Anyone Still Use a Film Camera for Model Photography?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the input, guys.

I'm really amazed at how little my Canon film SLR body is worth these days. I watched ebay, and spoke to the guy in our local photography store (who is trying hard to stay competitive with the big-box retailers).

Its a beautiful little precision instrument, yet no demand for it. Wow, technology marches on.

I'm going to get a book from the library and finally learn all the technical stuff of photography, and get the most out of my film SLR. It remains to be seen if I have the "art of photography" inside of me, though.

It will buy me some time to wait until the Canon DSLR bodies come down in price some so I can use my Canon lenses on them.

Thanks again.
Greg

[Anonymous]

I switched to digital photography back about 8 years ago and never looked back. When I had my 35mm SLR it took months to expose a roll of film (except on special occasions) or I had to waste half a roll of film to get what I wanted developed immediately. Probably half the photos that got developed turned out to be of little or no use. I still have some old rolls of film that never got developed and I have no idea of what the shots were.

With my digital camera I can transfer immediately to my computer and save what's useful and trash what's not. I figure in the last 8 years I have saved in the cost of processing the price of all three of my digital cameras.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by modlerbob

I switched to digital photography back about 8 years ago and never looked back. When I had my 35mm SLR it took months to expose a roll of film (except on special occasions) or I had to waste half a roll of film to get what I wanted developed immediately. Probably half the photos that got developed turned out to be of little or no use. I still have some old rolls of film that never got developed and I have no idea of what the shots were.

I'm not going to knock anybody for choosing one over the other, it's a matter of personal choice as far as I'm concerned. I've always found it odd however, that someone (not picking on you personally modlerbob, as I've seen this argument 1000s of times over the years), who couldn't fill a roll of at most 36 exposures, in less than 'months' will shoot 40, 50, or more pictures with a digital in less than a day. That's just to pick some numbers that I don't think would be too uncommon.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rolleiman

QUOTE: Originally posted by modlerbob

I switched to digital photography back about 8 years ago and never looked back. When I had my 35mm SLR it took months to expose a roll of film (except on special occasions) or I had to waste half a roll of film to get what I wanted developed immediately. Probably half the photos that got developed turned out to be of little or no use. I still have some old rolls of film that never got developed and I have no idea of what the shots were.

I'm not going to knock anybody for choosing one over the other, it's a matter of personal choice as far as I'm concerned. I've always found it odd however, that someone (not picking on you personally modlerbob, as I've seen this argument 1000s of times over the years), who couldn't fill a roll of at most 36 exposures, in less than 'months' will shoot 40, 50, or more pictures with a digital in less than a day. That's just to pick some numbers that I don't think would be too uncommon.

I think my frequency and amount of shutter clicks has remained about the same. Sure when I go on a railfanning trip or to a model show I may click the shutter a hundred times over a weekend. During the time between these events I may see something and shoot four or five pictures over a several month period. When I had film to factor in I probably skipped taking some shots that I now have no reservation about, after all if one turns out badly all I have to do is delete it and I have only wasted a little battery power. If I go to a friends house, assuming I have my camera with me, and we decide to do a little operating on his layout I can get some nice shots of my models on his layout and after going home I can transfer them to my computer and send him copies via e-mail.

[olequa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

Now that I'm getting good with it, I'm planning on upgrading to a 8+ meg digital SLR and start writing a few articles. I would have NEVER done that if I was locked into film photography.

Careful with your expectations. Last time I checked Model Railroader mag would not accept digital photos for publication. Hopefully that has or will change.

george

[olequa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by hminky

The use of a Depth of Field program like Helicon Focus makes the digital camera great.

Wow. Thank you Harold. This software should revolutionize model rr photography.

g

[Milwhiawatha]

I got you all beat. I am a cheapo when it comes to cameras I only buy the Kodak one use 35mms if I want that. But I do have an HP M407 digital camera. I havent worked with it alot and havent learned all the tricks but I am getting some decent photographs. Most o my photos where done on a JVC DS and DV camera my dad had. that was 2.5mp now I am working with 4mp since last year that is. Not much has happened on the layout for me to use the camera but hoping soon.

[Anonymous]

I still use a lot of film. With three Nikon bodies and a pot full of lenses, I don't have much choice. Mostly, I shoot slides and find that my Canon A620 won't quite match the slides for quality, even though the Canon is 7.1 megs. The other problem is that the Canon only has the anemic, built-in flash.

