This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The rest of the world has more or less abandoned 35mm film in favour of digital, both in compacts and SLRs, and yet posts still come up here often about 35mm equipment, especially compact cameras. Why is this? Are climbers inherently more conservative photographers than non-climbers? Do 35mm compact cameras have an advantage over digital compacts that is particularly important while climbing? I take a Ricoh GR1S on big routes, but I am now thinking seriously of swapping it for a Canon digi-compact.
In reply to alex_th: two words - battery life.
oh and cost (cause we're all stingy bastards really)
oh and cost (cause we're all stingy bastards really)
In reply to alex_th: 35mm compacts that were VERY expensive are virtually given away now.
Add in batteries that still work in the cold, and we have a winner...
Plus, the old kit tends not to mind getting wet/knocked as much, and it's not £300+ you just dropped off a cliff.
TTG
Add in batteries that still work in the cold, and we have a winner...
Plus, the old kit tends not to mind getting wet/knocked as much, and it's not £300+ you just dropped off a cliff.
TTG
In reply to El Greyo: You can get PC projectors.
In reply to John2: again cost,, why pay stupidquiddles for a PC system whe you can pick up an old film set for peanuts..
also i'd say it was a non-upgrade thing we just prefer to keep the old stuff as it still works and works well.
also i'd say it was a non-upgrade thing we just prefer to keep the old stuff as it still works and works well.
In reply to alex_th: I've found that there is a significant delay between when I click the shutter and the picture is actually taken on the digital cameras that i've used, a lengthy enough delay for me not to be able to capture "the moment" I want or for me to move and blurr the shot. There is no such delay on my 35. Also I have a lifetimes worth of slides and it is an expensive pain to try to merge them into digital images for shows, etc.
In reply to John2:
The quality is still not even close to that of a slide projector. And that holds even if you are comparing a very expensive digital projector and a cheap slide projector.
I guess the quality of digital projectors will improve to acceptable standards one day, but it still seems a long way away. Particularly if you also consider affordability.
The quality is still not even close to that of a slide projector. And that holds even if you are comparing a very expensive digital projector and a cheap slide projector.
I guess the quality of digital projectors will improve to acceptable standards one day, but it still seems a long way away. Particularly if you also consider affordability.
In reply to El Greyo:
Its amazing how film die hards cling to the weakest arguments to attempt to keep "showing" how film still beats digital.
I've been to loads & loads of presentations, talks and seminars (many photo orientated) and I can't remember the last one that DIDN'T use a laptop and projector.
The proof of the pudding and all that.....
Guys, just put away those antiques and come & join with us in the 21st Century and give up on that old 19th Century malarkey.
Its amazing how film die hards cling to the weakest arguments to attempt to keep "showing" how film still beats digital.
I've been to loads & loads of presentations, talks and seminars (many photo orientated) and I can't remember the last one that DIDN'T use a laptop and projector.
The proof of the pudding and all that.....
Guys, just put away those antiques and come & join with us in the 21st Century and give up on that old 19th Century malarkey.
In reply to ChrisJD: try telling that to CJD who's still on the 18th!
In reply to gingerdave13:
Maybe not any more:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=254354&v=1#3748670
Looks like she "might" have even dipped her toes in the 20th Century!
> try telling that to CJD who's still on the 18th!
Maybe not any more:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=254354&v=1#3748670
Looks like she "might" have even dipped her toes in the 20th Century!
In reply to ChrisJD:
>I've been to loads & loads of presentations, talks and seminars (many photo orientated) and I can't remember the last one that DIDN'T use a laptop and projector.
So, there goes over £1200+ to project some pictures at an inferior image to a film projector, that is a lot of money.
>I've been to loads & loads of presentations, talks and seminars (many photo orientated) and I can't remember the last one that DIDN'T use a laptop and projector.
So, there goes over £1200+ to project some pictures at an inferior image to a film projector, that is a lot of money.
In reply to alex_th:
I have a collection of around 10 000 slides to maintain and it is dreadfull. I used to worry all the time about fungus, dust, scratch, bad labs, etc.. Therefore I won't go back to film except for very particular projects. With this said there is not one digital compact camera that matches the image quality you can get from a GR1 film Ricoh GR1. I mean with a comparable same size, an optical viewfinder and a proper wide angle (28 or wider).
I have just ordered a Canon Digital IXUS 850 IS but according to the sample images I saw, the image quality in the corners is way below what I get with a 1970s rangefinder. I chose digital for the mountains because of conveninence over image quality.
Tiago
I have a collection of around 10 000 slides to maintain and it is dreadfull. I used to worry all the time about fungus, dust, scratch, bad labs, etc.. Therefore I won't go back to film except for very particular projects. With this said there is not one digital compact camera that matches the image quality you can get from a GR1 film Ricoh GR1. I mean with a comparable same size, an optical viewfinder and a proper wide angle (28 or wider).
I have just ordered a Canon Digital IXUS 850 IS but according to the sample images I saw, the image quality in the corners is way below what I get with a 1970s rangefinder. I chose digital for the mountains because of conveninence over image quality.
Tiago
In reply to ChrisJD:
- being of a tight disposition i like the fact that my canon a1 and f1.4 50mm cost me about £130 and to get comparable image quality from digi i'd have to spend hundreds more.
- the battery life means i can go away from a month and not need a new battery, although carry a spare, after all they only cost £1.50 or so and are the size of the tip of my little finger.
- it's a cliché but if someone tries to mug me for it i can hit them round the head with the lump of metal then still take a picture of their twitching body. but all in all i don't have to worry about it.
saying that i do have a digi as well and it's been ok, although going a bit iffy now, but am just going to hold off until can find a) a digi compact that goes as wide as 28mm, takes aa's preferably and offers me aperture priority if i want it.
- being of a tight disposition i like the fact that my canon a1 and f1.4 50mm cost me about £130 and to get comparable image quality from digi i'd have to spend hundreds more.
- the battery life means i can go away from a month and not need a new battery, although carry a spare, after all they only cost £1.50 or so and are the size of the tip of my little finger.
- it's a cliché but if someone tries to mug me for it i can hit them round the head with the lump of metal then still take a picture of their twitching body. but all in all i don't have to worry about it.
saying that i do have a digi as well and it's been ok, although going a bit iffy now, but am just going to hold off until can find a) a digi compact that goes as wide as 28mm, takes aa's preferably and offers me aperture priority if i want it.
In reply to erikb56:
I actually find digitals (DSLRs at least) to be quite good in autonomy if you turn off the screen. With two batteries I can go on for 10 days away from civilization. As for film, I used to travel with several bricks of film which, at 300 g each, becomes quite cumbersome on long trips. Not to mention avoiding Xrays at airports in these days of terror fears.
I actually find digitals (DSLRs at least) to be quite good in autonomy if you turn off the screen. With two batteries I can go on for 10 days away from civilization. As for film, I used to travel with several bricks of film which, at 300 g each, becomes quite cumbersome on long trips. Not to mention avoiding Xrays at airports in these days of terror fears.
In reply to Tiago:
You make very good points there. I can get 1000s of images out of two batteries (equivalent to >>50 rolls of film!). Add in a trickle solar charger and another "film is better than digi" (i.e. battery) claim fall aways.
