Thinking "film" vs digital.

If you do fancy trying film and buying a good quality film camera then don't leave it on your wish list too long, as prices haven't half risen over the last two or three years. Combined with that, it seems to be getting harder to find a really good example in full working order, prompting the question recently 'have all the good ones gone?'.

I don't think the demand for top make classics is just down to trendy 'retro' types and college students either, it seems there's been a renaissance in film photography. Possibly a combination of younger photographers expanding their interest and the middle aged+ sector with disposable income buying the film camera they'd always wanted but couldn't afford when they were younger.

There were so many film cameras made in the 70s 80s and 90s that you'll almost certainly be able to find something affordable for several more years yet, but the prices for anything approaching a more desirable enthusiast to pro-grade classic in nice condition and full working order only look set to rise as availability decreases.
 
Last edited:
Combined with that, it seems to be getting harder to find a really good example in full working order, prompting the question recently 'have all the good ones gone?'.
And the answer is that they are all in my camera cabinet.
 
The Ricoh Singlex created a bit of a stir when it came out (I recall reading the AP review when it first appeared), as it used the Nikon mount allowing Nikon lenses to be used on a cheaper body.
I think you're talking about the Nikkorex F and Singlex which were on the market in 1965 for £103 with a Nikkor f2.0 and £89 with a Rikenon f1.4 respectively. The next Singlex I'm aware of was the one marketed in the UK by Dixons as the Prinzflex TTL and around the world under various other names.
 
Last edited:
Aside from potential shortcomings with the subject and/or composition, I think quite a bit of what you refer to is probably down to poor technique, and/or deficiencies when scanning/digitising the negatives.



Look at the grass reflected in that bumper chrome! Quite something! But along the top of the bumper, wouldn't you admit that the highlights are blown? It looks quite uncomfortable to me. Is that a scanning failure? If so, who's to blame? Is a lab involved?
 
Look at the grass reflected in that bumper chrome! Quite something! But along the top of the bumper, wouldn't you admit that the highlights are blown? It looks quite uncomfortable to me. Is that a scanning failure? If so, who's to blame? Is a lab involved?
Firstly, please do not selectively edit (snip) when quoting my posts without pointing out that you have done so. Thank you.

In answer; that's what a bright, uniform, flat-grey sky looks like when reflected in polished chrome, particularly when it's falling out of focus. Despite the flat sky and shallow depth of field there is still some detail in there if you look carefully.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. My reason for asking was that I've had lab scans done (on a Noritsu, I think, and of colour negs), where the highlights were blown in the scans whilst there was detail in those areas of the negs. So I'm curious about others' experiences.
 
I like using both, I started out in the days before digital. IME, film shot and processed properly and digital shot properly should look pretty similar.

One of these was shot with an old T90 on Velvia 100F, the other on an EOS 20D.
16041545823_d00891b696_h.jpg

16660075261_bd5014cc55_h.jpg


Not quite as similar in their taken angle but between these two, one is an RZ67 using portra 400 and the other a nikon D810.
35510539165_56d329e815_h.jpg

33241861248_bf525336d0_h.jpg
I like using both, I started out in the days before digital. IME, film shot and processed properly and digital shot properly should look pretty similar.

One of these was shot with an old T90 on Velvia 100F, the other on an EOS 20D.
16041545823_d00891b696_h.jpg

16660075261_bd5014cc55_h.jpg


Not quite as similar in their taken angle but between these two, one is an RZ67 using portra 400 and the other a nikon D810.
35510539165_56d329e815_h.jpg

33241861248_bf525336d0_h.jpg

Of these I prefer the look and feel of 2 and 3. So which ones are digital and which are film.
 
Thanks. My reason for asking was that I've had lab scans done (on a Noritsu, I think, and of colour negs), where the highlights were blown in the scans whilst there was detail in those areas of the negs. So I'm curious about others' experiences.
I see; I suspect it could depend on the operator of the scanner and how much individual attention they give each scan, or how much the shots on the strip of negatives vary if the scanner has been set for a batch average (if that's how it's done)?

I'm not being funny here, but can you see the small amount of cloud detail (it was an almost flat light grey sky though, so it's pretty subtle) in the reflection on the chrome bumper?