Also, I must disagree that the market for film is dead. Maybe it is dead at Wally-Mart, but I never used their processing (or other drugstore processing) anyway. It was too awful to think about with scratched negatives, slides cut in the wrong places, etc. With slides, I use a local camera store and get a roll of 36 developed for about $7.00 (about 20 cents per slide, mounted). That is a bit less than the cost of the paper and ink that I need for my Canon photo printer. That costs $30.00 for enough stuff to do 108 4 by 6 prints. That is about 28 cents per print. Plus, the little printer will sometimes not make a good print. The whole digital versus film debate is a bit like the old argument in the mid-Nineteenth Century over whether or not photography would eliminate painting.

I would buy a digital body that can use my existing lenses, but the one I want costs $1700 bucks, and that is a lot of model railroad equipment, even at today's prices.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats
[Mostly, I shoot slides and find that my Canon A620 won't quite match the slides for quality, even though the Canon is 7.1 megs.

Keep in mind most point and shoot digital cameras use very small sensors - about a quarter of an inch square. DSLR's sensors are many times larger - 60% the size of a 35mm film frame, and therefore produce better images than point and shoot models.

My first DSLR, a Canon Digital Rebel, has a 6.3MP sensor. I later bought a Canon Digital Elph S500 point and shoot camera as a walk around model. It has 5MP. I assumed its images would be close to the quality of those from the Rebel. They weren't, and I later found out the sensor size made the difference.

Bob Boudreau

[tatans]

Yeah ! Right ! Like is there any other way to take a picture ? ? My 24 pound Konica 1.4 auto-reflex which I paid $100.00 in 1965, and is now on e-bay for $8.00. It works just fine, how can you take a picture without film? ? c'mon.

[steamage]

That reminds me, take the old 35mm film cameras to storage locker, haven't used them for years. Film is just too costly for railfaning for what's running nowadays. I really like my Nikon 5400 digital, its really great for model photography too.

[Anonymous]

I have a Nikon D70. As soon as I started using it I never touched my film camera - an F5. All my film lenses fit the D70. Advantages to digital are that it doesn't cost you until you print the picture. You don't know what you have with film until you develop it. Slides are great but I suspect most of you want to see the pictures, not project them or view them on a light box. Flat bed scaners can scan your slides so you can print them but to get the best quality you need a dedicated slide scaner - more money. Kodachrome slides will last longer than we will but try to find the film and it has to be sent to a special lab at Kodak. Etachrome slides or some of the Fuji films don't know how long they will last. Fuji professional slide film such as provia or velvia have a much better long term and are still used by some pros. Recently there have been articles stating that images on CDs will only last 2-5 years dependent on the quality of the CD and how they are stored - cool dark place and stored upright. Bottom line it depends on what your needs are, how long you want your images to last and your pocket book. The price of a used D70 which only came out 2 years ago has come down cnsiderably. If you have a SLR film system, look for a good used digital from that manufacterer so that you can use your old lenses. Good luck Steve Nachman

[jacon12]

For most people, once you go digital you're unlikely to use your film cameras again. Mind you I said most people, not all. I used to be in the wedding photography business and still have the medium format cameras that I used for that. But around 6 years ago I bought a little Fuji 1.3 (that's right.. a whole 1.3 megapixels!!) camera and was hooked on digital. There is the instant gratification thing, being able to see the shot right away.... but for me it's more that I can check the shot to see if the exposure, focus etc. was correct.
With most digital cameras closeups are very simple...

sometimes you can get too close... [:)]
But the extreme ease of taking closeups should make digital camera the weapon of choice for model railroaders..

Now I own a couple of them, a dslr Nikon and an old model 990 Nikon that is a superb closeup camera.
So, the answer for me is no, no more film.
Jarrell

[Anonymous]

Starting with my trusty Pentax K1000 35mm SLR, I then purchased a
a Canon AE1, followed by a Nikon EM.
20 some years later I entered the digital era with a Nikon Coolpix5600. For quick pics to post on the web you can't beat the digital. Plus you can get superior quality prints up to 16 x 20 from it. That being said though, when I'm out on the road, railfanning, hiking or just at the park with my kids I almost always grab the K1000
I just absolutely love having COMPLETE control over every aspect of my photos with it. I have four different lenses for it. All my other cameras have only the lens it came with. Call me old fashioned but I think I'll be taking color print photos til the day I die.