Add into that that the digi files can be backed up onto min-hard drives the SAME DAY in the field means that digi wins again.
If you have a lap top, this means that you can even sort and work on the images in the evening, giving further time advantage over film.
The list goes on. More nails in the film coffin.
> (In reply to erikb56)
>
> I actually find digitals (DSLRs at least) to be quite good in autonomy if you turn off the screen. With two batteries I can go on for 10 days away from civilization. As for film, I used to travel with several bricks of film which, at 300 g each, becomes quite cumbersome on long trips.
>
> I actually find digitals (DSLRs at least) to be quite good in autonomy if you turn off the screen. With two batteries I can go on for 10 days away from civilization. As for film, I used to travel with several bricks of film which, at 300 g each, becomes quite cumbersome on long trips.
You make very good points there. I can get 1000s of images out of two batteries (equivalent to >>50 rolls of film!). Add in a trickle solar charger and another "film is better than digi" (i.e. battery) claim fall aways.
Add into that that the digi files can be backed up onto min-hard drives the SAME DAY in the field means that digi wins again.
If you have a lap top, this means that you can even sort and work on the images in the evening, giving further time advantage over film.
The list goes on. More nails in the film coffin.
In reply to ChrisJD:
I didn't mean to say that digital is better than film. It is just that *I* now prefer digital over film. Film would still be my choice if I didn't have computer, wanted to do slideshows, was on a shorter budget, etc...
I see (dis)advantages in both film and silicon cameras.
t.
I didn't mean to say that digital is better than film. It is just that *I* now prefer digital over film. Film would still be my choice if I didn't have computer, wanted to do slideshows, was on a shorter budget, etc...
I see (dis)advantages in both film and silicon cameras.
t.
In reply to ChrisJD:
don't get me wrong. if i had £500 i was prepared to spend on digi equipment i would, but when the same quality of image can be produced on equipment costing <£100 it's hard to justify for those on a budget. from scratch when you factor in a computer it becomes even harder to justify.
don't get me wrong. if i had £500 i was prepared to spend on digi equipment i would, but when the same quality of image can be produced on equipment costing <£100 it's hard to justify for those on a budget. from scratch when you factor in a computer it becomes even harder to justify.
In reply to erikb56:
I spent over £200 on film and d&p on a three weeks trip to Nepal, overall the cost to me of my EOS 5 bought in 1997 must have been well over £2K. Not so cheap.
I spent over £200 on film and d&p on a three weeks trip to Nepal, overall the cost to me of my EOS 5 bought in 1997 must have been well over £2K. Not so cheap.
In reply to alex_th: Recent articles about this very subject have appeared in climbing and travel comics on both side of the Pond. In general, the experts' views came down to reliability and the image detail both for projection and publishing: currently, the overwhelming choice seemed to be slide film (Fuji Velvia)and, if required, making digital copies of them. These digitised images were equivalent to using a 20megapixel camera!
I am also having great difficulty finding a digital camera that doesn't have significant delay between pressing the shutter and the image being captured.
Lastly, digital technology is advancing so rapidly that soon there will be too many image formats that projection systems, from DVD players to PC projectors, wont be able to have the capacity or ability to read the multitude of digital cards and storage formats: there is unlikely to be an industry standard, unlike with slide film the world over.
I am also having great difficulty finding a digital camera that doesn't have significant delay between pressing the shutter and the image being captured.
Lastly, digital technology is advancing so rapidly that soon there will be too many image formats that projection systems, from DVD players to PC projectors, wont be able to have the capacity or ability to read the multitude of digital cards and storage formats: there is unlikely to be an industry standard, unlike with slide film the world over.
In reply to alex_th:
digi SLRs are the dogs bollox for digital
compact digitals have too many compromises for quality and for taking on routes:
small sensor size limitis image quality
usually no viewfinder, or crap viewfinder
no RAW file format
impractical to whip out and take a quick shot while belaying
not great lens quality
I still use a film compact for climbing, and scan slides/negs afterwards. Even fairly cheapish film compacts such as Olymbus Mju (with good film) totally outclass digi compacts. This differential noi longer applies to SLRs
digi SLRs are the dogs bollox for digital
compact digitals have too many compromises for quality and for taking on routes:
small sensor size limitis image quality
usually no viewfinder, or crap viewfinder
no RAW file format
impractical to whip out and take a quick shot while belaying
not great lens quality
I still use a film compact for climbing, and scan slides/negs afterwards. Even fairly cheapish film compacts such as Olymbus Mju (with good film) totally outclass digi compacts. This differential noi longer applies to SLRs
In reply to ChrisJD:
well this has been about 35 mm, I am curious as to how large format trannies which are drum scanned fair in comparison to your setup? and its a genuine question so its not film versus digital. I just note that you've been working hard on getting high quality from your camera.
well this has been about 35 mm, I am curious as to how large format trannies which are drum scanned fair in comparison to your setup? and its a genuine question so its not film versus digital. I just note that you've been working hard on getting high quality from your camera.
In reply to alex_th: Go Digi!!!!!!!!!!!
I still use film, but only when im feelin masochistic and the MPP comes out.(1965 viii, for techy dudes)
I must say tho, the ricoh was and still is , a super camera.I never owned one but had a shot(film variety)
I would honestly say going dig is the best move you could make, a lot of dig compacts have more controls than your average film compact, the quality of dig now speaks for itself and there is no reason to limit yourself anymore, go for a wee compact like the NV10 or the caplio, you will love it and wont need anything else..
Unless you are a sad tw*t like me who loves to get under the cloth and knock one out on a 5x4 plate.Im gay tho.and a tad oldschool....
roger and out..........
I still use film, but only when im feelin masochistic and the MPP comes out.(1965 viii, for techy dudes)
I must say tho, the ricoh was and still is , a super camera.I never owned one but had a shot(film variety)
I would honestly say going dig is the best move you could make, a lot of dig compacts have more controls than your average film compact, the quality of dig now speaks for itself and there is no reason to limit yourself anymore, go for a wee compact like the NV10 or the caplio, you will love it and wont need anything else..
Unless you are a sad tw*t like me who loves to get under the cloth and knock one out on a 5x4 plate.Im gay tho.and a tad oldschool....
roger and out..........
In reply to ChrisJD:
It is not a weak argument at all. A few months ago I went to slide show of some friends. It was in two halves; the first was from a digital projector, photos taken with a decent DSLR. At first, I was quite impressed, I thought 'Good, digital projection has come on a lot.' But then I saw the first slide in the second presentation and there was no contest: the slides were clearer, sharper and with vastly better dynamic range. The slides just blew digital away. The pudding was proved very clearly to me.
The digital projector cost probably 10 times more than the slide projector.
When 21st technology can actually perform as well as 19th - then I will consider going digital. Of course, that is if I can afford to buy a new DSLR, probably new lenses, a PC, a digital projector and photo manipulation software.
Digital projection: The triumph of convenience over quality.
It is not a weak argument at all. A few months ago I went to slide show of some friends. It was in two halves; the first was from a digital projector, photos taken with a decent DSLR. At first, I was quite impressed, I thought 'Good, digital projection has come on a lot.' But then I saw the first slide in the second presentation and there was no contest: the slides were clearer, sharper and with vastly better dynamic range. The slides just blew digital away. The pudding was proved very clearly to me.
