The Online Photographer

Check out our new site at!

Monday, March 27, 2006


Proposition 1: Once you go digital, you never go back.

Proposition 2: Once you go from a small digital sensor (1/1.8", 1/2.5", etc.) to a large digital sensor (4/3rds, APS-C and larger), you never go back.

Question: Agree or disagree?



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not true. I went from a Rollei and two Leicas to a Canon S50, and then I bought a Nikon D70. A year later I sold the D70, put the S50 in the drawer for family pictures, and went back to my Rollei and Leicas for everything that counts. I am very happy, and very productive. I do shoot B&W primarily, but I also do some color, and film is superb for both.

9:11 PM  
Blogger Uwe Steinmueller said...

#1: likely true

#2: depends on the evolution of small sensors.

9:13 PM  
Blogger Martin B. said...

Can't vouch for proposition #2.

Here at our photoclub we have seen lots of people "go back" partially to film, especially B&W. Color film seems to be rapidly going the way of the dodo but even the digital users seem to enjoy and apreciate traditional B&W. Film grain is still very "in".

The growing consensus here is that film is just a different media than digital and there is place for both. Although Film's place will probably be a niche, like high end tube amps and 12" singles used by DJ's.

9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Don't know. I haven't gone back yet, and if I will, I am sure digital will still be used.

2. For me (enthusiastic amateur) not true. I carry my small sensor ultra zoom where I can't take the big beast.

9:49 PM  
Blogger Leonard Metcalf said...

Perhaps true as a grose generalization but for the select few it rather false. I went from large format to digital and back to large format film, though I still print digitally. Another friend went from medium format, to digital and digital printing to sell it all and return to the dark room with his medium format equipment and take a purely analogue stance.

There is a definate resurgence in large format photography (not from the professionals but the advanced amatures as can be attested by camera sales in field cameras) and analogue photography (see APUG).

It is my opinion that the huge growth in digital photography will foster a fine art approach to traditional analogue photography, much the same as when the fine arts of etching, lithography were replaced with more modern techniques.

I don't feel I can comment on #2.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My first digital camera was a Canon Digital Rebel. About a year later I got a Konica-Minolta A2, which is a non-SLR, and has a rather smaller, though 8 megapixel, sensor.

I love the camera except for the higher noise levels (compared to the DSLRs), but often that is OK. So I went down in sensor size. But then, I liked the A2 so much that I bought a K-M 7D. So that was back up in sensor size.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went from the Olympus 5050 to the Nikon D70. Finally I went back to shooting with my Leicas and other film gear because I really enjoy making prints in the darkroom. Developing the film and making wet prints really completes the process.

When I want to shoot color then I don't see any reason to shoot film. I'm really comfortable with the D70. I did a lot of nice work with the 5050, but the bad viewfinder and shutter lag drove me away.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I first bought a digital camera it was so neat, cool, fast, grain-free, cheap (no film cost!) and convenient I sort of feared it would replace my need or desire to use film. In the end it did not as I just did not see the "quality" I wanted in it. I happen to like some color "palettes" of certain color film emulsions a lot and for B&W happen to like the look of some grain, finding digital simply too clinical and sterile looking for the B&W look I'm after. Digital has its place but I find too often I can predict an image as being digital just by its look. A personal thing, I know, but it's why I never went completely over.

10:16 PM  
Blogger JeffH said...

#1 There are so many advantages to digital over film that it makes it hard to consider going back to the ‘good old’ film days. Time from camera to screen or print is reduced to minutes instead of hours or days, instant verification of exposure & sharpness, ability to change ISO speed on the fly, elimination of film grain, almost zero cost per frame shot (i.e. no film and chemicals or processing fees on an on going basis), elimination of hazardous processing chemicals, elimination of very expensive film scanning equipment, ease of image storage and retrieval. Remember that digital photography is still in its infancy. There WILL be significant advances in the years to come that will provide us with performance way beyond what film was ever capable of providing such as increased dynamic range, higher resolution imaging sensors (for those that need them), sensors that capture full color at each photo site will be common place, improved image stabilization, ability to selectively chose focus point and depth of field after the photograph is captured, and many more innovations that I can not even conceive of at the moment.

