I couldn't justify a doubling of my prices for the 'advantage' of shooting film.

I'm not saying it's impossible, there's a market for every niche. But that's the point it'd be a niche market, we couldn't all do it.

I put a value on my time for processing, and per shot it's miles away from the cost of shooting film (15 5x4s = £10). I'm average priced, for the cheaper guys it's even more ridiculous. The only people who's margins would be relatively unaffected are the real high end, but even then virtually none of them shoot film any more (except for fun).

As as been discussed ad infintum - it's a different product today, like comparing Berni Inn with a GastroPub or the driving experience of an Allegro with a Focus. Just because something was OK 20 years ago doesn't mean that's still the case. As a business, it makes no sense, just like ledger book keeping, clerical parts recording etc. The world has expectations that a business has to meet.

 

[Laudrup]

Some interesting points Teflon Mike, I won't quote the whole post as it makes viewing it on the ipad cumbersome. If all you are shooting for is Facebook at 1000 pixels then do you need the latest and greatest equipment? I find I have physical photo albums gathering dust of the pictures I do print out, and even if I do print out large from the D800 it is on the rare side.

 

[Steve Smith]

I put a value on my time for processing

I would think the cheaper guys are not charging for their processing time.

As they are at home anyway, and that's where they do it, they are considering it free and not passing it on to the customer. If they did, they wouldn't be cheaper!


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

Sorry if this sounds like a silly question but do the lens form Digtal cameras work on film cameras I have a D3100 if so and I could pick a cheap film body I would be very tempted to do this in the future

Almost any Nikon lens will mount on any Nikon SLR camera, film or digital.

That said, depending on what lenses you have and the film body you pick up, some features may or may not work (e.g., VR). You can check here for details: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

The big thing to be aware of is that lenses that are designed specifically for the smaller sensor size in the D3100 (24x16mm), which Nikon calls DX size, you could get heavy vignetting (black corners) on your images, as 35mm film is bigger (36x24mm, same as full frame digital). This isn't always the case though as my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens actually performs fairly well on a film SLR, but I know that the 18-55mm kit lens will definitely vignette on a film SLR.

Having a quite look at your profile, it looks like two of your lenses are DX lenses, so they would likely vignette, but your 70-300 should work well with a number of film bodies.

 

[Phil V]

I would think the cheaper guys are not charging for their processing time.

As they are at home anyway, and that's where they do it, they are considering it free and not passing it on to the customer. If they did, they wouldn't be cheaper!

Steve.

You're possibly right, although it's impossible to 2nd guess a mindset that can shoot so cheap.

The point is though, it's impossible to make a £ for £ comparison as the product is so different nowadays. Today we'll shoot over a thousand images, we'll probably deliver about 1/3 of those.

With film (particularly med format) there's no way I could shoot at the same speed, there's no way I could afford that processing (£1000 for develop and proof).

So the medium has a major interdependence with the shooting style. If I was shooting film, it'd be a completely different service and product. Which would require a unique marketing campaign etc. It could be done, but it'd be a niche product as I said before.

 

[DowntonMini]

Almost any Nikon lens will mount on any Nikon SLR camera, film or digital.

That said, depending on what lenses you have and the film body you pick up, some features may or may not work (e.g., VR). You can check here for details: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

The big thing to be aware of is that lenses that are designed specifically for the smaller sensor size in the D3100 (24x16mm), which Nikon calls DX size, you could get heavy vignetting (black corners) on your images, as 35mm film is bigger (36x24mm, same as full frame digital). This isn't always the case though as my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens actually performs fairly well on a film SLR, but I know that the 18-55mm kit lens will definitely vignette on a film SLR.

Having a quite look at your profile, it looks like two of your lenses are DX lenses, so they would likely vignette, but your 70-300 should work well with a number of film bodies.

Thanks for that I also have a Sigma 10-20 which I nned to add to my profile I'll keep an eye on Ebay I've seen a couple wiht lenses that are cheap at the moment.......

Looking at the list in the link am I right in thinking a F80 would be a good choice with my lens collection?

 

[DrGed]

Supposing someone posted two top class images on here, one was film and the other was digital.

Would it be possible to tell the difference just by looking at them?

If you got good prints of each, could you tell which was which?

 

[Steve Smith]

So the medium has a major interdependence with the shooting style. If I was shooting film, it'd be a completely different service and product. Which would require a unique marketing campaign etc. It could be done, but it'd be a niche product as I said before.

