miami91 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #41 Posted December 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 4. Two M7s, two R9s. One M7 is always loaded with b/w film, one with colour. Same with the R9s. Jeff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Hi miami91, Take a look here How many film cameras do people still own and use?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Knomad Posted December 17, 2009 Share #42 Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) I am an IT guy. Although I mostly use digital cameras when traveling, every journey starts with lots of dithering over backups for the brittle technology involved in digital photography. How many spare batteries shall I carry? Does one charger suffice, or shall I prepare myself for the eventual failure of that cheap-looking thingy? How many storage cards? Do I dare leaving the only copies of my images on the storage card or shall I carry the disk copier? If so, is it large enough to hold successive daily copies of the ever growing data volume on the card? Will the power plug adapter really work in the country I am going to visit, and in the particular hotel? This sums up a lot of the issues I struggle with. Digital has the "convenience" of seeing the image immediately. But a whole lot of inconveniences come along with that and many of them are usually overlooked. One of my ongoing concerns is backup of digital images. I'm actually current on backup at the moment, including an off-site copy of everything, but when I'm on deadline at the office that can fall a couple of weeks behind. Then there's another issue: Once I took a decade-long break from serious photography, and all my negatives were still there when I came back. If I were to do the same now, it would mean a tedious upgrade of backups onto whatever the storage media of the day might be, since it's a pretty good bet that whatever we use today will be obsolete in a few years. End result: Although I continue to shoot mostly with an M8 at least for now, I still bring my M6 or M4 out to play frequently. In fact I just took the M6 on a lunchtime walk down the boardwalk along the bay, and that was a very enjoyable experience. However, those Leica M bodies and an old Hasselblad 500C are really the only film bodies that I still use at all. I really should sell all the ancient Nikons, because I'm never going to use them again. I just no longer see any advantage to using any other 35mm film body; the only ones that do it for me in both quality and the shooting experience itself are Leica, or medium format. Edited December 17, 2009 by Knomad Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted December 18, 2009 Share #43 Posted December 18, 2009 May I take the chance to wish all of you my best wishes for a Merry 'Xmas and Happy new year Paola Paola that is a very impressive list! Seasons Greetings to you and welcome to the forum! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthman_1 Posted December 18, 2009 Share #44 Posted December 18, 2009 I own well over 50 film cameras from Minox, to Box Brownies, to vintage folders, to 8x10. All of them are in working condition and by my countI at least 24 of them have been used in the last six months, probably around a dozen different monthly. The users are Fuji 6x9s, Hasselblads, Nikon Fs, Leica Ms, a Bessa III, and various view cameras including Speed Graphics. Also have a D3 and a Sony P&S. I love all of them and enjoy the fact that whatever I want to shoot, I've got something that will work... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted December 18, 2009 Share #45 Posted December 18, 2009 One: an M7 with 24, 35 and 50 lenses. I "grew up"with a IIIc with a 50. The IIIc was replaced by an M4, then an M6, and now our M7. One body, three lenses. The question of "what to take" on an outing or a major trip is answered for me. From Kodachrome to Astia, color trannies have been our preference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parasko Posted December 18, 2009 Share #46 Posted December 18, 2009 3 x M7: .58;.72;.85 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted December 18, 2009 Share #47 Posted December 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) M7, CLE and Nik V for the pool and seaside with the kids Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted December 18, 2009 Share #48 Posted December 18, 2009 M7, MP, Hasselblad 503CW, 203FE and Xpan II, Canon AE-1, Nikon F6 and F80, Voigtlander Bessa III - all used regularly, and a Retinette, Fujica, Chinon and Brownie that are used occasionally, and an ancient TLR that needs repairing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted December 18, 2009 Share #49 Posted December 18, 2009 (edited) Every couple years I go through this -- should I get rid of my rangefinder stuff? Should I dump the recently acquired Leicaflex system? And with the recent hike in the local cost of developing, the voices in my head are even stronger. Add to this the recent "perfect storm" on my trip to Churchill Canada where (1) I left a bag of film at home; (2) one of my mechanical cameras broke on the first day leaving me with just one functioning camera; (3) I had no expertise of using telephotos on SLRs (you really do have to hold them still); and (4) that there is a big difference between my current rangefinder lenses and the 70's optics I was suing -- all mixed with perfect sun and a lot of bears... ...and I'm starting to wonder whether it is time to go digital. PS -- On that trip to Churchill, there was about 35 tourists, with lots of big and expensive cameras, and only two of use were shooting film. Please someone, talk me out of it. Here's my take - 1: If you ditch your Leica gear, you will inevitably come to regret it - and with the prices of Leica cameras and lenses, replacing it all once regret sets in will be damn near impossible, unless you happen to have a gold mine in your back yard. 2: As far as film processing costs, both B&W and E-6 can be processed at home in your kitchen sink - I have done both for years and am far from a darkroom wizard. My chromes and negs come out as good as any developed by a professional lab, and have from the start. If I can do it, anyone can do it - if they want to. 3: Of course the masses have gone to digital - it is all computer based and results (prints) are much quicker to hold in your hands than if they were shooting film. But then who cares what the masses do?? If you like the process of shooting film and like the results (the look of your prints) - then shoot film. My cameras - Nikon: F100, F3hp, FM2n, FM2/T Hasselblad: XPAN II Leica: MP Olympus: Stylus point & shoot Deardorff 5x7 w/Schneider 210/5.6 I hope to add a Voigthlander/Bessa 667 to the stable soon and some day an M6 as a backup to the