My primary outfit is a Nikon D70s. I think I'm getting into some bad habits e.g. taking a lot of shots assuming that one will be good.

So here's what I've done. I ordered a used F3HP from KEH (www.keh.com), which arrived today. For the uninitiated, this is a pro-level film camera originally introduced in the early 80s. It has a centerweight meter, electronic shutter, auto shutter speed mode, etc but is manual focus and I'll use it as a mostly manual camera.

The thought is that using this camera will force me to focus (no pun intended) more on the basics of photography: composition, exposure and focus.

Anyone else shoot a manual film camera? If so, why?

I did, on safari too! Had some Olympus OM/Zuiko lenses (broke the OM2 years before). A digital SLR (and mem cards) was way too much money back in mid 2004 so I bought a OM1 body (no OM2s available locally and OM4s/OM10s/OMPCs were junk). The camera is manual focus and manual exposure. Pictures, when I had time to compose and focus, were quite good. Not easy to use in action shots though or for fast-moving subjects.

I don't use it much currently due to film development costs.


Thinking of buying a Minolta Maxxum to backup my Sony Alpha but the Alpha lenses are not backward compatible.

Up until this past thanksgiving, I used a Pentax ZX-30. While it does have autofocus and autoexposure, you can switch it too all manual. I will say that calculating exposure, etc really improves my photographs because it requires me to slow down and determine what shutter speed, aperture, etc are needed. The end result is a composed image with more thought behind it. When I am by myself and out taking photographs, I tend to use manual mode.

However, if I am with others (vacation, etc.) I tend to use fully auto because I don't want to be solely focused on the camera.

I do... sort of...

My main kitbag is my Canon EOS 20D (with a 300 (Rebel) film backup)

HOWEVER... I shoot *regually* with a Holga (do a search online... you'll understand why - its an aquired taste!) It gives me a chance to slow down and think about the picture infront of me and concertate on the image, the alignment and the composition, rather than just holding down the shutter button.

I use Neopan C41 at the moment (i got a bargin on a load), but I normally shoot in Transparency film (Provia, Astia and Velvia)

Film is a wonderfully creative medium - like Digital. Its how we shoot those photos and how we enjoy them that matters

Holga Examples (all off my Photoblog)

Provia 400 (http://kevincm.photoblog.com/user/kevincm/2007/01/11/)
http://kevincm.photoblog.com/user/kevincm/2007/01/13/ Provia 400... with classic holga
http://kevincm.photoblog.com/user/kevincm/2007/02/17/
http://kevincm.photoblog.com/user/kevincm/2007/04/02/ Airplane and flight pics (AT LAST LOL)

All in all - a very different experiance... and one to help hone my digital skills.

I have in the past but havent recently. However, I have been thinking about going back to it. Even though I mainly use a DSRL (Canon EOS 20D) I have found myself using it on manual mode a lot; especially focusing. I also found that I am often unsatisfied with program exposure and go to aperture or shutter priority, depending on the subject. I also spot meter and exposure bracket a lot when in auto exposure modes.

Forced manual is certainly going to give you different habits, not so much even on exposure and focus but also on composition. By the way, I dont consider an F3HP to be manual by any means. Shoot 4x5 sheet film using a handheld light meter. That is manual. Having to focus on the ground glass focusing screen while the camera is on a tripod and your head is under a black hood so you can see the glass, using a magnifying loupe on the glass to check focus and then using a handheld meter to get the exposure settings for your 1 shot before reloading gives you a very different perspective on photography. Also, I have shot extensively with a 6x6 cm Yashica MAT 124 twin lens reflex which has a built in meter but doesnt set the exposure. Ive been thinking of breaking them out again or adding a film body to my Canon equipment. This thread will give some additional food for thought on that.

6 by 6 has a lot going for it - you're going to get a lot of detail from a larger negative/transparency.

With my 20D, it lives on Manual or P (when I'm feeling totally lazy in snapshot mode) - I find mine overexposes slightly too much, so i tend to underexpose - I just call the results "contrasty" ;)

I do a bit of correction (tonal mainly) in LightRoom - I tend it irons out a lot of the mistakes I make (especilly when doing Studio or working in odd light)

If you can find it - consider an EF-M (An EF Body with manual controls)... they appear on fleabay sometimes.... but don't stick your most precious L series lens on it - the plastic mount won't take it ;)

I have a Ricoh GR-1V, which I use quite regularly.

Yes I have gone back to using my Olympus OM1n with Tokina 28-70 and 70-210 lenses.
I put more time and thought into composing the subject before pressing the shutter and look forward to getting the film processed and seeing the results.
A bonus is that the price of lenses are now great value for money as nobody wants them anymore.

I have a Praktica B200 with 4 differenr lenses. I'm thinking of taking it out of retirement. Actually, thanks for this thread. I have the battery with me right now in the office (I'm sad) and a camera shop around the corner. I'm going straight out there to get a new battery.

My primary outfit is a Nikon D70s. I think I'm getting into some bad habits e.g. taking a lot of shots assuming that one will be good.

So here's what I've done. I ordered a used F3HP from KEH (www.keh.com), which arrived today. For the uninitiated, this is a pro-level film camera originally introduced in the early 80s. It has a centerweight meter, electronic shutter, auto shutter speed mode, etc but is manual focus and I'll use it as a mostly manual camera.

The thought is that using this camera will force me to focus (no pun intended) more on the basics of photography: composition, exposure and focus.

Anyone else shoot a manual film camera? If so, why?

While I think this is a fun thread since we are talking about shooting in a different way I dont think that "taking a lot of shots assuming that one will be good" is necessarily a "bad habit". From reading about professional photographers it is pretty typical for them to shoot 1000 shots for every one they use. Two examples that I read about, both from film days no less, were that National Geographic photographers typically shot 8000-10000 images per story and the photographers for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue one year shot 36,000 images for the photo layout.

I have read that good writing is actually editing. Perhaps the same is true of photography.

Yes I have gone back to using my Olympus OM1n with


What do you do for batteries? The batteries that power the OM are supposedly no longer available.


A bonus is that the price of lenses are now great value for money as nobody wants them anymore.

Where do you get these? eBay? Not easy to find at my local camera stores and not cheap enough either.

From reading about professional photographers it is pretty typical for them to shoot 1000 shots for every one they use. Two examples that I read about, both from film days no less, were that National Geographic photographers typically shot 8000-10000 images per story and the photographers for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue one year shot 36,000 images for the photo layout.


