The modern world marches on and alas another anachronism from a bygone age seems to have gone.
I read on the net that Nikon have stopped producing there last film SLR the F6. I suspect this was actually stopped a while back but after reading of its demise I noticed that warehouseexpress have removed it from their site this week.
The F6 was introduced in 2004 when digital was well on its march to dominance. The last of a long line of Nikon F film bodies.
I am new to photography only owning a dSLR but part of me knows that I'd have learnt alot from shooting film. With digital you don't need to think so much point click ad check screen. Oh delete and if its still wrong when you download have fix with a tool like photoshop.
With film each shot is money so you have to get it right.
I read that a dSLR has better image quality than film but I'd be interested to know how a good film camera like the F6 would compare to a Nikon d300/d700 or a Canon 50d.
I guess now film can't compete with digital but it does seem sad.
7 comments:
I wouldn't be able to afford a film camera at all, at the moment if I would still shoot as many images as I do now. By taking as many different photos of the same subject as I do, before then choosing the best one, I'd need to get it right too, from the first shot, like you mentioned.
Aren't we lucky that digital photography came along?
Interesting posting. A friend of mine, a professional is convinced Digital will destroy photography. Digital is great in that it allows us to do many things, easily. But relying ona chip it's hard to control at the top end of perfomance (he has a 24 million pix studio camera). So what does he use for his own work, a Large format Hassleblad. As he says the quality is so superior, it doesn't compare. In TV terms, HD and digital have also allowed different uses, but Film is still tehnically superior, although now a relic. Sad passing as you say, but then my grandfather was a keen photographer in the Edwardian era, my parents have boxes and boxes of glass plates... need I say more :-)
yoke - yeah the cost of wildlife photography would be expensive.
BR - those Hasslebads are a tadge pricey!! but I reckon we'd all benefit from learning with film.
Hassleblads, now there,s a camera too die for. Pricey yes but you get what you pay for. Now me i still use my old Russian 6/6 roll film camera, when i can get the film that is. The real expense comes when you try to get the film hand-printed, i only use B/W film, now thats expensive!! but the detail on the 4x4 print is superb. For me digital has killed the art of taking good photos. Its back to point and shoot.
paul.
My cousin in Australia has a Rollei film camera. It uses a 127 film which he thought no longer existed. But a photographic friend has found (through a net search) 5 x B & W rolls left!! Amazing.
I still have my film camera and it took/takes some great pictures.
BUT I was always too scared of the resulting developing costs etc. to experiment. So digital definitely has helped me..
hey, Anonymouse, what about scanning your black and white negatives? Lotsa people do that now and use Photoshop to dodge and burn the problem areas. Then print on digital printer, with the correct profile for the paper of course. Like Hannamuhle paper... sigh. PS I kinda think the color quality of 35mm slides scanned is very very nice and I just have an olde K1000 Pentax slr. Of course it takes sooo much more time and effort. Sooo its kinda olde fashioned. But of course the Hasselblad is so incredibly sharp so gimme one please.
I could never afford any of those big Nikons, but I have what was dubbed a budget Nikon for beginners... the FG20. I was looking at it a few days ago; could handle it as if I'd last used it yesterday, though it's been years. The Canon digital SLR is just easier, quicker, and I don't have to pay out for having the film processed (or wait for it!) I don't have a scanner either, and couldn't scan them onto the Mac.
Should I use the FG20 again?
Post a Comment