[maxfield_photo]

All this talk about how expensive a full frame body would be. Do you all remember film?

It was this plastic stuff we used to put in our cameras. Apparently it recorded the image; who knew? Well anyway, apparently you used to have to go to the store and buy this stuff called film. Cheap film was, well, cheap, but good film was actually fairly pricey, and it had to be used within a certain period or it would go bad. But wait, it gets worse, once you acquired this film and exposed it, you couldn't view the images immediately , no, you had to either take them to the store once again and pay to get them "developed", a prospect that rarely produced desirable results. OR you could do it yourself, but that required something called a "darkroom", and chemicals, and paper, and an enlarger, not to mention skill.

Quit whinin'.

[Rondec]

All this talk about how expensive a full frame body would be. Do you all remember film?

It was this plastic stuff we used to put in our cameras. Apparently it recorded the image; who knew? Well anyway, apparently you used to have to go to the store and buy this stuff called film. Cheap film was, well, cheap, but good film was actually fairly pricey, and it had to be used within a certain period or it would go bad. But wait, it gets worse, once you acquired this film and exposed it, you couldn't view the images immediately , no, you had to either take them to the store once again and pay to get them "developed", a prospect that rarely produced desirable results. OR you could do it yourself, but that required something called a "darkroom", and chemicals, and paper, and an enlarger, not to mention skill.

Quit whinin'.

Film is still cheaper. You can buy an awful lot of film for 3000 dollars, you just can't do the running and gunning that you tend to do with digital. There are plenty of folks here (some of them posting in this thread) who continue to use film cameras. It is a viable option for those who want "full frame lenses" as they are intended to be used.

[TaoMaas]

You can buy an awful lot of film for 3000 dollars, you just can't do the running and gunning that you tend to do with digital.

True. I paid $450 for my LX about 25 years ago and it's still worth about the same amount. I paid $75 for my MX about 20 years ago...and it's still worth about the same amount. I paid $1200 for my K10D about 5 years ago and it's now worth about 1/4 of that amount.

[eddie1960]

Film is still cheaper. You can buy an awful lot of film for 3000 dollars, you just can't do the running and gunning that you tend to do with digital. There are plenty of folks here (some of them posting in this thread) who continue to use film cameras. It is a viable option for those who want "full frame lenses" as they are intended to be used.

Only cheaper to a point (i still shoot and love film)

Assume $4.50/roll for 36 exposures colour (this would be dirt cheap BTW)
Add $3/roll for process and (poor) drug store scan
this is 400 rolls or 14400 exposures
If you look at adding a high quality scanner to ger results more in line with FF camera then Nikon - Add 2000+ if you can even find one
or pay 10-15 per roll for higher quality scans

Doesn't take long to pay for a FF body


Even Shooting b/w and self processing and scanning on a flatbed
($3/roll 36 $1/roll processing cost - Epson Scanner $500)
625 rolls 22500 images

Don't get me wrong I shoot film (mostly b/w in 35 - a mix in 120) and love it. I shoot usually for the characteristic look of a film (ie velvia, or trix for instance) and because I have the gear and have shot film all my life. it's not a logical thing but really a sentimental thing almost
Up front the cost is lower, but amortized over say 2 years the FF digital has paid for itself. If you keep it only for the usual FF upgrade cycle (say 4 years currently) then it costs about 50% less to operate on digital vs film

for medium format despite the much higher cost of use it will take a lot longer to recoup a digital (even a "cheap" 645D)

thing is even if I had a FF camera I'd probably still shoot film frequently so for me it's just another expense

[Rondec]

Only cheaper to a point (i still shoot and love film)

Assume $4.50/roll for 36 exposures colour (this would be dirt cheap BTW)
Add $3/roll for process and (poor) drug store scan
this is 400 rolls or 14400 exposures
If you look at adding a high quality scanner to ger results more in line with FF camera then Nikon - Add 2000+ if you can even find one
or pay 10-15 per roll for higher quality scans

Doesn't take long to pay for a FF body


Even Shooting b/w and self processing and scanning on a flatbed
($3/roll 36 $1/roll processing cost - Epson Scanner $500)
625 rolls 22500 images

Don't get me wrong I shoot film (mostly b/w in 35 - a mix in 120) and love it. I shoot usually for the characteristic look of a film (ie velvia, or trix for instance) and because I have the gear and have shot film all my life. it's not a logical thing but really a sentimental thing almost
Up front the cost is lower, but amortized over say 2 years the FF digital has paid for itself. If you keep it only for the usual FF upgrade cycle (say 4 years currently) then it costs about 50% less to operate on digital vs film

for medium format despite the much higher cost of use it will take a lot longer to recoup a digital (even a "cheap" 645D)

thing is even if I had a FF camera I'd probably still shoot film frequently so for me it's just another expense

How much did you shoot when you only used film? I shoot two to three times as many shots because it "doesn't cost anything," but the reality is that I end up deleting three times as many photos as I ever did on film. More is not necessarily more, if you see what I mean.

[eddie1960]

How much did you shoot when you only used film? I shoot two to three times as many shots because it "doesn't cost anything," but the reality is that I end up deleting three times as many photos as I ever did on film. More is not necessarily more, if you see what I mean.