#2 So far. If there is are significant advances in technology that greatly improve image quality, i.e. reduce noise to DSLR levels, then I would definitely consider using a camera with a smaller image sensor. The main advantage would be to facilitate a smaller form factor. Sometimes dragging around a relatively heavy 35mm DSLR or MF gear gets tiring. There are also many instances when large gear is just not appropriate. Street photography, photographing at social gathering in tight quarters, better ability to be inconspicuous in public settings, easier to pack, carry, and secure while traveling, especially by air.

10:21 PM  
Blogger Fazal Majid said...

#!: not necessarily. I went from a seldom used Nikon N6006 and 35Ti to a Canon D30 in 2001. The DSLR sparked a renewed interest in photography, and improved my technique. I have since gone back to 2/3 film with a vengeance (Nikon FM3A, Leica MP, Hasselblad 500C/M, XPan II and a Contax T3).

#2 unless you shoot only in bright sunlight, yes. I can't bear to see the shots I took with my old digital Elph.

10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1. i'm not so sure. i started with digital and then eventually changed to using rangefinders and slide film.

first there was a Canon S400 digicam. then there was a Panasonic LC-1 digicam.

i then bought a Yashica Electro rangefinder off ebay. i instantly fell in love with using rangefinders and color slide film. the quality of the images on the color slides seemed to look so much more natural than the digital files i was used to seeing. this was a revelation.

suddenly everything seemed so much simpler. there was so much less hassle and time in front of the computer processing images, there was no more redundant backups and archiving of image files, no more calibration of monitors. film has it's own issues, but i just love shooting slides, and with a good drum scan the prints can be really amazing.

after the Electro 35 i then went to what i currently consider to be a nearly perfect camera combo for my uses, a Leica M7 paired with a 35mm Summilux Asph.

i have since discovered the beauty of the Olympus OM-4 and the Mamiya 7 II cameras. i gotta say that using these film cameras is so much simpler and the design of them seems so much better. i find myself wishing for the digital equivalents, and ultimately awaiting the Digital M.

i still use digital cameras, currently a Panasonic LX-1 and a Pentax ist ds, but when i really want quality i want to use film.

11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Answer to both 1 and 2:
Not true. I try to use the camera (or media) that best suits the job, also taking into account my own very tactile feelings for the tools I use. I go back and forth between cameras, both film and digital. Given unlimited funds it is possible that digital would dominate, but sensor size would still vary.
Everything changes....

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couldn't disagree more. Went digital with enthusiasm--it took me from a holiday snaps shooter to one who started taking photography seriously. And once I took it seriously I went and bought an FM2n and some B&W film. Then a Leica. Then an enlarger and some good black-out curtains. The Digital SLR is long gone, but I thank it for introducing me to the photographic light, which for me is to be captured on film.

11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Disagree. Did 35mm for some years, interest waned, went to digital (D30), rekindled. I got MF (Mamiya 7II), tossed it for LF (which I still love after a couple of years and love more all the time, it suits me well), got a Bessa R with a 35mm for some street and have shot the best work I ever have, by a large margin, with those two film camera's. I got the both as a reaction against the complexity of digital when I found myself thinking about technical bits and twiddling controls instead of *looking*. I still shoot digital for portraits, certain experimental work, wildlife, sort of 'day-to-day' but when I have a vision of something to shoot, I go with the simple cameras. They all have their place.

11:38 PM  
Blogger Maciek said...

disagree to both:
1. I started with a digital elph and then moved to film. now i shoot both.
2. i still shoot a lot with my digital elph, wherever RF or SLR or DSLR just feels to big...

11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more with you on proposition 1. But on two...... don't know for sure. If a pro, true. But for an amateur like me, small-sensor cams are interresting to carry along for those occasional shots you definitly don't want to miss. And who knows how good (noise-free) they will become in the future.....

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not entirely true. I'm grabbing a reduced frame DSLR for wildlife work after having used a full-frame for landscape work.

2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being rather young, I started out with digital photography and then begun using film. No I'm stepping up from medium to large format. I'm doing both B&W and color with film (not only B&W as some people I know). Perhaps in the future when digital photography has grown up a bit I'll change to it, who knows what will happen in the future?

2:16 AM  
Blogger Scott Kirkpatrick said...