[jfugate]

With the Helicon depth-of-field software, digital model photographs are never going to be the same.

For me, once I got a Digital SLR a couple years ago, I was hooked.

Digital is simply awsome in giving you the power to get a really good model photograph. You can instantly see if the photo is any good and adjust the lighting, composition, or whatever as needed to get a much better photo.

In fact, I would recommend shooting some digital "test photos" first before you shoot any film photos -- for those still using film to take model photos. I don't know how many times I would get a roll of film back only to see the color balance was off in the background, or have some glaring thing show up in the photo I couldn't see -- like a piece of lint or a small cobweb. The digital image will often give you a quick preview so you can correct those things in prep to take the film photo. [swg]

Here's a digital photo I took of my Siskiyou Line layout recently:

To see the full-sized image, click here.

And if you have deep pockets, the full-35mm frame digital SLRs are now here ... (almost 17 megapixels, and $7,000) ... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmkii/

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aquadan005
I just absolutely love having COMPLETE control over every aspect of my photos with it. I have four different lenses for it. All my other cameras have only the lens it came with. Call me old fashioned but I think I'll be taking color print photos til the day I die.

Your statement infers that you cannot take total manual control of a digital camera, which is incorrect. With my Canon Rebel XT I can set it to M for manual, and set the aperture and shutter speeds. I can also use my six autofocus lenses on manual focus with the flick of switch. I can use manual, but don't need to very often.

I find using either AV - Aperture Value to TV - Time Value, I can get whatever I want in my photos. AV for depth of field in model photos, TV for action shots. Most of the time when shooting outdoors, I just leave it on Auto and the cameras' choices of shutter speeds and apertures that are visible in the viewfinder are just as I would have selected. I can then concentrate more on getting the action and composition.

It's sort of like driving a car with a manual transmission - it's nice to shift gears at times, but when you just want to get somewhere, the automatic transmission is less intrusive.

Bob Boudreau

[MacdonaldRB]

I use a Canon F1n, a Bronica SQ-Ai 2 1/4 and a 4x5 camera depending on what I want to show and where it is going. 95% of the time I use my 4x5 as I can get bellows extension and better depth of field for my subjects. The Canon and the Bronica are used for test shooting lay outs. This may be over your head but I find that doing this works a lot better.
I did some tests with a friend's digital camera (a Canon) and we were not happy with the results.
I personally use only film, but then I've been shooting freelance for the past 40+ years.
The best thing I can say is test your ideas and see what works best for you. Most of all don't be afraid to shoot. I have shot as much as 6 months to get what was needed.
MacdonaldRB (Mac)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FundyNorthern

QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats
[Mostly, I shoot slides and find that my Canon A620 won't quite match the slides for quality, even though the Canon is 7.1 megs.

Keep in mind most point and shoot digital cameras use very small sensors - about a quarter of an inch square. DSLR's sensors are many times larger - 60% the size of a 35mm film frame, and therefore produce better images than point and shoot models.

My first DSLR, a Canon Digital Rebel, has a 6.3MP sensor. I later bought a Canon Digital Elph S500 point and shoot camera as a walk around model. It has 5MP. I assumed its images would be close to the quality of those from the Rebel. They weren't, and I later found out the sensor size made the difference.

Bob Boudreau

Bob, you are quite right about sensors, but the 12.1 meg Nikon D200 is still $1700 if you can find one in a store. They are in very short supply. And, it will turn my 20 mm wide angle into a 30 mm angle of view lens. If I want to use a fisheye, I get to spend another $900 on one that will work with the digital. Then, I will need a new SB-800 flash for another $400, so now I am up to $3000 for the conversion. Add in another lens or two and I am out $5000 to make the switch. And, I still need a much better (and therefore, more expensive) printer. There are a lot of reasons to switch, but saving money sure isn't one of them for me. The money that I would spend on completely switching would buy a lot of model railroad stuff like track, rolling stock, etc. I'll still be able to get film for quite a while from my local camera store, even if the garbage film disappears from Wally Mart and the drugstore counters. And, I'll still be able to get processing from the camera store. Plus, there is one place in town that (I think) still does Ilfochrome prints from slides.