I used to go out with a profesional photographer who did anything from glamor to medical forensic and surveilance work for police. He said exactly that. For fashion shoots, National Geographic (he did that too), glamour, travel, hotels brochures etc, hundreds and hundreds of shots would be taken to get "the one" that would go on the cover.

It isn't bad habit. It is standard procedure.

What do you do for batteries? The batteries that power the OM are supposedly no longer available.

It only uses the small flat battery to power the meter and I am still using the same one I put in years ago.

Where do you get these? eBay? Not easy to find at my local camera stores and not cheap enough either.

Ebay and good camera shops that sell second hand equipment.

I have in the past but havent recently. However, I have been thinking about going back to it.

Involuntarily, I am in the same boat. After my dig cam was just stolen, I said to hell with it and decided not to replace it immediately. To a good extent, digital took the fun out of taking pictures because I was always concerned about the camera itself. I have a Nikon Nikkormat FT with an original 50mm lens. Those time and a half my age may remember the camera since it was built in the mid-1960s. Weighs a freaking ton, mercury battery, etc. But it's solid as a rock and takes beautiful pics. Mechanically, it's perfect. I realized recently that I have 15 or so photos that I took up on my walls and only two were taken with a digital camera. The rest were with the trusty old beast.

What do you do for batteries? The batteries that power the OM are supposedly no longer available.

Look at zinc oxide. The OM was probably powered by a mercury battery, which aren't legally sold in the US. You can get them still in other countries on ebay or at a local store who deals in things of that sort. But they can be expensive when you find them. The best thing about mercury was that the voltage would remain constant for most or all of the battery's life. It worked like a lightswitch, either on or off. Most batteries have fluctuating voltage, dependent on a whole host of factors including temp, age, use, etc. Not only does it make the light meter go nutty, it can damage the components on rare occasion. Zinc oxide, from my experience, is pretty good. The problem is that their life is very limited and they can be pricey. IIRC, I paid about $10 each and they lasted about 4-6 months. I haven't bought them in probably three years, so the prices probably have changed. Since the reaction occurs whether the battery is used or not, even sitting on your shelf will cause it to go bad once the seal is broken. Though in the grand scheme of things I decided $20 or $30 a year was a small price compared to the cost of film and processing.

From reading about professional photographers it is pretty typical for them to shoot 1000 shots for every one they use. That depends. Yes, Nat'l Geographic photographers and the like shoot a ton. A friend was the subject of one of their shoots 15 years ago, the photog showed up the first day of a three day shoot with a huge bag of film (perhaps 100 rolls), my friend joked "is that just for today?" and they guy, seriously replied, "yes".

OTOH, my father was a self-employed photo journalist; the cost of the film came out of his pocket. He was incredibly good at composing the shot, understanding the lighting, etc. (he wrote a number of books in the 40's and 50's on lighting and flash); by the end of his life he wasn't even bracketing any more, he'd get 20+ saleable shots out of a 36 exp. roll.

He was trained in the days of speed graphics, when it would take a minute to set up the film holder and the strobe. He'd tell me how the sports photographers could only get at most one shot per minute. Yet he'd tell me how they wouldn't only get the knock-out punch at a boxing match (meaning they pressed the shutter a second or so before the punch hit) but they'd catch the flash of a photg from a rival paper who was across the ring- both of them hit the button at the same split second. Now, with motor drives and so forth, many sports photographers will miss the same shot.

With digital it costs nothing to shoot thousands of photos, but in the old days the good photographers needed to know what they were going to get, and pass judgement on it, in a split second before pulling the trigger.

My father used to tell me stories of Weegee, who was legendary for his magical timing in getting the shot.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/weegee/
http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/

"I would drop into Police Headquarters at around 7:00 p.m. If nothing's stirring and my elbow don't itch - and that's not a gag, it really does itch when something is going to happen - I go on back to my room across from Police Headquarters and go to sleep. At the head of my bed I have a hook-in with the police alarms and fire gongs so that if anything happens while I'm asleep, I'm notified...When I get my pictures I hurry back to Headquarters. There is always a follow-up slip on an accident (or crime) with all the names and details coming in over the teletype. I found out who were injured, where they lived, and on what charges they have been arrested, so that I can caption my pictures correctly. Next I go back to my darkroom and develop my prints. By this time it is around six in the morning and I start out to sell my prints."
Weegee quoted in "Free-Lance Camerman," by Rosa Reilly, Popular Photography, December 1937

I stopped shooting film years ago because of the cost.

I do try to shoot digital mostly manual or aperture priority because I think it is good practice.

I've only ever shot film twice in my life:

1. Very old (at the time) family Kodak 126 film camera for a school trip to France back in 84. I still have this camera!

2. Bought myself a cheap Kodak APS camera for my first ever business trip outside of the UK in 99. I must still have this camera somewhere though I suspect I left the battery inside (eek).

The shutter bug only came with extensive travel in this century. These days I shoot mostly Aperture Priority and only use manual where I want to do a long exposure (usually want the aperture set to narrowest for these).

Next thing on the road to learning about good exposure is how to calculate the optimum shutter speed given the aperture setting and available light...

As for focusing, I can't manual focus worth a damn and suspect this has something to do with me wearing glasses.

I shoot film for personal projects, and dislike digital for lasting images that I may want to enlarge and put on the wall. 8x10 isn't big enough, and if I get a good shot and do want to enlarge it to 20x30 I don't want to be unable to - which I would be with digital.

I also want the picture to be taken when i press the shutter release, and not up to several seconds later like on some digital cameras. The delays common on most digital cameras are so annoying.

I do however use digital when I need publicity or advertising brochure type pictures that will either be online or in small publications.

I shoot film for personal projects, and dislike digital for lasting images that I may want to enlarge and put on the wall. 8x10 isn't big enough, and if I get a good shot and do want to enlarge it to 20x30 I don't want to be unable to - which I would be with digital.

I also want the picture to be taken when i press the shutter release, and not up to several seconds later like on some digital cameras. The delays common on most digital cameras are so annoying.

I do however use digital when I need publicity or advertising brochure type pictures that will either be online or in small publications.