Agree with #1 (gave away the cameras and the darkroom equipment after they went unused for some years -- kids, etc.--, rediscovered digital with Olympus 2020, and worked up to Olympus E-1. But disagree with #2, for essentially the reasons in the Sean Reid article on small format as its own world, a throwback to Tri-X in Rodinal, available light. I'm now using both the biggest digital chip I can justify for some things, and a hand-size 1/1.8" f/2.8 prime Ricoh GR-D -- a "decisive moment camera" -- for others.

2:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 How long before one realistically can't go back?

#2 What's the difference between 35mm, 6x6, 4"x5" etc? One went back and forth as required, depending on need.

2:31 AM  
Blogger Spontanik said...

I agree with point 1! I gave up my darkroom and I do not miss it at all! I am much happier with digital and I do not think I will ever go back!
I do not agree with point 2: Sean Reid says that small and big sensors can not be compared. They draw differently and they have both their advantages and disadvantages! I just bought a Ricoh GR digital as an addition to my APS size sensor cameras and I must say I love it!

2:38 AM  
Blogger Scott Kirkpatrick said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once digital is matured in terms of price and quality, then bye bye film... But never say never. I still don't trust computers and digital media over negatives. There's always a certain amount of paranioa lurking in the back of my mind...

3:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1.) I shoot film for B/W work because I like the look (with a rangefinder no less...). I'm not 100% satisfied with the quality of B/W prints from my inkjet, but I just don't think it's worth it (as a hobby) at this point in time to go out and buy enlargers, lenses, trays, etc. But I can't imagine shooting (and printing) color with anything but digital nowadays.

2.) I dunno, I went from an A1 to an M5D, then I picked up a Sony W30 for carrying around in my pocket. The right tool for the job and all that. I'd love to be able to afford the Epson R-D1s for it's combination of body size + sensor size, but it's way out of my price range. Additionally I think it makes more sense (budget + sizewise) to pickup one of those popular superzoom cameras than a long (more than about 200mm equiv) telephoto for most folks. Now if Fuji would just license VR/AS/IS from someone... the S9000/S9500 could've been a sweet camera if they'd just gone a little lower on the pixel density (I don't need 9MP if all I'm ever printing is A4 and A3) and added image-stabilization.

4:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1: Not true. Actually started digital and the came to film "for the touch and smell". May not count as "come back" :-)

#2: Never steped up to large sensor. If so, maybe #1 wouldn't have happened.

4:26 AM  
Blogger jon said...

partially true

i had small sensor cam then bought a D70 and now use that one exclusively for digital.

however, i never stopped using film. tlr, rangefinder, slr, and a crappy zone focus MF are all used. come to think of it ive never used so much film in my life thanks to bulk rolls of old neopan stock

5:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heartily agree with #1. After being a digital skeptic for years, I bought my first digital, a Canon G3, in August 2003. I haven't exposed one frame of film since. I never got into the darkroom end of things with 35mm, but with Photoshop I'm doing things with digital that I couldn't have dreamed of doing with film. My Minolta 35mm equipment is packed away, probably consigned to being conversation pieces for my grandchildren as their is no resale market for 35mm now.

As for #2, I now also have an Olympus E500 dslr, but I still use the G3 sometimes because it is more convenient to carry. The G3 is still a great little camera!

5:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For me it comes down to the quality of the final print on both counts.
What sensor/medium can give me the best print? What resources does the medium demand, and does that demand facilitate or hinder my life as a photographer and printer?

For a good chunk of a distant past decade I worked "full time," putting in over 40 hours a week working with large and medium format film and printing in the darkroom. I knew what I was doing and got good prints, mostly printing 11 x 14 silver (black and white) prints. (Ironically, now with digital or film-digital, I'm printing bigger prints)

I don't have the luxury of a darkroom in my life now, or the luxury of that kind of time. When I was young I thought there was a lot of time in a lifetime. Whoops. Wrong.

Using a D200 (not full frame sensor) and sometimes a Nikon 7900 (small 7MP sensor), a fast Mac, and Epson K3 inks (R2400) I'm getting better prints than I did in the darkroom. And it's a lot more fun.

I'm also scanning old film, so that blurs the distinction a bit.

