Any film shooters getting the itch to shoot digital?

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot film 99.9999% of the time, using dozens of different film cameras, Leicas included of course.

But I am getting curious about digital - even though I have a couple of digi cams but never actually use them.  I keep thinking I'd wish I had instead taken a film camera with me.

Any film shooters thinking about trying digital?  And if so, why?

[Rollei35]

I do both. So don’t know what you mean by itchy. I don’t get itchy 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[BradS]

Yeah...kinda.

I've been doing photography since the early 1970's. I had a flatbed scanner that could do film scans for a while but it died years ago and I never replaced it. That was as close as I came to "going digital".  I was always very firmly committed to using film but in late December of 2021, I somewhat grudgingly bought a digital camera. Not only is it the first digital camera I've ever owned, it is the first auto focus camera for me as well.   I've been using it exclusively since.  For me, it just came down to economics.

I'm learning and it's kinda growing on me....I kinda love the lens at least.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Ouroboros]

No itch here, I use Leica film (MP, M4-P, iiif, 'O' Serie v2) and digital (M10-R bp) M cameras.

Why? I bought the M10-R primarily for long-haul travel so that I don't need to worry about taking film through multiple new security scanners.  I've used digital cameras for work since 2000 and I left the learning curve behind years ago. In the almost 2 years since I bought it, the M10-R has been cycling touring and backpacking in Sri Lanka, Namibia, Nepal and India  and is coming with me cycle touring in Eswartini (formerly Swaziland), on safari in Botswana and backpacking in South Africa in four week's time.  

I use the M10-R, MP and MP-4 interchangeably, they all feel similar in size, weight and operation in the hand (all three are brass construction). Sometimes I use the M10-R alongside the MP, the transition from one to the other is seamless. 

Day to day locally, my film cameras see more use because at heart I'm a film user.  If I could have only one M, it would be my black paint MP which I bought new in 2005.

[madNbad]

I tried a couple of DSLR. I like the A7II as a camera but to be effective when out and about, it means adding a battery grip and the lenses are large. I have no desire for a digital M camera and so far the only new camera that has caught my eye is the ZFc. I enjoy the process of using film, mostly because there’s always a bit of mystery if I have done everything right. If traveling by air, it’s too risky to carry film and I’ve reached the point of using my phone to document the trip. If we traveled by air more often, I would invest in a real digital camera but that’s low on the list.

The only way for you to really know is pick a digital camera out of the box and make it your primary for a month. If you’re already using cameras with AE, it’s not that much of a jump, plus you can dial up any ISO you need.

The thing I’m trying to avoid is medium format. There’s something about those big negatives and only twelve exposures.

[spydrxx]

I spent 40 years with film cameras before learning to use digitals. Today most of my work is digital, but I have a collection of film cameras going back to the 1930s, which I occasionally use. I love the old Barnacks, but convenience (read digital) often wins out these days over film. I'm gradually working down my film stock and in the end will probably end up with a cabinet full of shelf queens.

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do around 50/50 film/digital. Horses for courses. I even use my mobile phone, it rather depends what I have to hand. I had my first camera in 1953, things have certainly moved on since then.

[Al Brown]

I would not have been shooting Leica on film without the addition of digital M. Done too many film shoots in 25 years ☺️.

[105012]

Occasionally I bring out a digital, but am almost always disappointed with the results compared with what I would have got with film. The iPhone is now my primary digital camera, used to record things etc. It is a wonderfully multi-purpose device: map, phone, music player, wallet, messaging, torch, lost item finder, ruler, keys, digital camera, ...

[250swb]

I think I've used my M10 twice this year, and apart from using my Z7 for film scanning I've used it two or three times 'in the wild'. Not much to report, disappointed each time, didn't feel connected to my subject or the camera. I'm having some fun with a digital P&S camera I converted to infrared but it can slip into a pocket and I either remember its there or I don't, ambivalent is the word. Otherwise it's still film all the way!

[hansvons]

Feel no itch for digital as it's the medium I use for about half of my projects. 

When I shoot campaigns that benefit from shooting in a high frequency and have a short timing, I use my SL2-S with a set of R-primes. I have my own Kodak 5207-mimicking camera ICC profile for C1. That means grading is as fast as it possibly gets. With that setup, I also shoot videos from time to time. This setup requires a case with some footprint.

For little journalistic projects (shoot today, post today) and light travel (mostly paired with a film M), I recently bought a 12-year-old Fuji EX-1 that sports a nice 16 MP old-school sensor plus a TTA 23mm f1.4 lens which basically is a funky APS-C Steel Rim knock-off. That kit cost 300 EUR.

My Ms are film only. I use them for photo essays, campaigns, and pictures I stick to the wall (lambda/C-print only, inkjet feels not right for me), basically everything with a longer lifespan.

For some time I’ve been wondering whether I should get an M10 (I prefer a larger pixel pitch over resolution). For now, the little Fuji fills that gap. 

[hansvons]

14 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think I've used my M10 twice this year,

 

Exactly what I expected, if I’d owned one. Unnecessary investment.