I seldom enlarge beyond 8x10, even coming from 4x5 transparencies. The reason being just personally liking smaller prints. But Im wondering what type film formats vs. digital images give GOOD 8x10 prints. I have had some 8x10s made that were taken with a Canon EOS 20D and an L series lense. But what about the point and shoots? Something like a Canon SD900, A640 or G7? Have people made good 8x10s from them? Im intrigued with getting something very small like either an SD900 or a Minox film camera. Have people here printed from Minox to 8x10? How does it compare to a 7-10 mp point and shoot in image quality?

This forum is getting me interested in all types of photography a lot more than I have been recently, like I was when I was younger :) ^

... Have people here printed from Minox to 8x10? Most Minox cameras are 35mm (even the very small ones, not much bigger than the film!); presumably you mean the original Minox spy camera, like the Minox B, which uses 9.5mm film. I used to own one ("lost" it years ago), and never blew it up higher than 4x5 but it was indistinguishable from 35mm at that size. Hard to say the corresponding pixel resolution, but it is in the 20 million range. To put that into perspective, the human eye is approx 600 megapixels (and roughly ISO 800).

Well, I have a totally different perspective on this. IME, it was only when I went digital that I actually went up the learning curve in photography, for a number of reasons.

I started out at the tender age of about 6 years old with an hand-me-down film camera and have been taking snapshots ever since. Never got "serious" about photography, or had any epiphanys about it until I got my DSLR. There were many reasons for this. With a film camera, if you actually want to learn about images and technique, you should really record all the exposure details (which means spending the time to write them down) about each shot. Then, you wait a while to get the prints processed, or spend the time to process them yourself. Then you look them over along with your notes, and start to learn about what you did right and wrong in setting up the shot.

I primarily shoot aperture or shutter priority (with auto-ISO when there is fast breaking action). With digital, all the EXIF data you need is recorded right along with the shot, so you can focus on composition and other decisions such as aperture, exposure compensation, how the light is hitting the subject, etc. Then, you get the instantaneous feedback on how you did, right along with the data. For me, that has been tremendously helpful. I've found now that since I learn something from studying the data along with my shots, I don't want or need to take as many shots to get the "one" good one, and find myself slowing down and thinking more about them before I take them, based on this experience and feedback.

The other very valuable learning experience I've had with digital is that it allows you to be much more intimately involved in the post processing, and with greater ease. When you have the image up on the screen, and have so many more tools at your disposal to fix it, you look much more critically at the elements of the image, and you learn something in the process of doing that as well. You start to see what you can do to affect on the image to increase the impact and convey your message, which then makes you think about how you want to set up and compose your shot in the first place.

So for me, going digital has been a tremendous aid in learning about photography, and I doubt that I could have had as rapid of an ascent up the learning curve with film.

I shoot film for personal projects, and dislike digital for lasting images that I may want to enlarge and put on the wall. 8x10 isn't big enough, and if I get a good shot and do want to enlarge it to 20x30 I don't want to be unable to - which I would be with digital.

I also want the picture to be taken when i press the shutter release, and not up to several seconds later like on some digital cameras. The delays common on most digital cameras are so annoying.

I do however use digital when I need publicity or advertising brochure type pictures that will either be online or in small publications.

I disagree.

I shoot digital. With a high megapixel camera, 6mp and up it is quite possible to print larger than 8x10. There is software that will "increase" resoution in images. Illustrator is one that can help re-draw the image so you can enlarge it.

A DSLR does not have the shutter delay. The sub DSLR (those how look like one but isn't) do have that delay. However - I have seen a Samsung Pro camera that I borrowed and even used for concert photography and it took pretty dang good images and was near SLR in functions.

Actually, I took a portion of an image shot with a Canon 30D and had it printed in A3 size (11.7" x 16.5"). Worked a charm. It was a jpeg and not raw.

Now - as for blowing up images to mega size - how about looking at Hasselblad 39mpixel camera for roughly $30k ;-)

[QUOTE=GadgetFreak;7732433I have had some 8x10s made that were taken with a Canon EOS 20D and an L series lense. But what about the point and shoots? Something like a Canon SD900, A640 or G7? [/QUOTE]

As you are a Canon-man, may I suggest a visit to this place (http://www.photography-on-the.net)?

Most Minox cameras are 35mm (even the very small ones, not much bigger than the film!); presumably you mean the original Minox spy camera, like the Minox B, which uses 9.5mm film. I used to own one ("lost" it years ago), and never blew it up higher than 4x5 but it was indistinguishable from 35mm at that size. Hard to say the corresponding pixel resolution, but it is in the 20 million range. To put that into perspective, the human eye is approx 600 megapixels (and roughly ISO 800).

Yes, I meant the "spy camera" version. They still make them. I have an old Leica 35mm point and shoot, that while isnt an Leica M, is really compact and took some stunners, especially with slow speed film. But not nearly as compact as one of the Minoxes. In looking at the things on the walls of our house most are 4x5 or 6x6cm shots. One is from K24 shot with a 35mm SLR and one is from the Leica with 100 ASA print film.

I have two Canon AE-1s (thank you Ebay) with a 35mm and a 135mm lens respectively.

I love 'em. I gave the 135mm camera to my girlfriend and she is falling in love with film photography all over again.

I think they are great learning tools for understanding what the functions on much more expensive cameras (Canon Rebel XTi) perform. Composing shots, getting the aperture settings perfect and making sure there is significant light are all very important.

I shoot film for personal projects, and dislike digital for lasting images that I may want to enlarge and put on the wall. 8x10 isn't big enough, and if I get a good shot and do want to enlarge it to 20x30 I don't want to be unable to - which I would be with digital.

I also want the picture to be taken when i press the shutter release, and not up to several seconds later like on some digital cameras. The delays common on most digital cameras are so annoying.

I do however use digital when I need publicity or advertising brochure type pictures that will either be online or in small publications.

I disagree.

I shoot digital. With a high megapixel camera, 6mp and up it is quite possible to print larger than 8x10. There is software that will "increase" resoution in images. Illustrator is one that can help re-draw the image so you can enlarge it.

A DSLR does not have the shutter delay. The sub DSLR (those how look like one but isn't) do have that delay. However - I have seen a Samsung Pro camera that I borrowed and even used for concert photography and it took pretty dang good images and was near SLR in functions.

Actually, I took a portion of an image shot with a Canon 30D and had it printed in A3 size (11.7" x 16.5"). Worked a charm. It was a jpeg and not raw.

Now - as for blowing up images to mega size - how about looking at Hasselblad 39mpixel camera for roughly $30k ;-)

I'm pretty much with Emma on this one. Unless you're going to be looking at a 20x30 image from 6" away, any DSLR with a decent lens will do the trick.