I use the 7900 for some macro work and sometimes when the small sensor (short lens) can give me a greater D.O.F., when I need that. It's also much better than the DSLR for Infrared. Both are giving me superb prints. While a narrow DOF can sometimes be artful, in my work small DOF is more often a problem than an asset. The larger the sensor, the longer the lens required, and the smaller the DOF. This can get in the way. I don't crave larger and larger sensors.

The scans of my old Infrared 4x5 sheet film give me very large beautiful prints which knock the socks off the digital infrared when printed larger than say 11X14. I can print them larger than 16x20 (though I have to use a service for the large prints). I'm glad to have those old sheets of film. But I probably had to shoot a hundred sheets of the damn IR sheet film to get one usable shot, if I was lucky. I'm getting very good, really amazingly good, infrared prints with the tiny camera if I limit the print size to what I used to print in the darkroom anyway.

If I moved to a house that could have a darkroom again, if I had time on my hands, I would use the view camera some. Realistically I'm going to use the resources I have to work as efficiently as I can and get the best prints I can -- digital, using whatever sensor size works for the situation.

7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1: on the contrary, after going digital, I've resumed my interest in film, B&W mainly. And I am more productive in both than ever before with film only.
#2: not yet. I am very happy with the results of my KM 5D, but the relationship between picture quality-ease of use-ergonomics-convenience-lens quality given by my OLY 5050Z is still unsurpassed. Proportionally, the pictures it delivers are better (and the photographer is the same), since I rarely print beyond A4 size.

8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 Digital for fast jobs and for enlargements of a certain size ( upto a double page spread in a magazine) film for fine art work that I expect to make very large prints of (I use a Mamiya 7 for this type of work). I like the look of film grain in big prints more than the sterile perfection of big digital enlargements. Plus film seems to handle highlights in a much more forgiving way. My fine art work features mainly cityscapes.

90% of my time is alas spent shooting digital. The "alas" refers to the fact I would much prefer to spend my time shooting fine art work but I need the cashflow of the digital friendly work.

#2 I would like to get one of the small digital point and shoots with optical image stabilization, this I think would allow steady shots at lower iso's and good quality snaps.

William Furniss.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I own a couples of 35mm cameras and a 120 camera. My wife gave me a d70 a year ago. While I enjoy using the d70 and am impressed by the quality of the results in 8x12 prints (in some cases these digital prints surpass in sharpness and contrast my 8x12 b&w prints, perhaps a reflection of my darkroom skills more than anything else), I usually grab a film camera on my way out the door. I have not used the d70 in months. It's just that I have always wanted to get really good at b&w film photography.

9:47 AM  
Blogger bjorke said...

"Never" is never true.

Everything handles the way it handles, looks the way it looks, and everything's look can be useful and beautiful. If your aesthetic and function is entirely aimed at what the digi mfg'rs give you, only then could these propositions be true.

I have a DSLR and I still shooot Tri-X in 35mm and MF -- I've bought new cameras in both formats in recent months. And I use a cel phone, for completely different but overlapping reasons, which is about as small as sensors get for most folks. And a pair of compact digis too. One NEEDS different cameras for different purposes -- size, weight, color, etc. I shoot pictures of my car with my celphone to remember where I parked. Why use an SLR for that (or worse, film)? But the DSLR can't match the experience and results of film, either. Not as easily as film can. And vice versa.

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After teaching myself photography on the Canon Digital Rebel I made the transistion to B&W. Why? Because I like the look of B&W better than digital. I did find it extremely helpful to have the digital around while I was learning how to exposure a shot properly... the instant feedback was invaluable. Now that I have a pretty good idea, I feel comfortable using film. Not that I don't ruin a few rolls here and there.

What I don't do is traditional prints. After mucking about with a holga enlarger and a variety of papers, I decided that I was happier with the "digital darkroom". I use a negative scanner and work with the results in photoshop. I get the look I want and still have the flexibility that digital offers.

Me = happy.

As far as #2, I think its as always, a matter of portability vs. image quality and which one you value more. Just depends on your method of working.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) I have a DSLR and don't like it very much. Yes, the convenience is utterly amazing, as is the quality for relatively smaller output sizes, as are the rest of the reasons generally cited (get a big card and shoot with impunity, etc.). Without making any dogmatic value judgements about which is absolutely "better"—which I think is ridiculous; nobody sanely debates 135 vs 4x5, it's a trade-off for a given situation—I find that film suits my personal process of preparing and making the exposure better.