If not, have you tried adjusting your monitor/screen settings to see if you can capture it (making a note of what they were first, so you can reset it if needs be)? Then, if that's made a difference, perhaps have another look at your scans and see if it's made any difference to them? It may well not be your screen at all, but if you can't see any detail in the bumper then it's making me wonder. Hope this is useful. :)
 
Thanks. My reason for asking was that I've had lab scans done (on a Noritsu, I think, and of colour negs), where the highlights were blown in the scans whilst there was detail in those areas of the negs. So I'm curious about others' experiences.

Most blown highlights on labs scans should be recoverable in post processing software, did you try cranking the highlights down ?
Think I've only ever had properly blown highlights on a scan twice - once with Ektar, and once with Delta 400. Both in high contrast photos.
 
can you see the small amount of cloud detail (it was an almost flat light grey sky though, so it's pretty subtle) in the reflection on the chrome bumper?
Yes there's a trace near the edges but mostly it looks plain white. My monitor's set to about 45% brightness (geared to print).

Most blown highlights on labs scans should be recoverable in post processing software, did you try cranking the highlights down ?
Yes, I did. The film was Portra 400, well-exposed and lab developed. The issue was with a couple of frames where the highlights were quite challenging, but on a lightbox with a loupe there was detail there. It was on mf which is why I jobbed it out - I can only scan 35mm.
 
If you do fancy trying film and buying a good quality film camera then don't leave it on your wish list too long, as prices haven't half risen over the last two or three years. Combined with that, it seems to be getting harder to find a really good example in full working order, prompting the question recently 'have all the good ones gone?'.

I don't think the demand for top make classics is just down to trendy 'retro' types and college students either, it seems there's been a renaissance in film photography. Possibly a combination of younger photographers expanding their interest and the middle aged+ sector with disposable income buying the film camera they'd always wanted but couldn't afford when they were younger.

There were so many film cameras made in the 70s 80s and 90s that you'll almost certainly be able to find something affordable for several more years yet, but the prices for anything approaching a more desirable enthusiast to pro-grade classic in nice condition and full working order only look set to rise as availability decreases.

Going slightly off topic - what film cameras would people recommend getting at the budget end (less than £100).

I have my Rolleicord which i love, and have had Leica M2 & 6 before but didnt use enough to justify. Had an Olympus trip whcih was fun and a couple of Nikon FEs which I am very tempted to get back again. An F80 which was too close to a DSLR for my liking. Have a Box Brownie on its way for a bit of fun and have been tempted an an Ensign type collapsible. Not really a fan of the 80s style cameras, generally like the well made 30s-60s styles with a bit of 70s too.

I do need to like the look of the camera too! I love the FE but (maybe because of that) am underwhelmed by the Canon A1 or the Pentax K1000.
 
For under £100? Depends what I was about and what was on offer really. I'm more likely to muck it up than what camera, so it would make little difference..... the film would make a much bigger difference, the lens more still...
I have to say I like my XA2, its a heck of a lot of no faff photo for not a lot of money these days; and you can pick up something pretty immaculate for under £50 and more than useful for half that.
For the faff and the IQ there are plenty of 120 folders out there, that like my 6x9 Ziess Ikonta offer a cracking lens for maybe £25 or so.
My Konika C35, offers a lot of potential for maybe £15, a fresh battery and a cotton bud. It's 35mm true focal length is cracking, and offers as much or as little faff-photo as you wish really with the overt-ride-able Auto Exposure...
If it HAD to be an SLR then the (un?)Trusty old OM10 offers an awful lot, the 'kit' f1.8 50mm is a great lens, whilst there's still a lot or pretty cheap alternatives esp if you are hqppy bto go zooms; personally with 1/4 century of experience with the things I wouldn't pay extra for the optional manual adaptor, I'd shoot the more refined 1/3 stop increment Aperture priority, watch the LED meter in the view-finder and exploit the ASA dial exposure compensation if desirable...
The more desirable single digit OM's like the 1, 2, 3 or 4 I woule avoid, especialy the battery eating #OMK4.. got one of them, done that, the 10's a 'better' camera IMO, and conveniently 'cheap'.
In similar vein, whilst I love that SIGMA MK1 M42 screw; I would probably avoid the more common East German Prakrikas.. too expensive for what they are and NOT particularly nice to use. Similarly he Russian Zenits, tyhough there IS something a bit untrangible about them, probably the bayonet sharp strap buckles and weight that might let a Russian conscript ne;;y smnaking accross no=man's land, stunn or kill a US GI in Easty Germany.. but that's another issue/niggle.. them strap buclkes on mine have certainly cost plenty of Elastoplast!! BUT buccket loads on the bay all over optimistically priced from former soviet states IMO.... I's not recommend one... prices bumnped more by the adaptor brigade buying them for that cracking Helios 44 'kit' lens.
Daughter loved her Nikon FE, but another over priced icon with the only advgantage that F-Mount lenses that may fiot it might be use on more contemprary Nikon DSLR... or vica versa ish