The digital projector cost probably 10 times more than the slide projector.
When 21st technology can actually perform as well as 19th - then I will consider going digital. Of course, that is if I can afford to buy a new DSLR, probably new lenses, a PC, a digital projector and photo manipulation software.
Digital projection: The triumph of convenience over quality.
In reply to El Greyo:
You are right, the traditional winter evening climbing slideshow is rapidly dying out- great shame
Of course you don't have to go the whole hog, just get a decent slide/film scanner, you already have a PC and good photo software is cheap or free
You are right, the traditional winter evening climbing slideshow is rapidly dying out- great shame
Of course you don't have to go the whole hog, just get a decent slide/film scanner, you already have a PC and good photo software is cheap or free
In reply to El Greyo:
There's no point in discussing with people with closed minds!!
From your profile:
About My Photography
I shoot slide film, occasionally.
Slides look very good when projected.
I don't have a scanner.
I don't have a PC.
And I'm not getting one.
And I'm not getting a digital camera.
Most of us have moved and and love it. If you are happy with your lot, stay with it.
There's no point in discussing with people with closed minds!!
From your profile:
About My Photography
I shoot slide film, occasionally.
Slides look very good when projected.
I don't have a scanner.
I don't have a PC.
And I'm not getting one.
And I'm not getting a digital camera.
Most of us have moved and and love it. If you are happy with your lot, stay with it.
In reply to ChrisJD:
I wondered when someone would pick up on that! It is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but is to give reasons why I don't have any photos uploaded here. And alright it's also a stubborn reposte to digital fanatics.
I have thought about going digital quite a lot. I do believe that it would improve my photography, being able to review photos immediately. But there are quite a lot of obstacles:
Expense - DSLR, lenses, PC etc, digi projector - it's a lot. And I am about to be very broke indeed (we're buying a house.)
Computer - I sit in front of a PC from 9am to 5.30pm (when I'm lucky) 5 days a week. I don't think I could face coming home to it as well.
Those reasons are actually surmountable if I thought it was worth it. But one of the great pleasures of photography for me is to see photos projected on to a screen; they have so much more impact. A mediocre slide looks good on a 4ft screen and a good one looks excellent. Digital projectors are very expensive and simply not good enough. That kind of quality would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
So while my responses so far may give the impression of Liddism (Ludditism?), I have very valid reasons.
In my turn, I am quite astonished you think the poor quality of digital projection is a 'weak argument'.
I wondered when someone would pick up on that! It is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but is to give reasons why I don't have any photos uploaded here. And alright it's also a stubborn reposte to digital fanatics.
I have thought about going digital quite a lot. I do believe that it would improve my photography, being able to review photos immediately. But there are quite a lot of obstacles:
Expense - DSLR, lenses, PC etc, digi projector - it's a lot. And I am about to be very broke indeed (we're buying a house.)
Computer - I sit in front of a PC from 9am to 5.30pm (when I'm lucky) 5 days a week. I don't think I could face coming home to it as well.
Those reasons are actually surmountable if I thought it was worth it. But one of the great pleasures of photography for me is to see photos projected on to a screen; they have so much more impact. A mediocre slide looks good on a 4ft screen and a good one looks excellent. Digital projectors are very expensive and simply not good enough. That kind of quality would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
So while my responses so far may give the impression of Liddism (Ludditism?), I have very valid reasons.
In my turn, I am quite astonished you think the poor quality of digital projection is a 'weak argument'.
In reply to kevin stephens:
I don't have a PC as it happens. I'm at work now, and I really should be getting more done.
I don't have a PC as it happens. I'm at work now, and I really should be getting more done.
In reply to El Greyo:
It's a weak argumant if that the only thing stopping the transition to digtial. There are just so many other bonuses.
Cost wise - if you shoot a lot (which you do not by the sound of it), then digital will save you money in the long run (esepcially as "most" people now have/want a PC at home).
I'm now into printing bigger prints (A1/A2 on a Epson 7800) at home, so for me, digital gives me the abilty to do this so much easier (dare I say better) than film.
>
> In my turn, I am quite astonished you think the poor quality of digital projection is a 'weak argument'.
> In my turn, I am quite astonished you think the poor quality of digital projection is a 'weak argument'.
It's a weak argumant if that the only thing stopping the transition to digtial. There are just so many other bonuses.
Cost wise - if you shoot a lot (which you do not by the sound of it), then digital will save you money in the long run (esepcially as "most" people now have/want a PC at home).
I'm now into printing bigger prints (A1/A2 on a Epson 7800) at home, so for me, digital gives me the abilty to do this so much easier (dare I say better) than film.
In reply to alex_th:
No comparison in terms of organisation, user-friendliness.
I had my doubts when 'the digital revoltion' began, but by the time cameras had reached 5mp I was sold.
Realised I hadn't used my F100 for ages, so it went, then the screen and projector, and next it will be my T2 - just leaves the thousands of slides that need sorting!
Chris
No comparison in terms of organisation, user-friendliness.
I had my doubts when 'the digital revoltion' began, but by the time cameras had reached 5mp I was sold.
Realised I hadn't used my F100 for ages, so it went, then the screen and projector, and next it will be my T2 - just leaves the thousands of slides that need sorting!
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
My reaction to this, would be to go out shooting
What's a T2? I fancy a trip to Sheffield to delve into the Craggs dungeon again
>
> Realised I hadn't used my F100 for ages
> Realised I hadn't used my F100 for ages
My reaction to this, would be to go out shooting
> and next it will be my T2
What's a T2? I fancy a trip to Sheffield to delve into the Craggs dungeon again
In reply to alex_th:
Haven't seen anybody mention the camera lag for DSLR's.
I agree complacts have a problem such as my 5 year old nikon with roughly a one second time lag.
However my DSLR has virtually no time lag that I can see.
And I can take about two and a half images a second which then drops to one a second for as long as I hold the shutter button or untill I run out of memory, which for a 2gb card can be well over 500 images.
How many continous shots can film take before changing rolls?
36 at most?
for me, even with the initial outlay of hardware, both cameras have paid for themselves as opposed to printing and developing costs of many years use of 35mm film.
Haven't seen anybody mention the camera lag for DSLR's.
I agree complacts have a problem such as my 5 year old nikon with roughly a one second time lag.
However my DSLR has virtually no time lag that I can see.
And I can take about two and a half images a second which then drops to one a second for as long as I hold the shutter button or untill I run out of memory, which for a 2gb card can be well over 500 images.
How many continous shots can film take before changing rolls?
36 at most?
for me, even with the initial outlay of hardware, both cameras have paid for themselves as opposed to printing and developing costs of many years use of 35mm film.
In reply to The Lemming:
I think a bulk film back could shoot 250 shots from memory, you do the search.
I think a bulk film back could shoot 250 shots from memory, you do the search.
In reply to slide projector peeps:
You know its not that pricey to get your final digital files made into slides. Imagine the joys of shooting digital with all its benefits of instant proofing, then the simplicity of the digital darkroom, then to have that final precious image on slide so you can sit back and go 'aahhh' with you inexpensive projector.