Maybe it's ergonomics. When I want to change the aperture, my hand still automatically goes for the lens barrel. I have yet to have a digital camera "disappear" in my hands the way many of my film cameras do; somehow the control-panel-ness of it makes me concentrate more on the camera than the image. Maybe it's that with film, you make more decisions up-front (emulsion characteristics and speed), which leaves you with less to mess with when it's time to make the image.

I also find myself worrying about getting a good exposure with the whole "expose to the right" thing because it makes a difference to my eyes, and the current crop of in-camera meters isn't designed for that, leaving me to bracket the hell out of everything and hope that the luminance-only histogram on my camera isn't hiding the fact that I'm clipping a channel. This is merely annoying for some situations and impossible for most of the kinds of shooting I do. This will continue to be a problem for me until the manufacturers fix their metering algorithms for digital.

2) That's probably true for me. If I really needed a truly pocketable camera, I'd be more likely to reach for an XA or a GR1. To me, film is definitely better quality at that point, and I don't like the tiny lenses' near-infinite depth of field.

11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup - true. I need more money so I can buy bigger sensors.

11:19 AM  
Blogger Earl said...

#1 Not true (for me.) When I shoot color, I shoot digital. When I want B&W, I shoot film. I agree with an earlier post about making prints in the darkroom - I enjoy that process.

#2 Not true. I have a small Fuji F10 for the pocket. Great small point and shoot.

11:29 AM  
Blogger Dave New said...

>>>Proposition 1: Once you go digital, you never go back.

I think I fell into this, simply because I had all but stopped taking pictures, after having an Olympus OM film body for two decades, and having switched to a Olympus 35mm point 'n shoot mostly for the last ten of those, for the size/portability (and in the case of this particular camera, weather-resistance, for Canada fishing trips with my in-laws).

When I purchased a Nikon Coolpix 4500, I admit that I was enchanted with the idea that perhaps digital had matured to the point of producing in the form of the 'advanced' (at that time) digicam, what I had always wanted -- a small point 'n shoot with the focal range of an SLR with a bag of lenses, without all the weight and bulk.

After struggling with the 4500 for awhile, I realized that it really wasn't going to take the place of my OM SLR, and I was about resigned to going back to film for those handheld available-light shots I craved.

But, then Canon introduced the Digital Rebel, and I was first in line to get one on first day of availability, and once again, I was enchanted with the idea that I had found a digital replacement for my OM SLR. Of course, you know that that really wasn't the case, but the reality was certainly tantalizingly closer.

Now, I upgraded last Fall to a 20D ($1500 at a time is about all I can justify on what is still to me, an amateur pursuit, so cameras like the 5D currently are beyond my budget), and I can say that for the time being, I'm happy with the results I get, as long as I don't attempt prints beyond Super A3, for instance. Also, owing nothing to my poor collection of 3rd party OM-compatible glass, I've been busy building a collection of good Canon glass, figuring it will outlast at least a couple of body upgrades.

What happened to film for me? Well, I still have a bowl full of undeveloped exposed 35mm rolls, that one of these days I'll get around to doing something with. I'd like to find a local lab that will develop and scan them to high-res TIFFs for me, without charging me an arm and a leg. A film scanner is in my future as well, as I have about a thousand slides and negatives I'd like to sort through and scan in any that I find interesting.

Otherwise, I think my film days are over. Period. Digital will only continue to get better, and by the time that I'm ready to attempt to turn my hobby into a business proposition, the state of the digital art will be such that film will simply no longer be a consideration for me, even for medium or large format equivalents.

>>>Proposition 2: Once you go from a small digital sensor (1/1.8", 1/2.5", etc.) to a large digital sensor (4/3rds, APS-C and larger), you never go back.

Funny thing, I still have that Nikon Coolpix 4500. It's a kick-butt macro camera, but frankly, I haven't taken a single frame with it since I first got the Digital Rebel. It's not small enough to be truly portable, and the Canon DSLR just simply takes bigger and better pictures.