Personally, I think that the final decision is a personal one still. In a few years, film and processing may be harder to get, but not impossible to find--just inconvenient. Remember that, in the 1850's, people said that photography would kill painting as an art. We are still waiting for that to happen. For a few more years, I'll just stick to the F100, FM2n, and N70.

[Anonymous]

The question of film or digital is a toughie. As many working pros will tell you, there will always be a market for film, especially slides for large format , high resolution reproduction. A railroad slide show can't be beat, and magazines still like slides as well. However, with a digital slr, I use a Canon Rebel XT, one can see the results instantly and adjust focus, exposure etc. The ability to change ISO from one image to the next is also very useful. Close focusing is no more of an issue than with film. With my Canon 28-105, I can get in as close as a couple of inches at f25-29 and have acceptable depth of field. My last couple of articles (NG&SL Gazette and RMC- May for both) have had digital images and the editors have been quite happy with them. For railfan work, the issue of "shutter lag" or delay can be a pain for the smaller point and shoot digitals, but with a digital slr, it is almost non-existant. I still have a couple of Minolta film 35 mm. cameras and have had great results with them over the years, but, I haven't really used them in a year either.

Bob Bennett

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats
Bob, you are quite right about sensors, but the 12.1 meg Nikon D200 is still $1700 if you can find one in a store. They are in very short supply. And, it will turn my 20 mm wide angle into a 30 mm angle of view lens. If I want to use a fisheye, I get to spend another $900 on one that will work with the digital. Then, I will need a new SB-800 flash for another $400, so now I am up to $3000 for the conversion. Add in another lens or two and I am out $5000 to make the switch.

The D200 is currently Nikon's top of the line non pro body, there are other less expensive alternatives. I checked B&H Photo in New York and they list the following:

Nikon D70 6.MP with 18-70mm lens $949.95

Nikon D50 6.1MP with 18-70 lens $829.95

I'd like to have a Canon EOS 5D with 12.8MP full frame sensor, body only $3299.95. But I make do with a Canon Rebel XT with 18-55 lens $779.95. (I paid a lot more for mine here in Canada, but that's normal - $1200 + taxes)

Not trying to persuade you to switch to digital, just making it clear the top of the line, most expensive camera models aren't the only way to go! Sure I'd like to have a $250K Rolls Royce to haul myself around, but I make do with a Dodge Magnum, which costs a heckofa lot less!

I can more or less guarantee if you try digital, you will be hooked! [:D]

Bob Boudreau Digital all the way!

[cbqer]

I will not use anything but a film camera on anything that is archival. I will, however, save my prints to a DVD and keep those DVDs in the bank box. The idea is every 10 years or so, take them out, examine for degradation, and rerecord if necessary. I do miss the great quality of Kodachrome 25 speed slide film, probably the best film ever made but oh so slow.

I used, an Olympus OM-2 with various lenses until it died. Two years ago I bought a Nikon N-80 and accessories and like the camera.

I have a new Sony Digital 5mgp camera (actually my Wife's) but still like film the best.

***

[Anonymous]

I still have not found anything to beat my Nikon F2s. One of the best built cameras ever and even after 30+ years of use it still works perfectaly. I honestaly would not trade it for anything. I would as i said before love to get a DSLR to use for some things where i need more control than my curren digital camera, my Nikon Coolpix 995. It has a full manula mode, but very limited aperture range, and its a pain to use manualy. I have had a good bit of experence useing DSLRs and must say that they are nice, but I have not found anything that nice yet. the lowend stuff like the rebels and D50s are fine but feel way to plasticy. The mid reange stuff D70, D100, 20D, etc is better but still not that sturdy feeling. The high end stuff is actualy good. But too far out of my budget to even really consider right now. As for picture quality all of the DSLRs I've used produce nice digital photos, but still do not comparie to slides. One place where digital falls flat on its face is long night exposures. I've gotten into these in the past year and have never gotten good resulst form any digital camera. Kodachrom 64 still produces the same great immages it always did.
So as said before by other members digital will never compleatly replace film.
Again as other member have said useing a digital camrea to check exposure or composition or what not is the greatest thing ever. You can get an instant idea of what your immage will turn out like and play with settings before you ever use any film. For any one who still shoots film i would highly recomend this if they do not already do it.
~matt