The cost of producing the slide from digital file is far outweighed by the cost of developing 50+ rolls of film to find that none where quite on the money.
You know its not that pricey to get your final digital files made into slides. Imagine the joys of shooting digital with all its benefits of instant proofing, then the simplicity of the digital darkroom, then to have that final precious image on slide so you can sit back and go 'aahhh' with you inexpensive projector.
The cost of producing the slide from digital file is far outweighed by the cost of developing 50+ rolls of film to find that none where quite on the money.
In reply to ChrisJD:
I'm sorry to say this, but you come across as blinkered. I'm not trying to persuade you to shoot 35mm, but I am laying out the reasons why I still use slide film and they are strong. I know this because I've thought it through carefully, whereas you intantly dismiss my argument as 'weak'. Which is more of a closed mind?
It's alright, if you don't like to project, then for ease of use, manipulation, versatility, organisation, printing etc, digital is great. But I love to see slides projected on a screen, the impact is much better than a print or monitor, so to spend all that money, time and effort and get worse quality, it's not worth it.
Other people get different things out of photography than you. Just accept it and enjoy your photography and let others enjoy their way too.
I'm sorry to say this, but you come across as blinkered. I'm not trying to persuade you to shoot 35mm, but I am laying out the reasons why I still use slide film and they are strong. I know this because I've thought it through carefully, whereas you intantly dismiss my argument as 'weak'. Which is more of a closed mind?
It's alright, if you don't like to project, then for ease of use, manipulation, versatility, organisation, printing etc, digital is great. But I love to see slides projected on a screen, the impact is much better than a print or monitor, so to spend all that money, time and effort and get worse quality, it's not worth it.
Other people get different things out of photography than you. Just accept it and enjoy your photography and let others enjoy their way too.
In reply to jools:
I wasn't aware that you could get digital made into slides. That is very interesting, do you get good quality slides out of it? It would certainly solve the digital projection problem if they come out as good as a slide.
I wasn't aware that you could get digital made into slides. That is very interesting, do you get good quality slides out of it? It would certainly solve the digital projection problem if they come out as good as a slide.
In reply to El Greyo:
Yes you get very good quality slides out of it, but you have to have very good quality files first
I used to work with a fashion photog, one of his specialities was to shoot models in a studio then place them in some location. These were high fashion shots and clients wanted slides as the end product for campaigns. Shoots were digital most of the time, large amounts of re-touching happened, then slides were produced.
Yes you get very good quality slides out of it, but you have to have very good quality files first
I used to work with a fashion photog, one of his specialities was to shoot models in a studio then place them in some location. These were high fashion shots and clients wanted slides as the end product for campaigns. Shoots were digital most of the time, large amounts of re-touching happened, then slides were produced.
In reply to El Greyo:
If I had a blinkered closed mind, then I'd still be shooting film !!
Kind of proves my point
I'm defintely an early adopter, always taking on new ideas and new approaches to all manner of things (our house is full of them!). Some have work some haven't, still its all part of the fun.
If I had a blinkered closed mind, then I'd still be shooting film !!
Kind of proves my point
I'm defintely an early adopter, always taking on new ideas and new approaches to all manner of things (our house is full of them!). Some have work some haven't, still its all part of the fun.
In reply to El Greyo:
This reminds me of the Python Life of Brain sketch
"What have the Roman's ever done for us".....
> It's alright, if you don't like to project, then for ease of use, manipulation, versatility, organisation, printing etc, digital is great.
This reminds me of the Python Life of Brain sketch
"What have the Roman's ever done for us".....
In reply to El Greyo:
Not that carefully if you didn't know you could get slides from digital......
> I know this because I've thought it through carefully
Not that carefully if you didn't know you could get slides from digital......
In reply to ChrisJD:
Just done a wee bit of research. £3 per slide is the lowest I could find.
Cough. I thought someone said it would be cost effective!
Just done a wee bit of research. £3 per slide is the lowest I could find.
Cough. I thought someone said it would be cost effective!
In reply to El Greyo:
Depends how many slides you have that are worthy of projection!
You wouldn't want to bore your audience now would you :-0
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
>
> Just done a wee bit of research. £3 per slide is the lowest I could find.
>
> Cough. I thought someone said it would be cost effective!
>
> Just done a wee bit of research. £3 per slide is the lowest I could find.
>
> Cough. I thought someone said it would be cost effective!
Depends how many slides you have that are worthy of projection!
You wouldn't want to bore your audience now would you :-0
In reply to El Greyo:
If you phoned a lab and said how much for a slide from file, they will give a top-end price. If you phoned a lab and said, I will change to digital and want to transfer x number of files to slide a month, the price will change. If you have a relationship with your lab and do business with them often it will change again.
We used to get our slides for nothing...
If you phoned a lab and said how much for a slide from file, they will give a top-end price. If you phoned a lab and said, I will change to digital and want to transfer x number of files to slide a month, the price will change. If you have a relationship with your lab and do business with them often it will change again.
We used to get our slides for nothing...
In reply to alex_th:
We had a power cut this afternoon.
So I looked through some photos until the computer worked again.
Might be something in that...
We had a power cut this afternoon.
So I looked through some photos until the computer worked again.
Might be something in that...
I thought this argument died with the dinosaurs.
Just get a 35mm and a digital camera
Just get a 35mm and a digital camera
In reply to sutty:
It probably could.
But stick a 4gb card in drop the resolution from RAW to JPEG and the capture rate shoots up.
Not bad for something the size of a postage stamp, which is yet another plus for digital
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> I think a bulk film back could shoot 250 shots from memory, you do the search.
>
> I think a bulk film back could shoot 250 shots from memory, you do the search.
It probably could.
But stick a 4gb card in drop the resolution from RAW to JPEG and the capture rate shoots up.
Not bad for something the size of a postage stamp, which is yet another plus for digital
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Don't get me wrong, I did more shooting than ever, but couldn't carry two SLRS around! Also organising the digitals is so much easier, done daily rather than waiting for 10 boxes of slides to drop through the door - then try to work out where they were taken
Contax T2? One of the best compact point and shoot cameras ever with a lens a sharp as a razor. You might prize mine out of the dungeon for £150! Cost c£500 but has paid for itself many times over with published images.
http://www.camerareview.com/templates/reviews.cfm?camera_id=300
Chris
>
> My reaction to this, would be to go out shooting
>
> My reaction to this, would be to go out shooting
>
Don't get me wrong, I did more shooting than ever, but couldn't carry two SLRS around! Also organising the digitals is so much easier, done daily rather than waiting for 10 boxes of slides to drop through the door - then try to work out where they were taken
>
> What's a T2? I fancy a trip to Sheffield to delve into the Craggs dungeon again
> What's a T2? I fancy a trip to Sheffield to delve into the Craggs dungeon again
Contax T2? One of the best compact point and shoot cameras ever with a lens a sharp as a razor. You might prize mine out of the dungeon for £150! Cost c£500 but has paid for itself many times over with published images.
http://www.camerareview.com/templates/reviews.cfm?camera_id=300
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Bah! You got me thinking "delve into the Straggler Dungeon of semi-retired 35mm gear" - pulled out a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, stuck it on the X700, looked through the viewfinder and thought "wow, how lovely and bright(*), and how nice to handle"
So now I have to go and play with that!