With a strict £100 budget then?

For an SLR, I would probably try hunt out one of the less loved, either something like my Sigma MK1 that could be picked up cos no one has heard of one. or an OM10 'cos they have always been cheap, and both take common and pretty cheap 35mm film. But I wouldn't dismis a 35mm 'compact' as long as I was clued up a bit what it was, and another XA or Konika would be favourite, and I I didn't mind blowing budget something a little more aspirational like a pop-out Minox 35.. for faff factor and ultimate IQ though I's hunt out a less loved 120 like the Ziess Ikonta or a Voiglander TLR.. and probably hunt out something like that over the Zenit like Lunitell, which is mired by layter LOMO offerings....

BUT it doesn't much matter really.

If budget had to squeeze scanner solutions into the deal... then 35mm woul be obviouse answer with a web-cam scanner, or old SCSI or parallel post dedicated 35mm frilm scanner likely eating haldf of budget and nyuthing better all of it p;lus a bit; and ALL likely the weak link in making digi-piks..... Home deb kit squeezing set up burget some more and developing chems for whatever after, even more....

If I was trying to kit out the daughter, on a skinny budget? Well any 35mm film camera, probably one of my XA's or an OM10, cos IO got em, or even a catalogue 'Halina' plastic lens compact.... then a changing bag, a daylight dev tank, and probably a C41 or B&W kit of dev Chems and a web-cam scanner, would probably take that £100 budget in its entirety and get her photo's dependent on her skill and perseverance.. so the cxamera really wouldn't be particularly big deal in the grand scheme....

Just for case example; when I did start her out I gave her my Zenit with Helios 44, a Leningrad light meter, and I think 5 rolls of out of date Kodak 100,,, commercially processed and scanned at ASDA for probably £10 a roll.. £100 would probably similarly kit you out and get you 100 photo's to look at in a packet or on screen...

So it's very very had to maker ANY particular recommend, it really does depend SO much on how important any one bit may be rated... in which #';The camera' is but a tiny part of the whole plot, to the point it probably matters very little.
 
Last edited:
I do need to like the look of the camera too! I love the FE but (maybe because of that) am underwhelmed by the Canon A1 or the Pentax K1000.
Nikons of that era were never 'pretty', but looked like simply workmanlike tools, and felt good in the hand including the controls, which is another consideration. In comparison, the Olympus OM series seemed finicky, and Canons clumsy to me. A Pentax M series was rather pretty, but the build quality could be suspect. A budget K1000 worked ok but was a bit of a brick in the hand, and was no longer sexy as the Spotmatic was in its day. How about a Spotmatic, then? A bit long in the tooth now.

I like simplicity in cameras, a purity of intent - and given your obvious predilection could suggest a Nikon FM, or better, if it came in budget, an FM2. Manual exposure only, though. Or yes, an FE(2). A bit more to go wrong there, though? So check the shutter count (joke!).

Personally, I'd have kept the M2.
 
Going slightly off topic - what film cameras would people recommend getting at the budget end (less than £100).

I have my Rolleicord which i love, and have had Leica M2 & 6 before but didnt use enough to justify. Had an Olympus trip whcih was fun and a couple of Nikon FEs which I am very tempted to get back again. An F80 which was too close to a DSLR for my liking. Have a Box Brownie on its way for a bit of fun and have been tempted an an Ensign type collapsible. Not really a fan of the 80s style cameras, generally like the well made 30s-60s styles with a bit of 70s too.

I do need to like the look of the camera too! I love the FE but (maybe because of that) am underwhelmed by the Canon A1 or the Pentax K1000.