True I do shoot far less on film depending on what i am shooting. I no longer use it for event photography due to digital just being better for that purpose
When I use it for street photography i find i shoot as many as I would on Digital, but I like the look
For landscapes and other usage i find i use less.
I reality i shoot Digital more like film most of the time as I use Manual Focus lenses and they tend to slow down the process for me.
I get about the same number of keepers either way most of the time

If you want a pure comparative last trip I took with 35 mm film only ( a long time back)
I shot
20 rolls slide
16 rolls colour neg
15 rolls b/w
so 1836 exposures for 2 weeks in the south of France that trip
Last year a little over 2 weeks (1 in Paris one in London) I shot about 1600exposures on digital and 6 rolls b/w so a total of about 1816, pretty much the same.
the difference is I shoot more day to day now that it doesn't cost
in Rome 2 years ago i shot 25 rolls 120 (mixed slide colour and b/w) and about 800 digital

[jsherman999]

[Aristophanes]

False. That's a myth that does work to Nikon's advantage, though. They make a lot of money off enthusiasts who fall for the "I need the Nikon 14-24 2.8, Nikon 24-70 2.8 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 to 'get the most out of my FF camera!" fallacy

I've been able to outfit mine incredibly successfully with lenses that are small/average sized for their FL, and not overly expensive;

20 2.8D
50 1.8D
85 1.8D
180 2.8 AF-N
300 f/4 AF IF

I've since added a few more on top of that list, but I bought all those new or gently used for about $600 less than the 70-200 2.8 alone. The holy trinity are the best zooms you can probably buy - but are huge, expensive, stay home a lot because of that size, and it's a flat out falsehood to call them 'required', any more than it's 'required' to buy only Zeiss glass for your Pentax.

Not a myth. A market. Decisively the market buys zooms as primary equipment. That's not contested for the vast majority. Primes have their place, but as a market norm they are an accessory.

If you baseline a market and its preferences, you'll factor in big glass zooms for FF.

Also I would question your "enthusiasts" label for zooms. The pros I know almost exclusively use zooms for fieldwork. They'd literally be fired if they did not. IN one case, the employer only buys zooms (by the hundreds of thousands of $$$ per year, I might add...that's where Nikon's money comes from).

[Aristophanes]

Film is still cheaper. You can buy an awful lot of film for 3000 dollars, you just can't do the running and gunning that you tend to do with digital. There are plenty of folks here (some of them posting in this thread) who continue to use film cameras. It is a viable option for those who want "full frame lenses" as they are intended to be used.
__________________

Absolutely. T-Max 400 and Portra 400 are phenomenal.

It's a good argument in a purist, nostalgia sense.

I have an MZ-S, MZ-50, Super Program, ME Super, Olympus 35RC and Canonet QL III 17, and Mamiya 645 as well as 3 years worth of film in the freezer next to the meatloaf.

[v5planet]

I have [...] 3 years worth of film in the freezer next to the meatloaf.

I like it. Does the meatloaf impart a fullness - or shall we say, umami - quality to the rendering in the photos on that film?

[Aristophanes]

I like it. Does the meatloaf impart a fullness - or shall we say, umami - quality to the rendering in the photos on that film?

Not sure. I don't eat the emulsion. The meatloaf supposedly blocks gamma rays. I think it's the onions.

[redrockcoulee]

I would like to weigh in (point 3) on this point of film cameras to justify full frame

1) slow speed film lasts decades, I have shot film that expired in the mid 70s for example
2) even if I buy one or two years supply at one time it still takes me many years to buy enough film to pay for a full frame camera. Granted I also shoot digital but the point is film can be bought on an annual, monthly weekly or even daily basis whereas a camera is bought at a single time
3) with film cameras it was easier to build them of a greater variety of weight and size. Compare a Pentax MZ5n to a Nikon F5 for example. Even the smallest digital camera needs a certain amount of electronics and batteries etc so I think the manufactures are more confined in what they can offer.

A stripped down bare to the bones FF will not do well in the market even though I bet it is a camera many would like to see at as would be inexpensive. lighter and more compact.

[jsherman999]

Not a myth. A market. Decisively the market buys zooms as primary equipment. That's not contested for the vast majority. Primes have their place, but as a market norm they are an accessory.

If you baseline a market and its preferences, you'll factor in big glass zooms for FF.

Well, now I think you're combining two concepts here:

1) The 'requirement' for a DSLR company to provide large f/2.8 zooms for FF customers

2) The 'requirement' for a shooter to buy those huge, expensive zooms to 'get the most out of the FF camera'

#1 I have always pretty much agreed with, because a company makes a large profit on each of those zooms (depending on asking price, of course.)

#2 is a myth, largely. As I said, it's about as true as 'you need to buy zeiss lenses to get the most out of your Pentax'. Maybe technically true, but the small difference in output quality between a zeiss and it's equivalent Limited for example is only detectable in a controlled test and would be virtually invisible when viewing real-world results.

