[Cuthbert]

What I would like, and still can't really afford, is a Canon F1. That's because it was a professional camera. a sturdy tool that many photographers used and used and used. Most on the market now are pretty beat up- and still command high prices. I suspect a never-used F-1 in pristine condition could probably fetch $1,000; but you'll never find one.

What is the digital equivalent of the Canon F-1 sold today? I've a Canon F-1N (and I just spent some £s for a Nikon F2AS right now because I heard so much talking it that I couldn't resist when I found one in decent state at a decent price from a reputable british seller on evilbay) and nothing compares with that: I mean, the K2 and K2DMD are sturdy cameras, the Soviets Kiev 15,17 and Zenit 12 and 19 are builts like T55s, but I've never owned a camera like that Canon, never seen THAT level of precision, sturdiness and sheer mechanical solidity the F-1N transmits.

I've handled some new Canons and Nikons DSLRs, they feel like toys and I don't look like they can survive not 50 years, but 10 years of really heavy use.

[monochrome]

I've handled some new Canons and Nikons DSLRs, they feel like toys and I don't look like they can survive not 50 years, but 10 years of really heavy use.

A camera body is a disposable today - the technology changes so quickly it would be financial suicide to build and price longevity into digital bodies (which is a slight fault of the Ricoh / Pentax strategy).

[Cuthbert]

Yeah, I think that Leica stated it costs them 2000€ to produce a film camera made in Germany today...they are the last brand that makes them today.

Still our cameras that we buy today for few quid will still work after we're dead and buried, that should make us think.

[Swift1]

Yeah, I think that Leica stated it costs them 2000€ to produce a film camera made in Germany today...they are the last brand that makes them today.

Still our cameras that we buy today for few quid will still work after we're dead and buried, that should make us think.

I believe that Fujifilm and Cosina are still making film cameras, as is Lomo and Holga.

[Cuthbert]

Not in Germany, not at Leitz standards.

[IHS]

I shoot both digi and film...it's hard to argue with the convenience of digital and the quality of the end product is why they've won the war. (I know that's subjective, just sayin') I do as much wildlife shooting as I can and for that I always carry the K-50. Wild animals don't just let you walk up and pet them on the head. (unless you're St. Francis) They don't like you...I can get far more shots in before they bolt, fly, slither or whatever away with a digital camera than I ever could with one of my slrs. Plus it's weatherproof, so If I'm in the woods and get caught out my camera will live to fight another day. I try to use film for most everything else and especially when I have a willing subject...like a building or a bridge etc. Film cameras do have a nostalgic feel to them that can't be denied, which is why I still love them as well as making me think more about composition, light and exposure before I pull the trigger. They make me a better photographer, I think.

[MD Optofonik]

Horses for courses from a technical standpoint but a well built film camera does "feel" better to me (a film camera is a total buzz kill). I believe digital is excellent for documenting certain one of a kind events and for certain types of experimentation where instant feedback can stimulate ideas and create a sort of hyper feedback loop.

Film seems to be useful and inspirational in other ways. Just starting to use film again, I'm feeling encouraged to more carefully consider particular subject matter and it seems to also be fueling a sort of aesthetic wanderlust. Perhaps, with the advent of digital imaging, film has become a more introspective medium.

On the "post" side, when I'm developing a roll it is so much more tactile than using LR. I also have to admit that, the graduated cylinders, temperature control, measuring, mixing, and pouring of chemicals, the timing of the the various processing steps and everything else that goes into it does get me a bit caught up in the "Mr. Wizard" / Bill Nye the Science Guy vibe (to bad there are no real thunderstorms in Los Angeles or I could get into the "Mad Scientist" vibe on rainy nights). Without a doubt, the film processing part of shooting film is just way more fun than sitting in front of a computer monitor "post processing". YMMV.

If not a single image of worth comes from all of it, however, my efforts will have served to reconnect me with the work of photographers I admired as a youth and images that were my first introduction to so called "fine art".

It's been said before but bears repeating that we live in a wonderful time where we have so many choices in the ways we can express ourselves.

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 09-10-2014 at 05:25 PM.

[Jonathan Mac]

I believe that Fujifilm and Cosina are still making film cameras, as is Lomo and Holga.

Don't forget Nikon and Rollei.

[Tybereus1490]

Film is great as long as I take my time and think about the scene and use good quality film then IQ will far exceed my k-10 In quality of images I have a me super and a zx-7 and Canon FTB ql all of which I shot black and white film

---------- Post added 10-12-14 at 11:33 AM ----------

Another great thing about film is that my slr camera's do different things like my zx-7 does panoramic shots and the FTB does long exposures because it doesn't need batteries in it and the me super is useful for general photography use

[Silent Street]

I think it's considered obsolete, but I agree it isn't literally obsolete

Oh, digital? Yes, obsolete. Or at least going nowhere fast...