MP. At first I was enamored with the M9 - but I started thinking about the seven thousand dollar price of admission, and frankly, I just can't see the wisdom in such a purchase (for me, at least). As Knomad said - This sums up a lot of the issues I struggle with. Digital has the "convenience" of seeing the image immediately. But a whole lot of inconveniences come along with that and many of them are usually overlooked. One of my ongoing concerns is backup of digital images. I'm actually current on backup at the moment, including an off-site copy of everything, but when I'm on deadline at the office that can fall a couple of weeks behind. Then there's another issue: Once I took a decade-long break from serious photography, and all my negatives were still there when I came back. If I were to do the same now, it would mean a tedious upgrade of backups onto whatever the storage media of the day might be, since it's a pretty good bet that whatever we use today will be obsolete in a few years. One of the "conveniences" of digital that many people tout is saving money on film, processing and printing. I crunched the numbers and found that to convert over to digital, I would have to spend between $5000 and $10,000US (possibly more, if buying an M9) before I could start "saving money." That's the kind of financial bloodshed required if you want to get set up with professional level digital equipment (computer, software, printer, inks, paper, camera body and the needed accessories). Of course you can do it on the cheap - and you will get what you pay for in terms of results. That begs the question: What is the point of that? Such an approach may satisfy the part time hobbyist - but if photography is a decades long passion, if it is a significant part of your life, if you have sacrificed to be able to invest in Leica cameras and lenses and spent untold amounts of time and effort making images, going digital on the cheap will be a waste of your time, money and effort. JMHO. Photography is like everything else in life - one way ot the other, you always get what you pay for. Digital does have its advantages, though. So does film photography. The two are very different media. The prints produced by each method have a very different look. As for me, I prefer the fingerprint of film based images to the "convenience" and "savings" of digital. Edited December 18, 2009 by AgXlove Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted December 18, 2009 Share #50 Posted December 18, 2009 M3s and MPs... Love the film workflow and look. Cheers, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcelmalherbe Posted December 18, 2009 Share #51 Posted December 18, 2009 Three: one M6, one M4P and a Pentax 67. Unfortunately it's getting pretty hard to buy 220 film. Having films developed is another problem, there's only a single good lab left in town and they charge the moon. Still I stick to film. Looks better, feels better, have worked with it for almost 40 years. Digital looks like "plastic" to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted December 19, 2009 Share #52 Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) Digital looks like "plastic" to me.My thought exactly, especially when the final image is B&W. The total lack of grain or fingerprint that you get with film looks odd; it's vaguely disconcerting in a way (to me, anyway). This is something that is lost on people who do not take making photographs seriously - which accounts for most people. Edited December 19, 2009 by AgXlove Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted December 20, 2009 Share #53 Posted December 20, 2009 (edited) So many wonderful choices we have. I just bought an M4 yesterday, but here is what I have in inventory, and use 2 M3 1 M4 2 M6 1 MP 2 M8 1 M9 1 3f 1 Nikon F 1 Hasselblad H3D-50 1 Hasselblad H2F (film_ 1 Xpan 1 Linhoff 6x17 1 4x5 (and with Betterlight) 1 8x10 Various point and shoots I keep and use them all. Each has a use. Each is a different tool for a specific purpose. when I die my kids will think I am nuts and give them to Goodwill, but they will have been used. BTW my Nikon 1980s Kodachromes are as good as anything as I ever did. Edited December 20, 2009 by dspeltz Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo035 Posted December 20, 2009 Share #54 Posted December 20, 2009 (edited) only an Olympus Trip and a Leicaflex SL Bought the Leicaflex with a 35mm 2-cam Elmarit fairly recently (to get back to Leica Photography) soon adding a 90mmElmarit and a 21mm (f4) Super Angulon. The D-Lux 4 I bought a year ago has been shunted into second place by the SL .. and the Trip hardly ever sees the light of day. Edited December 20, 2009 by jimbo035 typo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albada60 Posted December 21, 2009 Share #55 Posted December 21, 2009 Hi Steve, IMHO I would not get out of your Leica film cameras. I speak with a little sentiment here as I have used Leicas virtually all my life. In 1969 when I was 16 my Dad "lent" me his 1955 M3 with collapsible 50mm Summicron ... and that started my journey with Leica. Many enthusiasts on this forum use film although the M8 and M9 have given reason to shift to digital. I currently use M4, M5, M6 and SL2 with lenses 21mm to 560mm. Black and whites are printed on a Focomat 1c enlarger. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted December 21, 2009 Share #56 Posted December 21, 2009 M3s and MPs... Love the film workflow and look. Cheers, I am with Riccis, as presently I have 2 MPs - both ,85x - and M3/ZI. Prefer film process + wet print look. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 21, 2009 Share #57 Posted December 21, 2009 1-D700 1-F100 1-FM3A 1-MP3 1-M6TTL 2-M3 1-Xpan 2-500 C/M 1-Giant pinhole camera called the "Glory Hole" that uses 20x24 litho film for contact prints. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted December 21, 2009 Share #58 Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) Digital and film can peacefully coexist. I use a lot of digital for convenience and speed, but I still prefer film, especially in b&w: Leica M7 Nikon F6 Nikon F3HP Nikon FM2n and (drum roll!)... Rolleiflex 2.8F! Nikon D700 Leica M 8.2 Panasonic GF-1 With assorted lenses. All great cameras. Each and every one of them give me great pleasure using them, and results way beyond my own capabilities as a photographer. Edited December 21, 2009 by hammam Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Park Posted December 21, 2009 Share #59 Posted December 21, 2009 6 films cameras 0 digital R6.2 & 2 R7 s M2, M6TTL & Contax IIA CD R6.2 was bought yesterday. Film all the way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnik Posted December 21, 2009 Share #60 Posted December 21, 2009 One --> M6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.