[Jake67]

I still don't have a digital camera. I have almost pulled the trigger several times on a K20d setup. Something keeps telling me to stay analog. Honestly, I worry that once I have a DSLR, I'll neglect analog photography. Seems silly, I know. It's just that I see manual film shooting as a discipline. I don't know if I want the option to shoot 1000 photos in a day. I have to be judicious with my shooting because each exposure costs a little something. In being judicious, I'm carefully checking exposure and composing each photo with the intent of getting a keeper.

Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century? Is this a backwards way of thinking?

[Blue]

It got to the point for me that for macro and closeup it made a lot of sense to go digital. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't care as much.

[carlb]

Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century? Is this a backwards way of thinking?

No

I haven't gone (and have no intention of going) digital unless film becomes extinct (unlikely in my lifetime I expect). As much as anything, digital cameras seem far too complex to me.

I did consider getting a second-hand DSLR for some specific applications I had in mind but after getting some advice from people on here it doesn't seem that it would suit my purposes, so I don't think I'll bother.

[felixkh]

I use both film and digital. Balance of both but digital more nowadays.

[jgredline]

Well, judging by the images you have put up, stay with film.
I for one have quite a few DSLR's and use them far less than my film SLR's. I shoot film 70% of the time and when I do shoot digital, I am usually using my little point and shoots. When I go birding or I shoot macro, then I do use my DSLR's.

[woof]

Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century?

I did right up to 18 months ago. My eyes are shot.

It was also my first AF body. Heh. I needed this to get the pictures of the kids. I just can't quite keep up with my early Pentax, Spotmatics, Nikon Fs, and Nikkormat FT's.

I still shoot landscapes and such with my old cameras.

Is this a backwards way of thinking?

No, it's your way of thinking and that's not something I am going to judge. Moreover, I'll tell you that I understand and respect it. I also admire the photos I have seen of yours.

woof

[gofour3]

Originally Posted by Jake67
Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century? Is this a backwards way of thinking?

Nope film is more fun and you can be more creative setting up the picture, without resorting to using Photoshop afterwards.

It’s also the quality of the shots instead of quantity. You tend to think more before pushing the shutter than you would with a digital camera, which is more like pulling the trigger and taking 10 pictures of the same subject in a few seconds. (Nine of which you will delete)

I have four manual Penatx film cameras and zero digital, I will never switch to digital.

[Ratmagiclady]

Doesn't necessarily harm everything. I've been spending some *time* getting up to speed on digital, or as much as I can: sometimes you just need it. *That* takes away a bit from the film work, as I've just had limited time shooting, but staying analog's OK, too.

[keithlester]

I still don't have a digital camera. I have almost pulled the trigger several times on a K20d setup. Something keeps telling me to stay analog. Honestly, I worry that once I have a DSLR, I'll neglect analog photography. Seems silly, I know. It's just that I see manual film shooting as a discipline. I don't know if I want the option to shoot 1000 photos in a day. I have to be judicious with my shooting because each exposure costs a little something. In being judicious, I'm carefully checking exposure and composing each photo with the intent of getting a keeper.
Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century? Is this a backwards way of thinking?

There's no reason to abandon this methodology if you go digital. I went digital when the *ist D first hit the markets but I still take time over every exposure and try to keep my keeper-rate up. There's no point in rattling off shots just because it costs so little, you only end up wading through a sea of mediocre images, so deep you may miss the occasional successful shot. Just my £0.02p, YMMV

[SpecialK]

Digital is not a big learning curve. Most settings are set once then left as-is. You still have a lightmeter you must interpret, and the same 3 things to control the exposure - ISO, shutter and aperture.

Nothing could make me go back to film at this point.

I'm not suggesting you give up film.

[titrisol]

I just got a few rolls back from the lab and my wife agrees that analog pictures are better.
I had some of my daughter's 4th b-day back in february (shot with ME-Super and HEMA brand film) and when we compare them with the ones me and my dad-in-law shooot the same day using his K100Ds mine look better
Thus my acquisition of a digital body will wait a bit more.
Meanwhile Iĺl be giving away a MZ-30 and a ME I have and use sparingly.

[raymeedc]

It's not necessary to give up your methodical, thoughtful style of shooting to take advantage of some of the digital world's obvious advantages.
I shoot with everything from 50's folders & TLRs through 60's Spotmatics & on to DSLRs. I don't, however, utilize much of my DSLRs technology. I shoot RAW with my old Takumar primes, focusing manually & metering with my old Gossen Luna Pro handheld meters, using the DSLR bodies essentially as Polaroid backs.
I must confess, however, that I do occasionally use one of a pair of digital "walkaround" shooters for more leisurely, less critical shooting, when I'm likely to be preoccupied by my surrounding circumstances, such as family gatherings (Canon Powershot G6 & Canon Powershot S70, always in RAW). Even these, though, allow full manual control.

[Nesster]

I'm considering a retro step - giving my daughter the K100D and only borrowing it back on occasion, at least till sometime next year.

Of course this is somewhat a defense manouver, as otherwise she might be convincing her grandma to buy her a K-M. This way I can hold out for a K-7...

Though the film workflow has more things that can go wrong along the way, the cameras are smaller, I like the full frame, and the film look. The things I like about digital are huge - the instant feedback, the macro advantages already mentioned, the relatively small penalty with higher ISO etc.

[SteveM]

I decided to sell my k20d to help pay for the K-7 and it sold a little quicker than I had thought, so now (for the next month or two) when I want to take some shots, I only have film.

There is something about taking the time to really look at what you are seeing in the viewfinder and thinking about what you want to do for settings.....as you are only going to take one shot, then move on.

With that said, I'm really excited about the K-7 and am looking forward to getting it. I'm probably going to use it a little different than most people because I also use film....i.e. pulling out filters etc. I'll spend some time up front rather than after in post processing. I won't necessarily end up with a better picture, but I'll enjoy seeing what I can do.

Perhaps you can borrow something like a k20d for an afternoon? You might find it a good companion to your film camera?

[Blue]

Digital photography is so 20th Century...

Chris

I guess one could argue that still photography is so "19th Century" as well.