On the other hand, I'd like to get a small point 'n shoot digital, but I don't want to give up a lot in terms of sensor noise or resolution to do so, so I think I'm still waiting. My wife is carrying a Fuji Z1, which has pretty impressive sensor noise performance at ISO 640, but it still has limitations that would annoy me (no histogram, no optical viewfinder, etc). It suits her, though, and is so small and thin that she carries it everywhere in her purse.

Sooner or later, I'll end up with a point 'n shoot for myself, though. I'd really like something pocketable, so I can have it with me in situations that would just be simply inappropriate to drag a big SLR and lenses into.

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 After starting with a Canon S10 in 1999, I moved to a Canon D30 and, now, have a Canon 20D. Digital rekindled my long-dormant interest in photography. I have not looked back to film.

#2 I still carry a tiny (Canon SD500) point and shoot camera when it is not practical or appropriate to bring an SLR. However, I can always tell the difference in photo quality. I could not give up my SLR.

1:08 PM  
Blogger DonovanCO said...

1. I'm 80 to 90 percent digital. Use my Bessa R with 15mm for very wide shots, and sometimes have a need to just shoot a roll or two with my beloved Nikon F4. Agree with time saving comments, although digital does add some new archiving steps.

2. A small digital comes in handy many times - in crowds, when you don't want to carrry expensive looking equipment. Many people carried small film cameras -like the Olympus Stylus Epic, but now use a small digital for the same reasons.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Sean Reid said...

Hi Mike,

#1 is certainly true for myself but not for all.

#2 is not true for me. I see small sensor cameras as a part of a unique format. As such, they sometimes are the right tool for a given job.


Sean Reid

4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1: fully agree.
#2: I use both, but prefer the APS (D50) much much more. Bascially, I use the small sensor camera (Fuji S5000), when it's risky to carry the expensive dslr.

4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1: Not true for me. Once you loose your first hard disk full off RAW files, negatives look much safer.
#2: True for me, but weight and finances let me progress no further than 24x36 mm.

8:46 PM  
Blogger Dibutil said...

#2 - totally agree: Minolta 7Hi to Canon 20D was life changing experience :)

#1 - totally disagree. The more I shoot digital the more I want 6x6 or bigger film...

9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1: Not for me - it gives me great pleasure to shoot in film - esp a disposable camera - and see the results. I love digital but film still has a place.

#2: again no - I like cheap little digital cameras - even phone cams - you can still get great images - perhaps not pin sharp (maybe pin-hole camera sharp) but they are great for capturing a mood.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've done just the opposite. Started with Digital (which I still use) but with that freedom and ventured into film. See no reason not to use both as both have their own unique benefits.

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. True, with so much control given to the photographer (through digital)... I couldn't give it back!!

2.False. Sitll have three point and shoots in the mix, easier than carring a SLR when roaming. SLR or larger sensor cameras are a proffesional need.

7:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. True.
Largely productivity driven.

2. False.
Horses for courses.
"Big" sensors (are still too small) give better resolution, color, and noise.
Small sensors give better depth-of-field and portability.

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. true for me baring the end of civilization as we know it. I used to live in the dark room only to emerge to buy more film (fujipan ss 100/ presto 400 and agfa apx25) and go take more pictures. (almost true)

2. again true for me up to a point. going from mini chip to aps-c was OMG! aps-c to 5d full frame EVEN BETTER! now if they would only make a view finder like on my minolta xd :(
BUT I dont need more the camera to be more massive! HUGEMONGOUS canon dslr= no thank you. I didnt like tunaquarter, you cant make me carry a medformat hl2 or whatever big is good up to a point.

8:33 PM  
Blogger erusan said...

1: a balance between the two is ideal for me. Practical shooting in digital, fun/meditational exposures (pinhole) on film or even paper negative. Yes, I scan them sometimes :-)

2: for serious work, yes. But the Fuji F11 will have decendants, and the large DOF from small sensors may stay in fashion with the snapshooting crowd.

1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. I have a Canon Powershot G5 before and with my transition to Canon 350D, its just now relegated to the closet.

3:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the difference ??
Really I can't say. Been shooting professionally for 20+ years and I haven't put a roll of film in any camera in the past 2.
The photographer matters not the medium.

4:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home