Sounds like you need an FE again. Alternatively Nikkormat's are nice (sweet spot is the FT2) and they have the same DNA as the S rangefinders and the original F.
 
Personally, I'd have kept the M2.
I got rid of my M2 and stuck with the M3. It was the viewfinder that did it for me and I've never been a great fan of the 35mm focal length.
 
I got rid of my M2 and stuck with the M3. It was the viewfinder that did it for me and I've never been a great fan of the 35mm focal length.

I liked the M2, but that and the lens was around 750-800, a lot of money for the use it got
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?
 
Last edited:
I have an early 80's Canon EOS1000 with various lenses which I am thinking of selling but my question is, battery was removed and it has been stored in a damp free cupboard in a case for around 15 years, are there any issues that I may need to check prior to selling, I was thinking about condensation, fungus etc
Any advice would be appreciated
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?

I wouldn't quite say I use digital with equal enthusiasm but I do use it for low light, for colour and for subjects where fast bursts are useful - sport for example.
Mostly though, my preference is for black and white film. Only because that's what I like.
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?
Yes, I use both digital and film cameras with equal enthusiasm. It only gets confusing if you look at the back of a 35mm SLR film camera to 'chimp', or try to open the back of a digital camera to put the film in it... and, of the two, I can assure you the former is far more likely! ;)

A vintage, fully manual camera (such as a 1950s folding medium format) with no built-in light meter, is a totally different handling experience, but the basic principles of photography still apply. It's a bit like switching back to driving a manual transmission car after driving an automatic for a few years; like riding a bike, it soon comes back to you and you soon remember what to do, when, and why. However, if you've only ever driven an automatic car then getting into a manual transmission classic vehicle might be a bit of a challenge until you learn how to operate it, and not everyone will enjoy the experience, or feel it is necessary when a modern and perfectly acceptable alternative exists.
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?

First off, my subject matter range is limited. Basically, to whatever catches my eye when out with a camera. I do use both film and digital, but as far as I'm concerned digital is used as a snapshot medium, or when I need an image rapidly for a magazine article or web site. If I'm out with serious photographic intent (rather than a leisurely stroll) I'll take a film camera, either roll film or large format.

My reasoning is quite simple; I see the end result of photography as a photograph, specifically in printed form. And I can see the difference between a digital print and a film print, and much prefer the latter. Therefore, if I'm engaged in photography for myself, it will be film. Black and white film, at that.

I also have a very curious mental block. In the outside world, I can look at a scene and visualise the effect in black and white, and what filter to use; on a computer screen, faced with a colour image, I can't make the mental conversion to black and white. Probably it's because I lack the experience (I've been taking black and white photos since the 1950s).

There are subjects for which a hand camera is more suitable than a stand camera (to revert to older terminology) and in these cases digital is to be preferred - at least by me. Certainly, I'd choose my Sony a7r2 over a 35mm camera every time.
 
Last edited:
I also have a very curious mental block. In the outside world, I can look at a scene and visualise the effect in black and white, and what filter to use; on a computer screen, faced with a colour image, I can't make the mental conversion to black and white.
I am rather the opposite. I rarely 'see' a mono image when out and about, just occasionally. But then historically I've mostly used colour film. But irrespective of film or digital camera originals I will select certain colour images on a monitor for rendering to mono, and it works most of the time - sometimes the mono version will have equal merit to the colour one, in other cases a lacklustre image in colour will become a thing of power in black and white.
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?
I tend to do both with reasonably equal enthusiasm. I’ve not had any trouble with confusion with the formats. That said, I can flip between using Nikon, canon, Fuji, mamiya and an old franka folding camera without much thought. Digital and it’s handy auto iso can lead to laziness which can catch you out if you don’t pay attention to the shutter speeds. I have found that I don’t tend to bother using film for wildlife as I don’t really have long enough lenses and it’s hard to get high enough shutter speeds, particularly on medium format.
 
Last edited:
I tend to do both with reasonably equal enthusiasm. I’ve not had any trouble with confusion with the formats. That said, I can flip between using Nikon, canon, Fuji, mamiya and an old franka folding camera without much thought. Digital and it’s handy auto iso can lead to laziness which can catch you out if you don’t pay attention to the shutter speeds. I do tend to find that I don’t tend to bother using film for wildlife as I don’t have long enough lenses and it’s hard to get high enough shutter speeds, particularly on medium format.
Thank you for your reply.
 