Here's a couple of interesting pages to play around with: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camera/resolution/

According to the 2nd page, to produce an 8x10 image viewed from 18 inches away, anything above 6MP is overkill - the eye *cannot* process any more detail than that. As I noted in another thread, I've printed an acceptably sharp 16x20 image from a 3.3 megapixel camera. To me, about the only valid reasons you need more resolution than the current top-end DSLRs (12-16 MP) would be:

* Doing full-bleed halftone prints for advertising (since you need 300 dpi to get a good 150 lpi halftone)
* Need to crop a substantial portion of the image
* Need other technical capabilities (tilt/shift) that are easy to do on MF/LF systems, but not on a SLR body.
* Doing anything larger than 32x40 prints in continuous-tone output (even at 32x40, you're not diffraction-limited on a 12MP Nikon sensor)
* Need more than 7 stops of dynamic range and HDR bracketing isn't viable. (this means you're not shooting color transparency film, since digital already has equal or better dynamic range)
* My you-know-what is bigger than yours bragging rights.

Emma's also right on shutter lag - with any decent DSLR, the shutter lag is so minimal as to be non-existent.

I havent shot manual in years....Once I started using my EOS A2E, Then EOS3. Now with my 10D (waiting for improvements from Canon that makes upgrading worthwhile) Auto-focus is so much better than manual for me.

I still shoot around 100 rolls of film a year, especially when I want to shoot really wide angle without the digital crop factor.

I'm pretty much with Emma on this one. Unless you're going to be looking at a 20x30 image from 6" away, any DSLR with a decent lens will do the trick.

Here's a couple of interesting pages to play around with: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camera/resolution/

According to the 2nd page, to produce an 8x10 image viewed from 18 inches away, anything above 6MP is overkill - the eye *cannot* process any more detail than that. As I noted in another thread, I've printed an acceptably sharp 16x20 image from a 3.3 megapixel camera. To me, about the only valid reasons you need more resolution than the current top-end DSLRs (12-16 MP) would be:

* Doing full-bleed halftone prints for advertising (since you need 300 dpi to get a good 150 lpi halftone)
* Need to crop a substantial portion of the image
* Need other technical capabilities (tilt/shift) that are easy to do on MF/LF systems, but not on a SLR body.
* Doing anything larger than 32x40 prints in continuous-tone output (even at 32x40, you're not diffraction-limited on a 12MP Nikon sensor)
* Need more than 7 stops of dynamic range and HDR bracketing isn't viable. (this means you're not shooting color transparency film, since digital already has equal or better dynamic range)
* My you-know-what is bigger than yours bragging rights.

Emma's also right on shutter lag - with any decent DSLR, the shutter lag is so minimal as to be non-existent.


Wow, thanks for the very detailed and informative post. One of the things I have been trying to consider is whether to get a pocketable digital camera. I love my EOS 20D but throwing that, a 17-40 L and 70-200 f4.5-5.6L in a bag and forget about one carry one. The two that I have been considering are the Canon SD700 IS and the SD900. The later has more mps (10 vs 7) but no image stabilization. That 6 mp cut off gives me more food for thought. My current backup/carry everywhere (a Canon G1) is only 3mp and too big to really carry everywhere. Now I have some more inputs for deciding. One of the things that DPreviews liked about the SD700 was the speed and lack of shutter lag by the way. I agree that shutter lag can be a problem, it is atrocious on my G1, but on the EOS 20D it is more or less nonexistant on single shots and it can shoot very fast on burst mode as well, especially with a fast memory card.

Having learnt photography on an OM2 (aperture priority), I tend to do most of my shooting on that setting. I've learnt to use spot focussing given the manual focus barrel on my Sony is a bit hard to get at.

[QUOTE=hangpilot;7731724]
I also want the picture to be taken when i press the shutter release, and not up to several seconds later like on some digital cameras. The delays common on most digital cameras are so annoying.

As others said, most dSLRs don't have shutter delays. My Sony (nee Maxxum 5D) doesn't have one, and can take non-RAW shots at 3 fps until the mem card is full. Some cameras do have powerup delays. The Canons and Nikons are said to be minimal (< 1 sec). The Sony is ready by the time I get it to my eye )a review said 1.8 sec but I think there's new firmware that has reduced this time substantially). Some like the Olympus are said to take almost 5 seconds!

As for blowing up from 10 MP, we're still sorting through 6,000 shots taken in the Egypt and Jordan!

My primary outfit is a Nikon D70s. I think I'm getting into some bad habits e.g. taking a lot of shots assuming that one will be good.

So here's what I've done. I ordered a used F3HP from KEH (www.keh.com), which arrived today. For the uninitiated, this is a pro-level film camera originally introduced in the early 80s. It has a centerweight meter, electronic shutter, auto shutter speed mode, etc but is manual focus and I'll use it as a mostly manual camera.

The thought is that using this camera will force me to focus (no pun intended) more on the basics of photography: composition, exposure and focus.

Anyone else shoot a manual film camera? If so, why?



I would love to for the exact same reason, but back when I was using film camera, processing bill was 2-4K per year.. and I decided to get a
Digital SLR.

I'm pretty much with Emma on this one. Unless you're going to be looking at a 20x30 image from 6" away, any DSLR with a decent lens will do the trick.
...

According to the 2nd page, to produce an 8x10 image viewed from 18 inches away, anything above 6MP is overkill - the eye *cannot* process any more detail than that. As I noted in another thread, I've printed an acceptably sharp 16x20 image from a 3.3 megapixel camera. To me, about the only valid reasons you need more resolution than the current top-end DSLRs (12-16 MP) would be:

* Doing full-bleed halftone prints for advertising (since you need 300 dpi to get a good 150 lpi halftone)
* Need to crop a substantial portion of the image
* Need other technical capabilities (tilt/shift) that are easy to do on MF/LF systems, but not on a SLR body.
* Doing anything larger than 32x40 prints in continuous-tone output (even at 32x40, you're not diffraction-limited on a 12MP Nikon sensor)
* Need more than 7 stops of dynamic range and HDR bracketing isn't viable. (this means you're not shooting color transparency film, since digital already has equal or better dynamic range)
* My you-know-what is bigger than yours bragging rights.

Emma's also right on shutter lag - with any decent DSLR, the shutter lag is so minimal as to be non-existent.