Thanks about the T2 info, looks good indeed, but not appropriate for me right now.
* I am not too enamoured with the D70 viewfinder compared to my old gear
Bah! You got me thinking "delve into the Straggler Dungeon of semi-retired 35mm gear" - pulled out a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, stuck it on the X700, looked through the viewfinder and thought "wow, how lovely and bright(*), and how nice to handle"
So now I have to go and play with that!
Thanks about the T2 info, looks good indeed, but not appropriate for me right now.
* I am not too enamoured with the D70 viewfinder compared to my old gear
In reply to Chris Craggs:
If I didn't have a Ricoh GR1, I think I'd be seriously interested in that. I have heard very good things about it.
But then, my Ricoh is brilliant.
If I didn't have a Ricoh GR1, I think I'd be seriously interested in that. I have heard very good things about it.
But then, my Ricoh is brilliant.
In reply to ChrisJD:
I am my own audience. I think that may be a point you are missing.
>
> You wouldn't want to bore your audience now would you :-0
> You wouldn't want to bore your audience now would you :-0
I am my own audience. I think that may be a point you are missing.
In reply to alex_th: For many of us who take snaps mainly for memory and fun reasons digital cameras have huge advantages and hardly any disadvantages. I reckon my Olympus Mju does take better pics with slide than my Canon Ixus does on digital, but you would pay six quid or whatever it was for 36 pictures (process paid slide film), which meant when I was at the crux I would take one shot, when we got to the cornice I would take one shot - one of the view from the top etc etc. Now with digi I'll take dozens knowing its a five minute job to later to discard the ones where someone is blinking, or the shadow is on their face or whatever.
I bought the only slide scanner I could afford about five years ago and have never been able to get results I was particularly happy with, plus its a laborious process. And then what do you actually do with all the slides? Now I can stick funny pics on my blog straight away, up load some here or on flickr or facebook, or email them to friends etc.
Many of us get the odd good photo because we go to interesting places and see interesting things - not because we're great photographers. The sheer volume of shots you can take when it basically free with a digi camera just increases the odds of the occasional standout one.
I bought the only slide scanner I could afford about five years ago and have never been able to get results I was particularly happy with, plus its a laborious process. And then what do you actually do with all the slides? Now I can stick funny pics on my blog straight away, up load some here or on flickr or facebook, or email them to friends etc.
Many of us get the odd good photo because we go to interesting places and see interesting things - not because we're great photographers. The sheer volume of shots you can take when it basically free with a digi camera just increases the odds of the occasional standout one.
In reply to TobyA:
I do not consider myself to have any retro nostalgic affectations, and this is a tangent anyway as I am talking SLR instead of compact, but I still prefer shooting with my 35mm gear (Minolta X-series) instead of my dSLR (Nikon D70), and I feel that I am getting pictures this way. I have had the dSLR for about 16 months and think I pretty much know how to use it, so it's not a case of being "stuck" or having to adjust.
I am going to a music festival this weekend and I like to shoot concerts. The dSLR is staying at home, I am taking a 35mm camera with a good zoom lens. There's a few reasons for this, to be fair - 35mm kit is worth £120, digi kit nearer £450 and obviously prettier and more desirable for the teeeevs. Photos will prob work out at £30 all in, for "low-res" scans from Peak Imaging, 1800*1200 instead of the 3000*2000 from the dSLR.
I really like my D70 and have taken some great photographs with it, but despite being able to "machine-gun" with it, the absolute number of "hits" (never mind "hit rate") is lower than what I get with the 35mm gear.
I still don't know why this is the case!
I do not consider myself to have any retro nostalgic affectations, and this is a tangent anyway as I am talking SLR instead of compact, but I still prefer shooting with my 35mm gear (Minolta X-series) instead of my dSLR (Nikon D70), and I feel that I am getting pictures this way. I have had the dSLR for about 16 months and think I pretty much know how to use it, so it's not a case of being "stuck" or having to adjust.
I am going to a music festival this weekend and I like to shoot concerts. The dSLR is staying at home, I am taking a 35mm camera with a good zoom lens. There's a few reasons for this, to be fair - 35mm kit is worth £120, digi kit nearer £450 and obviously prettier and more desirable for the teeeevs. Photos will prob work out at £30 all in, for "low-res" scans from Peak Imaging, 1800*1200 instead of the 3000*2000 from the dSLR.
I really like my D70 and have taken some great photographs with it, but despite being able to "machine-gun" with it, the absolute number of "hits" (never mind "hit rate") is lower than what I get with the 35mm gear.
I still don't know why this is the case!
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Could it be the amount of care you take? With digital you can blast away to your hearts content were as with 35mm you probably think (either consciously or not) more about your shots. Similarly if you dragged a back breaking large format setup somewhere and only had one (or possibly a couple) of attempts you'd probably get an even greater hit rate?
> I still don't know why this is the case!
Could it be the amount of care you take? With digital you can blast away to your hearts content were as with 35mm you probably think (either consciously or not) more about your shots. Similarly if you dragged a back breaking large format setup somewhere and only had one (or possibly a couple) of attempts you'd probably get an even greater hit rate?
In reply to mostly harmless:
Yes, I'd thought about that, I've read many times about people changing to MF from 35mm and despite only getting 10 shots from a roll, all 10 would be good because it is slower and more expensive.
However, I am fairly conservative with both 35mm and digital, there's only been a couple of occasions where I've "machine-gunned" it (e.g. had a photo pass for a Pipettes gig, only 7 minutes in the pit, fired off about 90 shots, got one cracker and 2 or 3 good ones, the rest can be binned frankly); usually I try to treat the digi shooting with as much care as I would were I paying for each frame.
Shot an Arcade Fire gig (another rare photo pass blag!) on digi, with the 35mm by my side for (ahem) retro nostalgia affectation reasons. 40 or 50 Arcade Fire shots on digi, a few belters, I was relatively happy. Only fired off about 10 on the 35mm, kind of as lip service to the fact that I'd carried it down there - spent most of the time shooting on digi. Of those 10, 3 or 4 are belters, and one is one of my favourite photographs I've ever taken and I look forward to sorting out my darkroom and wet-printing it huge.
I was looking at some old climbing slides of mine last week and by comparison, my digi climbing pics are just snapshots.
As I say - you raise a good point about the "care" we take, but it doesn't apply so strongly in my case.
Thanks though. Bizarrely I am looking into getting a digi compact which might sound like it goes against everything I've just said, but I am contrary like that
Yes, I'd thought about that, I've read many times about people changing to MF from 35mm and despite only getting 10 shots from a roll, all 10 would be good because it is slower and more expensive.
However, I am fairly conservative with both 35mm and digital, there's only been a couple of occasions where I've "machine-gunned" it (e.g. had a photo pass for a Pipettes gig, only 7 minutes in the pit, fired off about 90 shots, got one cracker and 2 or 3 good ones, the rest can be binned frankly); usually I try to treat the digi shooting with as much care as I would were I paying for each frame.