[Jewl]

.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Jewl
Wrong Thread

[logan2z]

I occasionally think about dipping my toes into digital photography - but usually only when something goes amiss with my film photography, like an unexplained development problem or one of my old film cameras breaks down  I usually snap out of it when I think about how awful it would be making photos using a computer with a lens bolted to it - charging batteries, doing firmware upgrades,  messing with cables, endless hours sifting through hundreds of photos on an SD card, tweaking them in Lightroom/Photoshop, etc. etc. 

If I did decide to buy a digital camera, then what would I get?   I've got several Leica lenses and some M film bodies, so the natural choice would be some sort of Leica digital M camera.  But I can't see myself investing  $7K-$9K in a camera that will depreciate like crazy and be old news in a few years.  How about an SL2/SL-S?  I hate the form factor as well as the price tag.  Maybe a Fuji X-series?  Nice retro-inspired design,  but if I bought a digital camera I'd want it to double as my film scanner, so a full frame camera would be a better choice.  I also don't know how well an adapted M lens would perform on the camera.  I am waiting to see what happens with the announce of the rumored Nikon Zf as that seems like it could fit the bill as a nice retro-styled digital camera with a full frame sensor that I could use for film scanning.  But for anything other than film scanning and maybe the occasional airplane trip , I'll stick to my film cameras.  I much prefer the simplicity of the workflow, and the mystery of not knowing what I have until the film is developed.  I enjoy the process of developing film, and I love making prints in the darkroom. 

Who knows, maybe at some point I'll get sick of the whole film thing and decide to go all-digital.  But for now the primary reason I'd buy a digital camera would be for scanning my negatives in order to make 'zines and self-published books.

Edited September 13, 2023 by logan2z

[Greenhilltony]

2 minutes ago, Jewl said:

I am coming from a digital M (M10P, now M11) and added an analog M! 

I am trying to use both / compensate each other as for me, film is too expensive to solely rely on the medium! And, as I shoot a lot in challenging light situations, film often is also not working to achieve good results (do not want to use tripods etc.). 

We are quite similar. I bought a CLE this February to return to streetphotography, shot a few rolls and then thought it too costly. Then bought an M10P this March, as my first Leica product. The digital body let me build my skills around guessing distance, zone focusing and metering by eyes and memories very quickly. In August, I gradually developed the GAS towards an analog M--then bought an M4, unfortunately the shutter curtains quickly degraded after a few successful rolls. While the M4 was under repairment and CLA, I bought an M3, because I think its magnificent viewfinder can be paired with my favourite lens the M-Rokkor 40/2 without framelines. 

Shooting film become cost-acceptable again for me when my father and I explored and mastered the C41 and ECN-2 processes at home, and we found sources for bulk loading the Kodak Vision3 5219. The 5219 can be rated and pushed 1-2 stops easily to 800/1600 (or strictly speaking, 1000/2000) from my current experience, which is quite enough for me shooting in city day and night. I usually shoot at ISO800 at daylight and ISO3200 at night and internal on my M10-P. With the ease and freedom of push processing by myself, I seamlessly transition to shooting film all day during my way to university and home, and challenge every tough light situations with curiosity.

What's holding me to shoot with M3/M4 is the beauty of these analog Ms. Especially the M2/M3/M4 gens are free of the visual distraction elements like the red dot sticker, the "LEICA" text on front, and model name on front. The classic engravings on top beats the engravings on M10-P in terms of quality and even durability. The analog Ms have smarter look than the M10-P, perhaps due to the slightly lower height leading to the better aspect ratio of the camera body. Last but not least, who can resist the temptation of winding and releasing the lever? 

[williamj]

I have digital cameras for very specific purposes. Because the sensor is more linear than film, and is more sensitive to shadow detail, the images can appear flat (I know photographic images are 2D but you know what I mean). Getting good 3D modelling is in my opinion more difficult and I find I have to depend on the camera's routines and menu options to achieve this. Maybe better photographers don't need to depend so much on the camera. But ordinary digital images have a characteristic look.

Film gives a hard copy of the image which is readable by eye. Silver images can last for a long time and you don't need petabytes of storage in triplicate. Silver translates light and shade magnificently. Some of my amateurish images are breathtaking for that reason. Those are the reasons I still use film irrespective of the cost. There's no itch here. I'm not sure this helps you.

Edited September 13, 2023 by williamj
grammar

[Stuart Richardson]

I shoot both film and digital, something made a bit easier because I used to process film commercially for clients, so I can do my own processing in color and black and white up to 8x10. I mostly shoot film in 120, 4x5 and 8x10. The digital cameras I use most are the SL2 and the Ricoh GRIIIx. I find that usually my best results in black and white are from film, and my best results in color are from digital (or slide). The biggest challenge at the moment is the extraordinary explosion in costs for film photography. This is exacerbated the larger the format you shoot. 8x10 color or even high end black and white (Kodak Tmax 400, for example) runs at 15-30 dollars A SHOT, before shipping, taxes, chemicals, scanning and processing. This truly makes it a labor of love, when a camera like the SL2 can pop out a technically comparable (well...in some ways) photo for "free". I imagine that this is a consideration in 35mm if you shoot a ton of film, but the price has meant that I think a lot more carefully about how I photograph in color especially. I cannot afford to make mistakes or to take a photo if I am not completely sure. Large format has always been expensive, but when I came up, (mostly early 2000s) it was at a historic low, so the prices seem even more alarming.