I would agree in principle with all of this, but I'd say that point 2 is kind of a biggie; most people like to take advantage of close cropping when they can, without losing much in the way of image quality, especially when cropping AND enlarging. Also, higher MP lets casual users maximize the use of digital zoom in their point and shoots. Thus, yes, 6 MP is more than fine if you want to shoot, process and print as is, but even casual users often like to do more than that.

"F8.0 and be there"

Shooting digital is a good way to hone your skills because you can experiment and get instant results. Pro's don't skimp on film because they don't need to. True, they shoot a lot of images and choose the best... but their culls would make most amatuers envious.

"F8.0 and be there"

Shooting digital is a good way to hone your skills because you can experiment and get instant results. Pro's don't skimp on film because they don't need to. True, they shoot a lot of images and choose the best... but their culls would make most amatuers envious.

True. But I think film photography for us "non-pros" is great because it forces us to think about the shot a lot more and really try to get it correct.

True. But I think film photography for us "non-pros" is great because it forces us to think about the shot a lot more and really try to get it correct.


Well, I'd have to go with Borneo wholeheartedly on this one. As I said in an earlier post, going digital was a tremendous step forward for me in learning photography because of the instant feedback and the EXIF data. If I had to take all the notes contained in each shot's EXIF, organize them, correlate them to certain shots, and after all that have to wait for the film to get processed to see my results, frankly, it's just too much work while I still have a day job, not to mention the missed shots I'd have because I'd have to worry about all that.

Once again, I also have to say that learning digital post-processing was a huge leap forward as well. It forced me to really think about the causes of flaws in my image as I corrected them - knowledge that I now bring back whenever I get back behind the camera and do the image capture.

I still shoot around 100 rolls of film a year, especially when I want to shoot really wide angle without the digital crop factor.

I *think* the 5D is full frame. You can pick them up fairly cheap. Unless you feel like spending $6k on a 1DmkIII which is HUGE!

I would love a 5D but would settle for a 30D.

/E

I *think* the 5D is full frame. You can pick them up fairly cheap.


5D is full frame 135 format. Goes new for $2750 from B&H.

I would agree in principle with all of this, but I'd say that point 2 is kind of a biggie; most people like to take advantage of close cropping when they can, without losing much in the way of image quality, especially when cropping AND enlarging. Also, higher MP lets casual users maximize the use of digital zoom in their point and shoots. Thus, yes, 6 MP is more than fine if you want to shoot, process and print as is, but even casual users often like to do more than that.

That's the advantage of my 18-200mm lens. :) I can get the size right in-camera, so my only crop is for the aspect ratio I want to print at. That said, I agree that 6MP is borderline for doing a crop+enlarge. That's why my next body will probably be a D200.

"F8.0 and be there"

Shooting digital is a good way to hone your skills because you can experiment and get instant results. Pro's don't skimp on film because they don't need to. True, they shoot a lot of images and choose the best... but their culls would make most amatuers envious.

f/8 is my favorite f/stop. :) Seriously, I'd bet that if I went into my Lightroom database and filtered on EXIF data, probably 50% of my shots are at f/8. It's the ultimate "walking around" aperture.

I'm with you on the ability to experiment - I like to be able to play around with things to get as close as possible to the exact image I want in-camera before I go to Photoshop. It means I have a lot of culls, but I'm pretty efficient at that. My trip to Utah last month - shot something like 1300 frames, culled down to <50 selects for my webpage. So far, I've processed and printed 8x10/11x14 versions of 5 or 6 to go in my rotating collection of pictures on the wall at home. (I have 2 frame sizes I use - 16x20 (for 11x14 images) and 11x14 (for 8x10 images) - so I just mat pictures and rotate them through the frames a few times a year)

The 5D is indeed full frame... and the price is slowly dropping on them... almost as if Canon were lining up a replacement camera ;)

Both Digital and Film have their places - when I do glam/fetish/alternative shoots, I thank the stars for Digital. It allows me to get my digital loupe out and weed quickly. With film there is a substaial delay (as I have no urge to walk down to the processers and beg nicely for work to be done)

If I'm working in black and white, then film comes to natural choice - but then I want to be handprinting it or trusting a company which won't mess up my work.

Film forces you to be correct, but you can cheat lots - admittedly, I've been known to perfect something on Digital before committing it to film! (weird, but its how i work sometimes!)

And yes I do use my film body regually!

The 5D is indeed full frame... and the price is slowly dropping on them... almost as if Canon were lining up a replacement camera ;)

Both Digital and Film have their places - when I do glam/fetish/alternative shoots, I thank the stars for Digital. It allows me to get my digital loupe out and weed quickly. With film there is a substaial delay (as I have no urge to walk down to the processers and beg nicely for work to be done)

If I'm working in black and white, then film comes to natural choice - but then I want to be handprinting it or trusting a company which won't mess up my work.

Film forces you to be correct, but you can cheat lots - admittedly, I've been known to perfect something on Digital before committing it to film! (weird, but its how i work sometimes!)

And yes I do use my film body regually!

Now - as for blowing up images to mega size - how about looking at Hasselblad 39mpixel camera for roughly $30k ;-)

That's all I'll be doing - LOOKING at it in the brochure......! ;-)


According to the 2nd page, to produce an 8x10 image viewed from 18 inches away, anything above 6MP is overkill - the eye *cannot* process any more detail than that. As I noted in another thread, I've printed an acceptably sharp 16x20 image from a 3.3 megapixel camera. To me, about the only valid reasons you need more resolution than the current top-end DSLRs (12-16 MP) would be:

Aaah, but I DO want to make sure it's possible to look at a little part of the image - ideally I want to draw the viewer in to look in more detail. That's a bit "snapshot" to just present the picture as a whole and deny closer observation of details. It's all about the details, and not just an the "overall".

One thing digital still hasn't sorted out yet is over-exposure and burn though. There's still more latitude on film, so for pictures that are going to need a wide exposure latitude - and for travel photography who knows what the situations will be I'm currently still swayed by the "give" of analog.

Price - I can get MUCH more of a film SLR camera for a lot less money than a digital SLR. A D-SLR isn't yet cost effective for me, and as somebody's already mentioned the security factor and carrying around such an expensive piece of equipment makes me nervous!

If the cost of a serious number of MPs goes down to that of a good film SLR I'll switch though.

The 5D is indeed full frame... and the price is slowly dropping on them... almost as if Canon were lining up a replacement camera ;)

I've heard "18 months".

