![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mama don't take my Kodachrome...
It has come to my attention that it may be prudent to make the switch from my 1985 Minolta X-700 SLR film camera to a semi-pro digital format. I've been holding on for some time now, because I love my camera. But film and developing costs, the time it takes to get developing done, and the lack of control I have over said developing are getting harder to deal with. I can't "compete" with people whose shots are instantly available, so some of it's probably jealousy. Yesterday I did a photo shoot of a dog I'm to do a portrait for, and was forced to use my SLR because the little digital one doesn't shoot fast enough--but this means that I have to go get three rolls of film developed to get the one shot I want to use.
I should confess that some of what's been holding me back is pure snobbery. For instance, for me to get a nice macro shot, it means screwing magnifying lenses onto my camera and taking numerous shots to get something in focus--with that magnification, breathing can throw it off. I assume that people using a macro setting on a digital SLR camera don't have that problem. I'm assuming there's autofocus involved. Therefore, when I do get something, I feel proud that it was "all me" or whatever. But who's to know that anyway, when there are so few people using film cameras anymore? No, it's not a pretty reason, but it is a factor. Another is, well, I love the way my photos look. Will they look like that when I switch?
I don't know. I still have mixed feelings about it. Which is why I bring it to you. How do you feel about your digital camera? Did you make a switch from a film camera you really liked? What was involved in that decision? And what do you have to say about the cameras that are out there now?
x-posted to DevArt
I should confess that some of what's been holding me back is pure snobbery. For instance, for me to get a nice macro shot, it means screwing magnifying lenses onto my camera and taking numerous shots to get something in focus--with that magnification, breathing can throw it off. I assume that people using a macro setting on a digital SLR camera don't have that problem. I'm assuming there's autofocus involved. Therefore, when I do get something, I feel proud that it was "all me" or whatever. But who's to know that anyway, when there are so few people using film cameras anymore? No, it's not a pretty reason, but it is a factor. Another is, well, I love the way my photos look. Will they look like that when I switch?
I don't know. I still have mixed feelings about it. Which is why I bring it to you. How do you feel about your digital camera? Did you make a switch from a film camera you really liked? What was involved in that decision? And what do you have to say about the cameras that are out there now?
x-posted to DevArt
no subject
As for cameras I love my D40 but must advise you to not even think about getting one. Nikon cleverly designed it not to function with all but the most expensive lenses since it doesn't have any focusing stuff in the camera itself, its all in the lense, so a good lense is either manual (ok for stationary stuff, bad for anything moving) or insanely expensive (like the same price as the camera). I dunno about any other cameras though all the camera guys I've spoken too tell me that the bigger and longer the lense the better the camera, but I think thats just men being men (they always have to compare the length of something).
no subject
or
it's hard to be sure I'll be satisfied though I'm sure I'll adore the convenience.
As to the price of lenses, I'd want good ones, and probably manual since I'm unhappy about the idea of autofocus. Though yeah, for speed I guess that'd be helpful. Still, I want to know I'm the photographer, not the camera.
As to the long lens, thing, it does make a difference. The longer the lens, the closer you can get. I think you also have different options in terms of what is within focus; you can isolate subjects with a longer lens than with a wider one.
no subject
I would suggest getting lenses (or a camera) that has the option to work manually or auto since there will always been times when auto is useful like in very dark conditions or with movement (like the dog photos you were trying to shoot).
I have different standards of what makes a good quality photograph and a lot of the aspects of film that people consider to be good (grain etc) are the reasons I dislike film. Whilst I recognise the artistic merits its not something I would ever strive for myself. Or if I did I'd photoshop it in :p
no subject
You said you didn't get into photography until digital; I was merely pointed out that we have different backgrounds.
I have different standards of what makes a good quality photograph and a lot of the aspects of film that people consider to be good (grain etc) are the reasons I dislike film.
I don't like the "shiny" aspects of digital photography; I don't like photos that are so crisp they look like they were photoshopped. Sometimes digital lacks "warmth" or a kind of depth. This is by no means all the time or necessary, and is much better than it used to be. It probably has more to do with the quality of lenses people are using than anything else. But so much digital photography looks like candy to me, and that's what I don't enjoy.
no subject
no subject
Anyway. Cameras are probably good enough now I can take the pictures I want.
no subject
But there are other, more affordable digital cameras out there that will still take proper lenses etc. You MIGHT even be able to find one that will take your old film camera lenses (you could start with Nikkon digitals, for example, if you've got Nikkon lenses), which would put you ahead of the game there too.
So far as the auto-focus goes, you can usually turn it off, especially on a better-than-basic model. We have digital cameras ourselves, and I would never go back to film. From ease of development to ease of storage, transmission, and editing, to the versatility of the machine, there's no substitute.
Do your research, be prepared to pay a few hundred (up to a thousand for an EXCELLENT one) dollars to get a decent one that will do what you want, and realize how quickly it'll pay for itself once you stop having to pay for film and development.
And check out that link! Have a look at his photos; you'd never know they weren't shot on (very high quality) film. Good hunting! :-)
no subject
My camera/lenses are Minolta, and I don't think there's a digital camera that'll take them. My issue, really, is that I'm afraid that to get the quality I want I'll have to pay in the thousands, and I don't feel comfortable doing that right now when my camera cost $70. Obviously that's an unfair comparison, given all the other costs, and I realize that. But it's a mental block.
I need to do the research. And I need to make that commitment, cost-wise. I just don't want to switch for something that I'll be unsatisfied with, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to spend more than I want to get that.
no subject
I really like the idea of digital cameras, but mine ran through batteries so fast, I hardly ever used it. I've gone back to using my trusty old pentax film camera lately.
I'd suggest borrowing someone else's and seeing how it works for you if you can.
Good luck!
no subject
Borrowing is a good idea. Now I just need a friend with a good camera...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Use what works for you, yo.
To me, what rocks about film is the mystery. With digital, you can decide instantly to keep or ditch a pic. There are no real surprises. With film, there's always that anticipation, that revelation of seeing what you captured. Then again, it sucks when you don't get what you wanted. IT'S SO HARD THIS BATTLE. SIGH.
no subject
Part of it is jealousy and competition. No one I know is using film anymore, and so any "current event" I shoot appears for me up to a week or more late. While everyone else can just pop online (or to a newspaper) with their instant shots. I have no control over the processing (I'm not about to start developing color film) so I sometimes wonder what the point is. Then again, I'm not sure what my goals for photography are.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I just got to the point where I need an SLR to do what I want to do, rather than just the manual settings on my point-and-shoot. I think the best film work looks better than the best digital, but if you're not shooting large format or developing your own black-and-whites, it's hard to tell (I looooooove developing film, but I don't have a way to do it now--I only did with scanning electron micrographs in a class once). I appreciate the savings, and I appreciate being able to take more pictures and try more experiments without worrying about wasting money.
no subject
no subject
I have an enlarger and all that stuff, but when am I going to do all that? And it'd only be b&w, which is awesome, but not for everything.
I know you can use digital focus on a DSLR, my point was more about the pride of knowing--and everyone else knowing--that anything I take with my Minolta was done manually. I see all these crisp digital shots of snails and things and think, "but they probably weren't sitting there for a whole minute trying to get just the right distance for each shot." Which I'm well aware sounds very snotty.
no subject
no subject