Shot an Arcade Fire gig (another rare photo pass blag!) on digi, with the 35mm by my side for (ahem) retro nostalgia affectation reasons. 40 or 50 Arcade Fire shots on digi, a few belters, I was relatively happy. Only fired off about 10 on the 35mm, kind of as lip service to the fact that I'd carried it down there - spent most of the time shooting on digi. Of those 10, 3 or 4 are belters, and one is one of my favourite photographs I've ever taken and I look forward to sorting out my darkroom and wet-printing it huge.
I was looking at some old climbing slides of mine last week and by comparison, my digi climbing pics are just snapshots.
As I say - you raise a good point about the "care" we take, but it doesn't apply so strongly in my case.
Thanks though. Bizarrely I am looking into getting a digi compact which might sound like it goes against everything I've just said, but I am contrary like that
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I went through around a thousand prints over the weekend to sort out the ones to go to the IOM this weekend, all those wedding pictures of wifes relatives are no use to me, and those of her relatives that I do not know are also going.
What struck me was how crap a lot were compared with the slides I shot on my SLR and Rollie compact. Some of the b/w prints are stunning, along with some crap ones of course, you just get into a mind-set when using certain cameras I think.
I went through around a thousand prints over the weekend to sort out the ones to go to the IOM this weekend, all those wedding pictures of wifes relatives are no use to me, and those of her relatives that I do not know are also going.
What struck me was how crap a lot were compared with the slides I shot on my SLR and Rollie compact. Some of the b/w prints are stunning, along with some crap ones of course, you just get into a mind-set when using certain cameras I think.
In reply to Chris Craggs: Chris, have you found a digi compact that comes even close to your old T2?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Its not bizarre at all when you already have 25 kilos of crap in a rucsac you know you are going to have to haul up the side of a mountain for a few thousand feet! Or indeed when you are tied to unconvincing belay halfway up Ben Nevis in mid-February and your partner is 20 mtrs out from you with one runner in between, fighting like anything and yelling down to you through gritted teeth "you better get some bloody good photos of this!!!!"
> Bizarrely I am looking into getting a digi compact which might sound like it goes against everything I've just said,
Its not bizarre at all when you already have 25 kilos of crap in a rucsac you know you are going to have to haul up the side of a mountain for a few thousand feet! Or indeed when you are tied to unconvincing belay halfway up Ben Nevis in mid-February and your partner is 20 mtrs out from you with one runner in between, fighting like anything and yelling down to you through gritted teeth "you better get some bloody good photos of this!!!!"
In reply to Richard G. Carter:
Hmmm, I thought that pre-digi 35mm was popular because if its convenience/price rather than because of the superior image quality. Now that digi is more convenient than 35mm shouldn't the question be is their an increase in quality sufficient to justify using 35mm. Or should 35mm be chucked in the bin in favour of large format, except when covnience takes presence, in which case reach for the digi?
> I thought this argument died with the dinosaurs.
>
> Just get a 35mm and a digital camera
>
> Just get a 35mm and a digital camera
Hmmm, I thought that pre-digi 35mm was popular because if its convenience/price rather than because of the superior image quality. Now that digi is more convenient than 35mm shouldn't the question be is their an increase in quality sufficient to justify using 35mm. Or should 35mm be chucked in the bin in favour of large format, except when covnience takes presence, in which case reach for the digi?
In reply to dan bailey:
Not close in terms of incredible image quality, but exceeding it in terms of decent zoom lens and general practicality.
Chris
> (In reply to Chris Craggs) Chris, have you found a digi compact that comes even close to your old T2?
Not close in terms of incredible image quality, but exceeding it in terms of decent zoom lens and general practicality.
Chris
In reply to alex_th:
The record is that folk have done wonders in both formats (while the rest of us are rubbish whatever we use). Why be so gear-geeky about it all?
> The rest of the world has more or less abandoned 35mm film ... and yet posts still come up here often about 35mm equipment
The record is that folk have done wonders in both formats (while the rest of us are rubbish whatever we use). Why be so gear-geeky about it all?
In reply to Witkacy:
Indeed. Horses for courses so to speak.
Although what I will say is that there 'may' be a perceived quality with 'silver' photography that digi may not have.
If you heard a piece of music played by a large orchestra would you be more impressed than if the same piece was programmed through and played by a computer. Are people more 'impressed' with a stunning 'traditional' print produced with only traditional printing skills, than one produced using huge amounts of photoshop tricks? Probably.
Indeed. Horses for courses so to speak.
Although what I will say is that there 'may' be a perceived quality with 'silver' photography that digi may not have.
If you heard a piece of music played by a large orchestra would you be more impressed than if the same piece was programmed through and played by a computer. Are people more 'impressed' with a stunning 'traditional' print produced with only traditional printing skills, than one produced using huge amounts of photoshop tricks? Probably.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Bad analogy. Compare the latest digital with Vinyl, scratches and all.
> (In reply to Witkacy)
...snip
> If you heard a piece of music played by a large orchestra would you be more impressed than if the same piece was programmed through and played by a computer.
Bad analogy. Compare the latest digital with Vinyl, scratches and all.
In reply to alex_th: I recently bought the Canon eos 400d DSLR and im very happy with it, but i still think theres that something that stands out from film photographs, especially with Medium Format photographs. Plus film camera's don't usually break down as fast in colder temperatures as Digi's do.
There have been a lot of replies about SLRs, but what are people taking on multi-pitch routes?
In reply to alex_th:
Well, I take my Olympus Om1n 35mm SLR. But it is significantly smaller and lighter than anything on the market now! I suspect most people use compacts.
K
> There have been a lot of replies about SLRs, but what are people taking on multi-pitch routes?
Well, I take my Olympus Om1n 35mm SLR. But it is significantly smaller and lighter than anything on the market now! I suspect most people use compacts.
K
In reply to Chris Craggs: What do you use now Chris? Ta
In reply to alex_th: 'what are people taking on multi-pitch routes'
Currently, my Canon digi SLR. Not ideal. Wouldn't take it up a hard route (hard for me, that is)
Currently, my Canon digi SLR. Not ideal. Wouldn't take it up a hard route (hard for me, that is)
In reply to JDal:
I'm not talking about recorded music I'm taking about live or listened to programmed music.
> (In reply to Henry Iddon)
> [...]
> ...snip
> [...]
>
> Bad analogy. Compare the latest digital with Vinyl, scratches and all.
> [...]
> ...snip
> [...]
>
> Bad analogy. Compare the latest digital with Vinyl, scratches and all.
I'm not talking about recorded music I'm taking about live or listened to programmed music.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Surely comparing live music to recorded music is the same as comparing standing in the hills looking at a view, to looking at a picture of the same view? Rather than the difference between film and digital?
Surely comparing live music to recorded music is the same as comparing standing in the hills looking at a view, to looking at a picture of the same view? Rather than the difference between film and digital?
In reply to chris_s:
That's still not the comparison that Henry is making.
> (In reply to Henry Iddon)
>
> Surely comparing live music to recorded music
>
> Surely comparing live music to recorded music
That's still not the comparison that Henry is making.
In reply to kathrync:
Not that I do much multipitch, or climbing/landscape photography, but if I did, and I took a camera, it would be my Minolta7 (or X300 for more lightness) with a 45mm prime lens on it
Plus whatever shitty digi compact I am about to foolishly buy
Happily took Nikon D70 up Flying Buttress on Cromlech last year though.