I'd love to upgrade from the 350D I have now to a 30D or (money permitting) to a 5D. Considering I'm getting more and more seriousl about my photography - I should.

/E

Yes, I meant the "spy camera" version. They still make them. I have an old Leica 35mm point and shoot, that while isnt an Leica M, is really compact and took some stunners, especially with slow speed film. But not nearly as compact as one of the Minoxes. In looking at the things on the walls of our house most are 4x5 or 6x6cm shots. One is from K24 shot with a 35mm SLR and one is from the Leica with 100 ASA print film.

My wife has an old Leica III-G that her dad got in Germany during the war. She used to use it quite a bit but when we moved, the photo shops in the new area wouldn't touch it for cleaning etc. The only thing they would do is send it away. (There weren't any Leica dealers back there). So that plus the problem of finding good film (she prefers Agfa which is what they had in art school) pushed her to digital. I got her a Nikon D70 since she has a bunch of Nikon lenses from school.

Now she's dictated that she'll only lug the Nikon or maybe the Leica on "real" vacations, not just trips to grandma's house because carrying the equipment is a pain (literally). She wants the Lumix FX30 which has a Leica lens.

One thing digital still hasn't sorted out yet is over-exposure and burn though. There's still more latitude on film, so for pictures that are going to need a wide exposure latitude - and for travel photography who knows what the situations will be I'm currently still swayed by the "give" of analog.


Not entirely true. If you're shooting landscapes, odds are you're shooting Velvia transparency film. Velvia's got a ~6 stop range, same as a decent DSLR.

I got her a Nikon D70 since she has a bunch of Nikon lenses from school.

Now she's dictated that she'll only lug the Nikon or maybe the Leica on "real" vacations, not just trips to grandma's house because carrying the equipment is a pain (literally).

I don't blame her. I had a nikon d70 with a kitlens and I even stopped taking it with me on travels. I since switched to a canon 350D which is much lighter and smaller and easier to pack. Still, I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5D HAHAHAHA!

She wants the Lumix FX30 which has a Leica lens.

Whatever you do, don't (and I mean DON'T) let her find out about Leica M8. Once she's seen one, played with it and realised how good it is she will not want anything else.

There is just one problem - you may have to sell the house to get one plus all the exqyuisit lenses.

/E

I've heard "18 months".

I'd love to upgrade from the 350D I have now to a 30D or (money permitting) to a 5D. Considering I'm getting more and more seriousl about my photography - I should.

/E

I went from a 300D to a 20D. Unless you have the lenses to match the 5D (and we're talking reasonable quality lenses here), the 5D will show the faults of your lens.

I take my photography comparability seriously... and a 20D is a meaty enough camera. The 30D is a lovely beast (but in my eyes) offers very little improvement over the 20D for my liking. Guess we'll have to wait till September/October for another Canon Product announcement for a 40D ;).

A 350D can be serious when it wants to be - as you know, its not the camera - its the person behind the camera

A 350D can be serious when it wants to be - as you know, its not the camera - its the person behind the camera

It's the "want" factor more than anything. I'm looking at getting better glass before I do anything else - really. The body itself is nice and lightweight. The *only* reasson for an upgrade to a 5D would be the higher ISO and less noise. But - getting faster glass, I really don't need higher ISO. Instead I can go down in ISO and get less noise that way. then again - sometimes I like noise pushed to 1600 ISO in b&w.

Think - Annie Liebovitz and CBGBs.
If only I was that good..... *sigh*

It's the "want" factor more than anything. I'm looking at getting better glass before I do anything else - really. The body itself is nice and lightweight. The *only* reasson for an upgrade to a 5D would be the higher ISO and less noise. But - getting faster glass, I really don't need higher ISO. Instead I can go down in ISO and get less noise that way. then again - sometimes I like noise pushed to 1600 ISO in b&w.

Think - Annie Liebovitz and CBGBs.
If only I was that good..... *sigh*

Glass is the nasty part - I've got my singular L series lens (a 17-40 I got whilst in the states - thank god for good rates). I can't afford much more Canon glass, so it'll be Tamron for me shortly (although if you haven't got a 50mm/f1.8 or 50/1.4 yet... get thee to a shop and buy one... you'll start to take VERY different pictures!)

Noise is like grain in film - it comes with the territory and you take it for what its worth. And you can always use Neat Image or Noise Ninja to remove noise....

But I understand the want factor... and the camera looking at me and me looking at it when I pass the shop...

And the pictures will come in time - I'm no supertaker, but I have my moments (and they're increasing when I see them in print, on flyers and on other people's websites) - and sometimes a flash of inspiration can lead to many different places. Just keep that camera near and some memory free on your card!

Just keep that camera near and some memory free on your card!

I'm totaly raw converted these days. Have 3x 1gb sandisk cards and they fill up fast when on a concert shoot. I'm a "spray and pray" kind of person. However, sometimes I get that "oooooh" feeling when a shot comes in the view finder.

As said in PM to you, have a nifty fifty on it's way so that is being sorted.

Another thing I did today was pick up contact lenses. I need them. Normaly shoot without glasses but my last shoot I had them on and saw double in the viewfinder. Am going to pop in the lenses soon and go out on town with the camera to see what difference it makes.

Now, back on topic. I did pick up a battery for the old Praktica, popped it in and when I fired off a couple of shots (no film in, just playing around) that old feeling of holding something robust in my hand came back at the speed of 1/1000 ;) I've got a few rolls of film at home. including a black and white. One day....

/E

I'm a RAW shooter by nature - my Hard disk tells me so!

Go on.. get the old Praktica out and load a film in it .. I dare you ;)

I tend to shoot transparancy film when with the Holga - it forces me to plan as much as possible before shooting. But i still have a pile of neopan to burn through - a nice grainy and contrasty film - especilly with the effects that camera can do.

Must get some C41 B&W film for the EOS 300 (film) sometime - I need a creative exercise....

I don't blame her. I had a nikon d70 with a kitlens and I even stopped taking it with me on travels. I since switched to a canon 350D which is much lighter and smaller and easier to pack. Still, I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5D HAHAHAHA!


Whatever you do, don't (and I mean DON'T) let her find out about Leica M8. Once she's seen one, played with it and realised how good it is she will not want anything else.

There is just one problem - you may have to sell the house to get one plus all the exqyuisit lenses.