Meanwhile, the quality of digital cameras have gotten better and better. I am not saying it is a 1 to 1, but the days of digital being compromised or inferior are long over. Very long over... Aesthetics are another matter, but there are any number of tools to make a digital photo look more filmic. Most are kind of chintzy, but some of the best are very convincing, especially if you don't just rely on a preset or profile, but fine tune your results. For me the best use case for film these days is to utilize the uniqueness of the formats/cameras (such as having a 210 or 450mm standard lens and full movements), or to have a fully analog feeling experience. Black and white darkroom prints are still better in most cases than digital (I say this both as a darkroom printer and having run a Hahnemuhle certified inkjet studio for the last fifteen years), especially in the larger formats. But when it comes to just getting good work out into the world, it is hard to beat digital for its practicality and quality.

With the Leica M digital cameras in particular, most recently I have stuck with film. The M camera has mostly been a secondary camera for me for most of my career, and the prices are now so high that it no longer makes sense in that role. The cost of switching from an M8 to M9 for me was around 2000 dollars. Switching from the M10 to M11 would have cost me around 5000 dollars. In the end I just sold the M10 and stuck with the SL2 as my main work camera. As an overall system it is incredible.

[Martin B]

Started out with only Leica film for about 5 years before getting my first digital M. I  recent years, I shot about 70% of my photos with film, predominantly B&W. Rising film prices and cost for chemicals changed this recently. I added the digital monochrome M 246 which I am using now much more often than my M film cameras - now I am shooting film to less than 20% these days. I am very selective now in which situations to use film. For similar cost-related reasons, I slopped all my color film avenues - for color, it is all digital now. 

For medium-format 6x6 it is only film for me - but I admit I haven't even touched my Hasselblad 500 C/M this whole year so far. It it was film, I shot all of it with 35 mm so far instead. 

I still enjoy darkroom printing work though but also less often these days. I more often refer to the hybrid digital/analog process with digital negatives here which allows me to print silver gelatin prints from digital B&W or infrared files. I recently changed most of my framed photos in my home after I moved to a new location two years ago - all newly framed photos are printed with my Canon Pixma Pro-100 printer, none of them I made in my darkroom. This also gives an indication that my analog work process has slowed down and was replaced with digital.   

I own several Leica film cameras: IIIc, M3, M4-2, M6, and M7. Even I shoot less film these days, I will hold on to all of them. I enjoy using these cameras, it will always be a wonderful feel to shoot with film. But practical and pragmatic reasons often don't cut it for me anymore. Especially when traveling, it is 100% digital for me now. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Martin B

[Guest]

The OP's question could just as well be asked the other way round.

Many moons ago I started out with film. In about 2002 I got my first digital camera and stopped using film. About 12 years ago I bought a Rolleicord Vb from  my birthyear. Since then other analogue cameras have wandered in and out of my life. I use them all now and again, But I mainly use digital for the sheer convenience: no futzing around in darkrooms or waiting for films to come back from processing, I can look at the day's shots the same evening. I am not stuck with one ISO setting for the next 36 pix. I can do b-w/colour however I want. And if anyone throws Ansel Adams at me, I reply that he probably would have taken to digital like a duck to water since his images came from his work and mastery in the darkroom, not his camera choice or work.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steven]

17 hours ago, Huss said:

I shoot film 99.9999% of the time, using dozens of different film cameras, Leicas included of course.

But I am getting curious about digital - even though I have a couple of digi cams but never actually use them.  I keep thinking I'd wish I had instead taken a film camera with me.

Any film shooters thinking about trying digital?  And if so, why?

I shoot 100% film, and I think about digital everyday. Either because I seem some digital photos that inspire me, or because I'm in an airport with 100 or 200 rolls in my bag pack (several times a months). 

I end up buying a digital camera every few months (I usually go for an SL2-S, a Q2or an M10). I use it for one day, immediately remember why I didnt have it in the first place, sell it with a loss and go back to film, until I buy it again. I bought and sold the Q2 about 6 times in the past two years. Never kept it more than a week. Had so many M10Ps, and SL2S as well, but they never last. The only digital camera that I could contemplate keeping for a long time is the M10M, but I don't shoot enough BW to justify it. When it comes to colour, nothing beat films for me. Although its not only about the colours, but the workflow also. 

I shoot mainly Portra, 35mm and 120mm. I process all rolls myself at home (around 100 a month), and I scan it at home too with a Noritsu HS1800. 

My final output is either instagram or print, A4, A3 and A2, with an Epson P900.