I will select certain colour images on a monitor for rendering to mono, and it works most of the time.
That’s pretty much my approach in digital. For what little film I still use it’s not an issue: I only use monochrome.
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?
Enthusiasm for what? That is the question.
I pick up the Electric-Picture-Maker when all I want is pictures, I pick up one of the film cameras when I want to 'DO' this feaux tog raffy thig.
There Is some overklap, with the XA2 'to hand' in m,y pocket, or the Konika available in the glove box; when I might be a 'bit' more inclined to be a bit considerate and not 'wast' film.. but on the whole, the EPM is 'just' for quickly making snaps, the film cameras for getting ea bit more precious with.
The two media beg different 'approaches' much the same as working with the all manual 36mm or 120 roll film cameras vs the later and faster TTL meter or meter-coupled cameras... some situations are more condusive to one or other reproach and hence one of other kind of camera...
There ISN'T a one size fits all solution to everything.
 
In fairness, we all make typos. Well, I do - although if I spot them later I generally edit and hope no one noticed.
 
I know... :)
 
Just out of curiosity - does anyone do both (film and digital) with equal enthusiasm? I would think that it would get fairly confusing and difficult to switch back and forth. Does either have a particular advantage where working with say film would be inherently better? In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?

I do, I fairly regularly shoot both at the same time, particularly in the "studio" but I also take both out and about. They are completely different beasts to me, I tend to shoot 6x6 medium format on film and 3x2 digital, I shoot slower with film, if I'm shooting B&W film I look for suitable subjects but at the same time I might shoot colour digital. To some extent I find film easier, maybe because it's what I learned first but there is far less chance of leaving the camera on some strange setting and then just grabbing it and shooting.

I don't have any real problems switching, the cameras feel different in the hand so I guess different muscle memory kicks in. TBH I have more trouble switching between the FF and MFT digital than between digital and film.

I don't think one is better than another in most situations. Generally I shoot film with more "purpose", I'm using film because I want specific look or for a specific project whereas for me digital is a bit more "exploratory". With film it's if-in-doubt-don't-bother and with digital it's might-as-well, i.e. on digital I will shoot stuff I know won't work just because it's in front of me and I can review it and learn from it later.
 
I do, I fairly regularly shoot both at the same time, particularly in the "studio" but I also take both out and about. They are completely different beasts to me, I tend to shoot 6x6 medium format on film and 3x2 digital, I shoot slower with film, if I'm shooting B&W film I look for suitable subjects but at the same time I might shoot colour digital. To some extent I find film easier, maybe because it's what I learned first but there is far less chance of leaving the camera on some strange setting and then just grabbing it and shooting.

I don't have any real problems switching, the cameras feel different in the hand so I guess different muscle memory kicks in. TBH I have more trouble switching between the FF and MFT digital than between digital and film.

I don't think one is better than another in most situations. Generally I shoot film with more "purpose", I'm using film because I want specific look or for a specific project whereas for me digital is a bit more "exploratory". With film it's if-in-doubt-don't-bother and with digital it's might-as-well, i.e. on digital I will shoot stuff I know won't work just because it's in front of me and I can review it and learn from it later.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
 
I do, I fairly regularly shoot both at the same time, particularly in the "studio" but I also take both out and about. They are completely different beasts to me, I tend to shoot 6x6 medium format on film and 3x2 digital, I shoot slower with film, if I'm shooting B&W film I look for suitable subjects but at the same time I might shoot colour digital. To some extent I find film easier, maybe because it's what I learned first but there is far less chance of leaving the camera on some strange setting and then just grabbing it and shooting.

I don't have any real problems switching, the cameras feel different in the hand so I guess different muscle memory kicks in. TBH I have more trouble switching between the FF and MFT digital than between digital and film.

I don't think one is better than another in most situations. Generally I shoot film with more "purpose", I'm using film because I want specific look or for a specific project whereas for me digital is a bit more "exploratory". With film it's if-in-doubt-don't-bother and with digital it's might-as-well, i.e. on digital I will shoot stuff I know won't work just because it's in front of me and I can review it and learn from it later.
Thx for the input.
 
Back
Top