/E

hahaha too late, she's seen the M8 at a store in Denver. :D Happily she picked it up, ooooed and awwwwed over it, took some sample pics, marveled at the wonder that is Leica, looked at the pricetag and then gave that sucker back! ^ Yeah we would have had to sell the baby on the street to pay for that thing!!!!

I went from a 300D to a 20D. Unless you have the lenses to match the 5D (and we're talking reasonable quality lenses here), the 5D will show the faults of your lens.

I take my photography comparability seriously... and a 20D is a meaty enough camera. The 30D is a lovely beast (but in my eyes) offers very little improvement over the 20D for my liking. Guess we'll have to wait till September/October for another Canon Product announcement for a 40D ;).

A 350D can be serious when it wants to be - as you know, its not the camera - its the person behind the camera

I still have a 10D...Works great. Nothing in the 20 or 30D made a compelling enough reason to upgrade, so I spent my money on "L" Glass. "L" Glass is very addicting:eek:

We will see what the 40D brings.

I still have a 10D...Works great. Nothing in the 20 or 30D made a compelling enough reason to upgrade, so I spent my money on "L" Glass. "L" Glass is very addicting:eek:

We will see what the 40D brings.

Do we know there is a 40D coming out and when?

/E

Do we know there is a 40D coming out and when?

/E

*gets my Canon Length of String out.... *

People were expecting something at PMA in March... but the 1D Mk3 appeared instead.... so judging by Canons's previous release cycles.. I'd hazard a guess at September/October for the next release....

.... hazarding a spec, I'd expect a 10mpx sensor, sensor cleaning built in, Digic III image processor, slightly higher burst rate and other tweaks...

But of course... I could be totally wrong... :D

Well, I got out my little Leica point and shoo and brought it with me to Montreal. Going to get some TriX or Tmax film and have some fun with it. Might even run some Kodachrome 64 through it. As a general rule, my wife is extremely tolerant of what I spend on DIGITAL photography because there are no large boxes of prints around. Lots of large boxes. Im hoping that if I use contact sheets or slides rather than printing them all I will survive :)

As a general rule, my wife is extremely tolerant of what I spend on DIGITAL photography because there are no large boxes of prints around. Lots of large boxes. Im hoping that if I use contact sheets or slides rather than printing them all I will survive :)

I think the term "out of sight, out of mind" comes to the fore there ;)

Besides.. there's always the option of having the film scanned onto CD... (or scanning the film yourself)...

I think the term "out of sight, out of mind" comes to the fore there ;)

Besides.. there's always the option of having the film scanned onto CD... (or scanning the film yourself)...

Aha, good suggestion but Im one step ahead of you ;)

I found several places that will develop and scan both transparencies (Kodachrome, my all time favorite emulsion and Fujichrome) and black and white for pretty reasonable prices. I can just throw the prints out on the B&W.

Aha, good suggestion but Im one step ahead of you ;)

I found several places that will develop and scan both transparencies (Kodachrome, my all time favorite emulsion and Fujichrome) and black and white for pretty reasonable prices. I can just throw the prints out on the B&W.

Kodachrome :o.... Wash your mouth out ;)

I prefer the colours that come out of Fuji's line... Astia if I'm doing portfolio... Provia if I need anything more than 100ISO... and Velvia ... when I need deep contrast and perfect slides...

In many respects slide developing is very cheap.. its the scanning onto CD that adds to the cost....

Well, Ive run one roll of TMax400 and one roll of Sensia (happy :) ) through my Leica Z2X and am getting ready to send them out for processing and scanning. Ive also picked up a Minox EC and am waiting for the film for it which should be home when I get there. I was also just ordered a telephoto lens and finder for my Yashica MAT124G so Im going to get that out next. Having a great time until the wife figures it out ;) Im also shooting a lot with my G7. I'll post some scans of the film pictures when I get them. Im going to Beijing for 3 and a half days next week and trying to decide what to take camera-wise.

Unfortunately GadgetFreak... "its only a hobby" won't cut it methinks ;)

Glad you're shooting again... Will be interested in the results ^ (especially with the TMAX Stuff - I'm getting bored on being a Fujifilm shop!)

I'm in the process of buying flashguns atm... so big spending on film cameras is going to have to wait....

(although if I see a very cheap Zenta Bronica.... its mine!)

I've got a daytrip/non pure mileage run to Brussels next week, so the cameras will be preped soon. However, I suspect i might need some more neopan/astia before the week is out... :(

Unfortunately GadgetFreak... "its only a hobby" won't cut it methinks ;)

Glad you're shooting again... Will be interested in the results ^ (especially with the TMAX Stuff - I'm getting bored on being a Fujifilm shop!)

I'm in the process of buying flashguns atm... so big spending on film cameras is going to have to wait....

(although if I see a very cheap Zenta Bronica.... its mine!)

I've got a daytrip/non pure mileage run to Brussels next week, so the cameras will be preped soon. However, I suspect i might need some more neopan/astia before the week is out... :(

Well, it isnt like she doesnt have hobbies :)

I just got home from a trip and my package from B&H was waiting. I in addition to the Minox film I have two rolls each of Ilford chromogenic B&W film and two rolls of K64 (old habits die hard). I plan on using them on my trip to Bejing next week. I will shot mostly digital in Beijing but will try to do 4 roles of 35mm as well. Probably going to take my 20D, 17-40 and 70-200 lens. Everything will go to scan after processing though so I can post them. Im going to DC for a couple days tomorrow and will play around with the Minox there.

Spent yesterday at Tiannamen Square, the Forbidden City and the Temple of Heaven. Instead of 35mm film I ended up getting out my Yashica Mat 124G and my EOS 20D. I forgot how hard it was to use that Yashica but it was fun once I got the hang of it. Im shooting Velia and TMax 100 in it. Im really looking forward to seeing the results.

Funny thing was, lots of people were looking at the Yashica and pointing. :)

Well, it isnt like she doesnt have hobbies :)

I just got home from a trip and my package from B&H was waiting. I in addition to the Minox film I have two rolls each of Ilford chromogenic B&W film and two rolls of K64 (old habits die hard). I plan on using them on my trip to Bejing next week. I will shot mostly digital in Beijing but will try to do 4 roles of 35mm as well. Probably going to take my 20D, 17-40 and 70-200 lens. Everything will go to scan after processing though so I can post them. Im going to DC for a couple days tomorrow and will play around with the Minox there.

Don't worry...I still have about 50 rolls of Kodachrome 25 in the fridge.