Here's what you originally wrote, which I think was invoking 'requirement' 2 more than 1:

The D700 has a solid full stop more than the K-5 (2-2.5 over M43) and the D800 may have 2. But it has 'pro' features throughout, plus all the other advantages of FF. It loses 'value' because it requires big glass at high cost,

Also I would question your "enthusiasts" label for zooms. The pros I know almost exclusively use zooms for fieldwork.

I was saying 'enthusiasts' are the ones more likely to be conned into buying a large, expensive zoom they don't need in order to take advantage of FF, or to be deterred from buying into FF because they think these zooms are 'required'. Pros know what they need to get the job done - not worried about them. (And there are enthusiasts who simply want those large zooms, realizing that they're not 'required' to shoot FF.)

They'd literally be fired if they did not. IN one case, the employer only buys zooms (by the hundreds of thousands of $$$ per year, I might add....

I would very much like to know what sane company would fire one of it's employees or contractors for not using a particular lens.

Editor: This is a great shot, exactly what we were looking for. Nice sharpness, perfect composition, great contrast on the subject, everything works. Looks like you used the Nikon 24-70 2.8, huh?

Photographer: No, I had to shoot one handed above the crowd a couple times on that assignment, and generally I like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for this kind of stuff - much lighter, just as sharp, and my non-BIM version snaps focus really fast on that D700. I just like the reduced weight compared to that 24-70.

Editor: <stuffs print in garbage> You're fired.

(Good thing Enthusiasts can't be fired for getting great shots with $300 lenses. )

:.

[Aristophanes]

Well, now I think you're combining two concepts here:

1) The 'requirement' for a DSLR company to provide large f/2.8 zooms for FF customers

2) The 'requirement' for a shooter to buy those huge, expensive zooms to 'get the most out of the FF camera'

#1 I have always pretty much agreed with, because a company makes a large profit on each of those zooms (depending on asking price, of course.)

#2 is a myth, largely. As I said, it's about as true as 'you need to buy zeiss lenses to get the most out of your Pentax'. Maybe technically true, but the small difference in output quality between a zeiss and it's equivalent Limited for example is only detectable in a controlled test and would be virtually invisible when viewing real-world results.

Here's what you originally wrote, which I think was invoking 'requirement' 2 more than 1:

I was saying 'enthusiasts' are the ones more likely to be conned into buying a large, expensive zoom they don't need in order to take advantage of FF, or to be deterred from buying into FF because they think these zooms are 'required'. Pros know what they need to get the job done - not worried about them. (And there are enthusiasts who simply want those large zooms, realizing that they're not 'required' to shoot FF.)

I would very much like to know what sane company would fire one of it's employees or contractors for not using a particular lens.

Editor: This is a great shot, exactly what we were looking for. Nice sharpness, perfect composition, great contrast on the subject, everything works. Looks like you used the Nikon 24-70 2.8, huh?

Photographer: No, I had to shoot one handed above the crowd a couple times on that assignment, and generally I like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for this kind of stuff - much lighter, just as sharp, and my non-BIM version snaps focus really fast on that D700. I just like the reduced weight compared to that 24-70.

Editor: <stuffs print in garbage> You're fired.

(Good thing Enthusiasts can't be fired for getting great shots with $300 lenses. )

:.

You're splitting hairs.

The zooms are required from the manufacturer precisely because the market demands them. They can make them. They do. The quality is outstanding. Some consumers fret about the size but willingly accept the tradeoffs in numbers that completely swamps the market for primes. And the same consumers lay out big money for them.

Not just pros, but in aggregate. The market has long favoured zooms in the sales data (by many factors to 1) because the value of FL versatility outweighs the benefits of a prime's other attributes. You can argue about the merits until you are blue, but where the $$$ goes is inarguable. If you make FF DSLR cameras, you need a slate of competitive FL zooms or your camera body will not sell. People voting with their $$$ tell the story more than your post above. People who make real money will ignore (or marginalize) opinions like yours.

[Winder]

You're splitting hairs.

The zooms are required from the manufacturer precisely because the market demands them. They can make them. They do. The quality is outstanding. Some consumers fret about the size but willingly accept the tradeoffs in numbers that completely swamps the market for primes. And the same consumers lay out big money for them.

Not just pros, but in aggregate. The market has long favoured zooms in the sales data (by many factors to 1) because the value of FL versatility outweighs the benefits of a prime's other attributes. You can argue about the merits until you are blue, but where the $$$ goes is inarguable. If you make FF DSLR cameras, you need a slate of competitive FL zooms or your camera body will not sell. People voting with their $$$ tell the story more than your post above. People who make real money will ignore (or marginalize) opinions like yours.

I am one of the many people who left Olympus and 4/3 because they did not have the high grade primes to meet my needs. The 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 were both excellent lenses, but they are bigger than the 24-70L & 70-200L for the same focal length. While photojournalist will always travel with zooms for the functionality and versatility, there are a lot of us that plan out shoots and know what we need. We select the focal length before we ever show up. I can shoot an entire event with 2 primes and not need to carry around a monster zoom.

Olympus has some excellent zooms, but it is the lack of primes (and the lack of future development) that made me decide to move on.

I think fast high quality primes are very important for most professionals outside of PJs.