> (In reply to alex_th)
> [...]
>
> Well, I take my Olympus Om1n 35mm SLR. But it is significantly smaller and lighter than anything on the market now!
> [...]
>
> Well, I take my Olympus Om1n 35mm SLR. But it is significantly smaller and lighter than anything on the market now!
Not that I do much multipitch, or climbing/landscape photography, but if I did, and I took a camera, it would be my Minolta7 (or X300 for more lightness) with a 45mm prime lens on it
Plus whatever shitty digi compact I am about to foolishly buy
Happily took Nikon D70 up Flying Buttress on Cromlech last year though.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
"If you heard a piece of music played by a large orchestra would you be more impressed than if the same piece was programmed through and played by a computer"
what is your interpretation of that?
"If you heard a piece of music played by a large orchestra would you be more impressed than if the same piece was programmed through and played by a computer"
what is your interpretation of that?
In reply to chris_s:
Computer loaded with instrument sound samples, various algorithms to emulate timbre etc, sheet music transcribed into appropriate code, but the actual music is still being created "live" by software, in the computer, whilst you listen to it.
Computer loaded with instrument sound samples, various algorithms to emulate timbre etc, sheet music transcribed into appropriate code, but the actual music is still being created "live" by software, in the computer, whilst you listen to it.
In reply to kathrync:
<Nitpicking>
The OM-1n body weights exactly the same as the entry level DSLR Canon 400D. Although the OM1n is wider it has a smaller volume.
</Nitpicking>
When I am climbing I take a compact. Used to take a film compact and now take a digi. The greatest advantage for this usage is the possiblity to change the ISO on the fly.
<Nitpicking>
The OM-1n body weights exactly the same as the entry level DSLR Canon 400D. Although the OM1n is wider it has a smaller volume.
</Nitpicking>
When I am climbing I take a compact. Used to take a film compact and now take a digi. The greatest advantage for this usage is the possiblity to change the ISO on the fly.
In reply to alex_th:
I'm still using a 35mm compact because when I purchased it a couple of years ago you couldn't buy a similarly durable digital compact for less than 6 times the price. As it spent a lot of time in my camelback on MTB club rides it needed to be durable
I'm still using a 35mm compact because when I purchased it a couple of years ago you couldn't buy a similarly durable digital compact for less than 6 times the price. As it spent a lot of time in my camelback on MTB club rides it needed to be durable
In reply to Tiago:
I'll believe you because I have never actually checked the weights. But having used a 400D, I have a lot of trouble believing this, although that may be due to the much bulkier zoom lens that was on the Canon.
K
> (In reply to kathrync)
>
> <Nitpicking>
> The OM-1n body weights exactly the same as the entry level DSLR Canon 400D. Although the OM1n is wider it has a smaller volume.
> </Nitpicking>
>
>
> <Nitpicking>
> The OM-1n body weights exactly the same as the entry level DSLR Canon 400D. Although the OM1n is wider it has a smaller volume.
> </Nitpicking>
>
I'll believe you because I have never actually checked the weights. But having used a 400D, I have a lot of trouble believing this, although that may be due to the much bulkier zoom lens that was on the Canon.
K
Even if it's true, I don't think I would want to hang either an OM1 or a 400D from my harness, hanging it round my neck is impractical while climbing, and if the camera is in the rucksack then it takes so long and is so much trouble to get it out that I end up only taking a fraction of the shots.
In reply to alex_th:
I've been using a D70 for the last couple of years and i think my photography has developed a huge ammount because of the flexibility and ease of digital. I'm now thinking about buying a 35mm nikon body for long night exposures as its the only area digi slrs are really weak in (noise, artefacts etc...).
If i was trying to take good pictures of a route i'd only take my D70, a compact just cannot produce the same results, unless you are just after a snap shot and then a compact is obviously the best choice 'cos you can put it in your pocket.. all depends what you want i suppose
I've been using a D70 for the last couple of years and i think my photography has developed a huge ammount because of the flexibility and ease of digital. I'm now thinking about buying a 35mm nikon body for long night exposures as its the only area digi slrs are really weak in (noise, artefacts etc...).
If i was trying to take good pictures of a route i'd only take my D70, a compact just cannot produce the same results, unless you are just after a snap shot and then a compact is obviously the best choice 'cos you can put it in your pocket.. all depends what you want i suppose
In reply to StuM:
Do you take your D70 with you on a big multi-pitch route?
> I've been using a D70 for the last couple of years
Do you take your D70 with you on a big multi-pitch route?
In reply to alex_th:
"Happily took Nikon D70 up Flying Buttress on Cromlech last year though."
This is a 6 pitch route (essentially 4 pitches, we strung the first two together and the third "pitch" is just a belayed step over a gully to another belay stance)
I was happy with the camera just slung over my back, ready to put in the bag if the rain came in. However it was for me quite easy climbing (V Diff). I didn't take many pics as I had a manual focus lens attached, which meant that there was no metering (or - duh! autofocus) on the camera. I may have taken more with a suitable lens or with a digi compact. However there were only two of us there anyway so I would not have been taking any actual shots of partner climbing, as I'd have been busy belaying her.
I have not really done many other multipitch routes, couple of two-or-three ones at Tremadog and Wildcat. Often took a 35mm SLR up Tremadog and got some nice shots. I would happily take the dSLR up the same routes.
> (In reply to StuM)
> [...]
>
> Do you take your D70 with you on a big multi-pitch route?
> [...]
>
> Do you take your D70 with you on a big multi-pitch route?
"Happily took Nikon D70 up Flying Buttress on Cromlech last year though."
This is a 6 pitch route (essentially 4 pitches, we strung the first two together and the third "pitch" is just a belayed step over a gully to another belay stance)
I was happy with the camera just slung over my back, ready to put in the bag if the rain came in. However it was for me quite easy climbing (V Diff). I didn't take many pics as I had a manual focus lens attached, which meant that there was no metering (or - duh! autofocus) on the camera. I may have taken more with a suitable lens or with a digi compact. However there were only two of us there anyway so I would not have been taking any actual shots of partner climbing, as I'd have been busy belaying her.
I have not really done many other multipitch routes, couple of two-or-three ones at Tremadog and Wildcat. Often took a 35mm SLR up Tremadog and got some nice shots. I would happily take the dSLR up the same routes.
In reply to alex_th:
I put the OM1 on a strap that goes over one shoulder, so the body sits just below my elbow on one side of me. Then I clip the strap to a gear loop so that it doesn't keep swinging round in front of me. It is in an ever-ready case so it is protected from scuffs, but easy to get to when I want it. I often take it up multipitch routes like that, climbing up to my limit and I've not had a problem yet. I might shove it in the bag for a squirmy chimney pitch, but then it comes out again. I tend to have more of a problem with the boots and nalgene that I generally hang off my harness on multipitch routes! The camera has done everything from multipitch mountain routes to mixed alpine routes to sports climbs like that, and it comes skiing with me as well. My boyfriend carries a Nikon F3, which is heavier than the OM1 using a similar system and also has no problems.
K
> Even if it's true, I don't think I would want to hang either an OM1 or a 400D from my harness...