It's about six years old now but still holding up well. Of course there is only one or two labs in the world that can still process it. :(

I really love the new Velvia 100 but there is still just something about the look of Kodachrome.

Unfortunately GadgetFreak... "its only a hobby" won't cut it methinks ;)

Glad you're shooting again... Will be interested in the results ^ (especially with the TMAX Stuff - I'm getting bored on being a Fujifilm shop!)

I'm in the process of buying flashguns atm... so big spending on film cameras is going to have to wait....

(although if I see a very cheap Zenta Bronica.... its mine!)

I've got a daytrip/non pure mileage run to Brussels next week, so the cameras will be preped soon. However, I suspect i might need some more neopan/astia before the week is out... :(

Here are some scans of 120 format TMax 100. Lots of fog in SFO and haze in PEK but I like some of the results.

PEK (Great Wall and Ming Tomb complex) http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926822462/

And SFO from across the bay and other shots in the Marin Headlands.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926866128/

Here are some scans of 120 format TMax 100. Lots of fog in SFO and haze in PEK but I like some of the results.

PEK (Great Wall and Ming Tomb complex) http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926822462/

And SFO from across the bay and other shots in the Marin Headlands.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/sets/72157600926866128/

Looking good!

I've been posting "artistic" (read what you want into that what you will ;) ) on my photoblog (I've got a load from Brussels - with other things that's happened this week, its all I can post atm)

#1 - I should learn to switch from "Bulb" to "Normal" - http://i1.photoblog.com/photos/6247-1185230545-0-l.jpg
#2 -- Typical Holga - who needs this focusing, clear lens and control thing anyway? ;) http://i1.photoblog.com/photos/6247-1185230999-0-l.jpg

Context: http://www.photoblog.com/kevincm/2007/07/22/ onwards.

All on Fuji Neopan400 CN

I like your Holga Camera shots, Kevincm!

I think Holga is a great "back to basics" camera. I use it in several photography classes I teach to get students to concentrate more on composition and natural light.

Here are some multiple exposure shots (yet another great feature!) that I did with a Holga:

http://www.pacificrimphoto.com/kakaakopalms.html

Thanks HiIslands!

I'm an advocate of them, primarily because of the back to basics method, but also for the randomness of it

(Although I have odd looks when I turned up on a hoot with it once, and hooked it up to the studio flash solution - suffice to say the looks were bizzare, but the results were quite interesting leading it for me to be in my shoot bag more often than not)

The multi-exposure feature is always fun... and also accidentally forgetting to wind the film fully on (although I have this annoyly bad habit of leaving the bulb function on - sometimes with abject failure - sometimes with some success.

For anyone who shoots with a DSLR, and want to get back to simpler unassisted shooting when you have to think before you pressed the shutter, I can recommend them. The cost of one isn't exactly a barrier to entry ;) ($25 for a bit of plastic)

Of course... I'm not responsible for your processing bills thereafter ;)


I like your Holga Camera shots, Kevincm!

I think Holga is a great "back to basics" camera. I use it in several photography classes I teach to get students to concentrate more on composition and natural light.

Here are some multiple exposure shots (yet another great feature!) that I did with a Holga:

http://www.pacificrimphoto.com/kakaakopalms.html

My primary outfit is a Nikon D70s. I think I'm getting into some bad habits e.g. taking a lot of shots assuming that one will be good.

So here's what I've done. I ordered a used F3HP from KEH (www.keh.com), which arrived today. For the uninitiated, this is a pro-level film camera originally introduced in the early 80s. It has a centerweight meter, electronic shutter, auto shutter speed mode, etc but is manual focus and I'll use it as a mostly manual camera.

The thought is that using this camera will force me to focus (no pun intended) more on the basics of photography: composition, exposure and focus.

Anyone else shoot a manual film camera? If so, why?

In my opinion you have made a wise choice both in your camera and your dealer. I have delt with KEH for years and have always found them to be reputable and conservative in the grading of their used gear. I only buy used for older equipment no longer in production and I always buy from KEH.
As a photographer my favorite expression is that digital is the best thing that ever happened to photography and the worst thing:confused:
The F3 or any other manual camera will make you a better photographer. I have been in the business almost 30 years and I am amazed by the "fix it in photoshop" mentality of some digital photographers.
Don't get me wrong I am now digital and love it but it can make for some very bad habits.
The F3 and it's older brother the F2 (especially the F2AS, my sentimental favorite) are the penicle.

These are 35mm format though and Im a lot more pleased with them overall than with the medium format B&W. All were taken with a Leica Z2X which is a fine little point and shoot for the money. Nice size, decent lense and what seems to be a very accurate metering system. Also stuff like exposure compensation. Film was Kodak TMax 400 Professional.

Some of my favorites from the set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/922250414/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/922232380/in/set-72157601047696689/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/921387575/in/set-72157601047696689/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/921387801/in/set-72157601047696689/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97883009@N00/921357353/in/set-72157601046102720/

A little OT, but what film scanner are you using to get these to digital?

For my stuff, I'm using a HP ScanJet (with Film adaptor) 7650... Its my office's .... and as the scanner lives on my desk....

I shy away from commercial scanning - after being charged £10/$20 per 120 film for scanning, I'd rather risk it myself now...

A little OT, but what film scanner are you using to get these to digital?

Im having it done professionally. But I need to figure out what scanner to get. Its costing me a freaking fortune, especially now that I have switched to Duggal for processing and scanning. I think they are very good, but they charge $15 to scan a role of TMax.

I have a Digital Rebel XT, an Elan 7, and a few lenses that work with either body. I got the Elan a couple years earlier, but it doesn't see too much use these days. I shoot about 30,000 exposures a year on the Rebel. There's a saying, "If you want to take good photos, take a lot of photos," and I think it pre-dates digital. Getting massive amounts of practice and experience is important, definitely. But over time, I've seen my per-day exposure count dropping - I used to do 200+ a day pretty consistently, and now I'm a little more patient, a little more selective. I use "P" mode a lot of the time on people, since I don't want the flash to trigger. Dealing with landscape or sky or things that aren't gonna move a whole lot, I'll go full manual.

Im having it done professionally. But I need to figure out what scanner to get. Its costing me a freaking fortune, especially now that I have switched to Duggal for processing and scanning. I think they are very good, but they charge $15 to scan a role of TMax.

Turned out to be a fairly popular thread.

I just missed a Nikon Coolscan V for $275 on a local Craigslist. This seems to be a popular prosumer film scanner.