I agree completely. If I was shooting weddings, it would be with medium format film, supplying a smaller number of images.

This is what the higher end, film only wedding photographers do.

However, I would probably go out of business - which is just as well as I have always stated that I would never do weddings! (although I have done three for friends).


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Supposing someone posted two top class images on here, one was film and the other was digital.

Would it be possible to tell the difference just by looking at them?

Nine times out of ten, no. Although by posting them here, you have turned them digital.

Sometimes though there are tell tale signs of digital such as highlights not being handled so well. Especilally when the sun is in the image.

However, for me, that is not the point. I like the whole process of getting an image from camera to print using traditional methods - I even make my own cameras.

For others this would be their idea of hell and it's not my place to tell them they're wrong or theirs to tell me I'm wrong.

We should all do what we want to do and respect the way others do it if it isn't the same as us. This goes for everything, not just photography.

But to go back to your question - largely no. Both mediums have got to the stage where they are limited by the laws of physics and both are now capable of producing very high quality images (and both can be used to produce a load of rubbish too!).


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

Supposing someone posted two top class images on here, one was film and the other was digital.

Would it be possible to tell the difference just by looking at them?

If you got good prints of each, could you tell which was which?

Real prints close up, you could tell, but that's the only fair comparison, any other method adds too much to the comparison to keep it relevant.

 

[Phil V]

This is what the higher end, film only wedding photographers do.
Steve.

You know that sentence makes it look like the film shooters sit above the rest?

Just for clarity, as there are plenty of people here who aren't experts. That's not true.

Whilst the film guys are 'higher end' they're not the 'top guys', there are plenty of higher end guys shooting digital too, and the UKs top guys are digital shooters.

 

[big soft moose]

i presumed that steve meant that the higher end of the film wedding shooters used medium format.

personally i can't think of anything worse than trying to use medium format (film or digital) to cover a wedding - but thats a discussion for a different thread

 

[Nod]

Thanks for that I also have a Sigma 10-20 which I nned to add to my profile I'll keep an eye on Ebay I've seen a couple wiht lenses that are cheap at the moment.......

Looking at the list in the link am I right in thinking a F80 would be a good choice with my lens collection?

The Sigma 10-20 vignettes a LOT on an FF body.

The F80 is indeed a fine body if you want to play with film and can be picked up very cheap these days.

 

[skysh4rk]

Those 2 statements are contrary though.
I too used to send off my film 20 years ago, and shooting 3 rolls of 15 on was quite expensive. But the market is very different now, I couldn't justify charging what I do for delivering 1/4 the number of images the competition does. And my skill levels mean I couldn't justify a doubling of my prices for the 'advantage' of shooting film.

I'm not saying it's impossible, there's a market for every niche. But that's the point it'd be a niche market, we couldn't all do it.

I put a value on my time for processing, and per shot it's miles away from the cost of shooting film (15 5x4s = £10). I'm average priced, for the cheaper guys it's even more ridiculous. The only people who's margins would be relatively unaffected are the real high end, but even then virtually none of them shoot film any more (except for fun).

As as been discussed ad infintum - it's a different product today, like comparing Berni Inn with a GastroPub or the driving experience of an Allegro with a Focus. Just because something was OK 20 years ago doesn't mean that's still the case. As a business, it makes no sense, just like ledger book keeping, clerical parts recording etc. The world has expectations that a business has to meet.

I can't really comment on the economics of it, as I'm far removed from professional, but there do seem to be a lot of photographers in the USA moving back to film and a number of new labs have recently opened over there to support this trend.

Many of these photographers are using the Contax 645 with a 80mm f/2, which really gives a unique look, as it's the equivalent of about a 50mm f/1.2 in 35 mm terms, and, as a medium format camera with Zeiss lenses, it's sharp as can be, even wide open. I really haven't seen any APS-C or full frame digital camera that can come close to the look that cameras such as the Contax can produce.

But the market is very different now, I couldn't justify charging what I do for delivering 1/4 the number of images the competition does.

I don't know that much about working professionally, so excuse my ignorance, but surely the aesthetic quality of the photos must be the most important factor for at least some clients and not simply the quantity?

I acknowledge that many clients probably don't care whether you shoot with film or digital, but if film is giving a unique look, surely that is worth something to some customers?

All this aside, I'm not really sure why it has to be one or the other for professional use—Use film where it shines (e.g., backlit portraits in natural light, etc.) and then use digital where it does well (e.g., high ISOs, etc.) and you get the best of both worlds.