This form is secure
Send a message
Search for members
This post is public
I want much higher resolution photos.
I studied professional DSLR cameras. Then, I realized that scanning 35, 120 or larger format film would produce better digital results. Analog cameras and their lenses are less costly than digital. Scanning services and equipment costs are reasonable.
I started looking at used film cameras and my compulsive nature took over. I purchased a few 35, 120 and sheet film cameras. It's addictive! Collecting, repairing and using old cameras is inexpensive fun.
I learned that I want a used, high quality, medium format kit. My first choices are Hasselblad and Rollei. They may be too expensive. I also like Pentacon Six TL, Mamiya 6 or 7, Plaubel Makina 67 or 670, Fugi G series 645, 670 or 690 and Bronica RF645. Exakta 66, Kiev 60 and Pentax 67 are options. A very good old folder from Voigtlander, Zeiss, Agfa, Balda or Certo may be a good choice. The new Cosina Voightlander Super Bessa III 667 is exciting. A used one may be within my budget in a year or two. Now, I am looking at Pentacon Six equipment and watching for a deal on a Hasselblad 500cm. This may take a while but I enjoy the process.
Cameras I have used: From 1957 to 1980, I used a Zeiss Ikon Contina III 35mm camera. After 1980 I used a Canon GIII Canonet QL-17 35mm rangefinder camera. Both are very good cameras with good lenses. I was very lucky to have good advice when I purchased them. I still have the Canon. Sadly, I did not realize how much I liked the Zeiss. I gave it away, when I started using the Canon. For the last few years I used a digital Canon PowerShot A610 camera. I like many things about it; but I prefer the analog process and the quality of analog photos.
Dave Griffith says:
MaxKafe says:
e-person says:
Film, good film, has wider dynamic range than digital, which means it can look more realistic.
On the other hand, digital is fine with very little worries and processing. In order to get good results from film, you need professional grade, non expired, well kept film. Proper exposure, developing, scanning. Lots of dust and scratch removal. A serious film scanner costs over ten thousand dollars. We are talking Imacons or drum scanners. Then, the larger the film, the better the details and bigger resolution you get. A large format camera beats any digital cameras anytime, still. Simply for the reason they do not make such huge digital sensors yet. Maybe one day we'll get there, though.
Right now 35mm has been beaten up by recent digital cameras.
But comparing old film scans, with current technology is actually unfair. If you want to compare, you have to do it on new film, not something you shot years ago and who knows how badly kept in storage.
In the end it is about your intended usage. Film looks good without any processing, since it is done by the lab directly, when they either scan or print for you. So, many people say they prefere film, just because they do not realize it has been processed for them.
Digital needs some basic processing, to bring out colour and contrast, otherwise it looks flat. Which is not a bad thing. It is just that one needs to learn howto do it.
I do photography as a job. I mainly sell photos taken by digital cameras. That's a fact, unfortunately.