I put the OM1 on a strap that goes over one shoulder, so the body sits just below my elbow on one side of me. Then I clip the strap to a gear loop so that it doesn't keep swinging round in front of me. It is in an ever-ready case so it is protected from scuffs, but easy to get to when I want it. I often take it up multipitch routes like that, climbing up to my limit and I've not had a problem yet. I might shove it in the bag for a squirmy chimney pitch, but then it comes out again. I tend to have more of a problem with the boots and nalgene that I generally hang off my harness on multipitch routes! The camera has done everything from multipitch mountain routes to mixed alpine routes to sports climbs like that, and it comes skiing with me as well. My boyfriend carries a Nikon F3, which is heavier than the OM1 using a similar system and also has no problems.
K
In reply to kathrync:
It is interesting that people stoped using the "ever-ready cases" that you mention that are so practical with a standard or wide angle lens. I was thinkin on what to take for a long off-road bike ride and I will try your technique with an old rangefinder.
I enjoyed the light on your UKC pictures. Like the sky on this one:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=52234
I am sure that the film version looks even better.
t.
It is interesting that people stoped using the "ever-ready cases" that you mention that are so practical with a standard or wide angle lens. I was thinkin on what to take for a long off-road bike ride and I will try your technique with an old rangefinder.
I enjoyed the light on your UKC pictures. Like the sky on this one:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=52234
I am sure that the film version looks even better.
t.
In reply to Tiago:
Thanks. I don't upload photos here any more for various reasons, but there are more on my Flickr page...the link is in my profile.
K
> (In reply to kathrync)
>
>
>
> I enjoyed the light on your UKC pictures. Like the sky on this one:
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=52234
> I am sure that the film version looks even better.
>
> t.
>
>
>
> I enjoyed the light on your UKC pictures. Like the sky on this one:
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=52234
> I am sure that the film version looks even better.
>
> t.
Thanks. I don't upload photos here any more for various reasons, but there are more on my Flickr page...the link is in my profile.
K
In reply to alex_th:
guys! it's all about the gadgets with you lot isn't it! I'm photographer by trade, and I love working on both digi and film for different reasons.
digital: liberation! Shoot like crazy without concern for processing costs - the more you shoot the better you'll get with your photography. (Heck, you've shelled out all that dosh on kit, may as well use it.) And it's so good for sharing the images around if you need an instant hit.
however...
film: slow down, really look, don't shoot just for the sake of it, and think about what you're doing with real care and devotion because every frame is precious. I think differently working on film - something special happens simply because it has the time to. There is this aswell: it takes balls to work on film and trust that you've got the shot without the digital review option...
But let's face it, these days where there's a will there's a way, so don't let kit be an excuse. I had all my kit robbed a few months ago and never before has this phrase been so true:
"It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts."
Pinhole camera anyone?
guys! it's all about the gadgets with you lot isn't it! I'm photographer by trade, and I love working on both digi and film for different reasons.
digital: liberation! Shoot like crazy without concern for processing costs - the more you shoot the better you'll get with your photography. (Heck, you've shelled out all that dosh on kit, may as well use it.) And it's so good for sharing the images around if you need an instant hit.
however...
film: slow down, really look, don't shoot just for the sake of it, and think about what you're doing with real care and devotion because every frame is precious. I think differently working on film - something special happens simply because it has the time to. There is this aswell: it takes balls to work on film and trust that you've got the shot without the digital review option...
But let's face it, these days where there's a will there's a way, so don't let kit be an excuse. I had all my kit robbed a few months ago and never before has this phrase been so true:
"It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts."
Pinhole camera anyone?
In reply to misslizzie:
Don't know what you mean, cough, splutter, <looks at feet> <shuffles feet>
I'm photographer by trade, and I love working on both digi and film for different reasons.
Carful Lizzie, someone tried making a balanced argument on here in the late nineties, the result wasn't pleasant. I won't got into the details, but a wicker man was set up on Stanage...
Nikon or Canon pinhole? Can you shoot RAW with that?
Sorry, in that kind of mood
> (In reply to alex_th)
>
> guys! it's all about the gadgets with you lot isn't it!
>
> guys! it's all about the gadgets with you lot isn't it!
Don't know what you mean, cough, splutter, <looks at feet> <shuffles feet>
I'm photographer by trade, and I love working on both digi and film for different reasons.
Carful Lizzie, someone tried making a balanced argument on here in the late nineties, the result wasn't pleasant. I won't got into the details, but a wicker man was set up on Stanage...
> But let's face it, these days where there's a will there's a way, so don't let kit be an excuse. I had all my kit robbed a few months ago and never before has this phrase been so true:
>
> "It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts."
>
> Pinhole camera anyone?
>
> "It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts."
>
> Pinhole camera anyone?
Nikon or Canon pinhole? Can you shoot RAW with that?
Sorry, in that kind of mood
In reply to John Wood:
ha haa! Misslizzie's post was spot on.
I'm still trying to find the memory card slot on Rollo...
ha haa! Misslizzie's post was spot on.
I'm still trying to find the memory card slot on Rollo...
In reply to misslizzie:
My daughter started off on my cast off digis, then we found an old 1920's 6X9 folding camera in the garage, which set her off on film. She's added a 1965 EXA and a 1960's Russian Cosmic 35mm thing. It'll be interesting how she compares digi/film in a few years time, having started from the other side.
Some of her images from the old film cameras:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerweet/collections/72157600164524525/
My daughter started off on my cast off digis, then we found an old 1920's 6X9 folding camera in the garage, which set her off on film. She's added a 1965 EXA and a 1960's Russian Cosmic 35mm thing. It'll be interesting how she compares digi/film in a few years time, having started from the other side.
Some of her images from the old film cameras:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerweet/collections/72157600164524525/
In reply to CJD:
>I'm still trying to find the memory card slot on Rollo...
It is contained in here;
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zianet.com/connealy/vin...
>I'm still trying to find the memory card slot on Rollo...
It is contained in here;
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zianet.com/connealy/vin...
In reply to CJD:
A lot of 35mm SLRs had a "memory card slot" for you to slide the tab off the box of film into to remind you what was in the camera... that is unless you forgot to replace the tab.
A lot of 35mm SLRs had a "memory card slot" for you to slide the tab off the box of film into to remind you what was in the camera... that is unless you forgot to replace the tab.
In reply to Chris Tan Ver. L:
I had one of those on my Chinon CG5 I only used it if I was shooting Ilford B and W or Kodachrome. Couldn't let anybody know you were shooting on cheap shite.....
I had one of those on my Chinon CG5 I only used it if I was shooting Ilford B and W or Kodachrome. Couldn't let anybody know you were shooting on cheap shite.....
In reply to John Wood:
brilliant!
Right, I'm off to go and customise a head torch with a matchbox and slice of 35mm film, then let's talk pinhole...
...that's right after I bliss out with my new compact dig which - even though the price of a nice holiday - is just gorgeous.
happy shooting!
brilliant!
Right, I'm off to go and customise a head torch with a matchbox and slice of 35mm film, then let's talk pinhole...
...that's right after I bliss out with my new compact dig which - even though the price of a nice holiday - is just gorgeous.
happy shooting!
In reply to misslizzie:
Interesting, what brand of heatorch would make the best pinhole then? And would i be better off trying using a lightweight matchbox or normal.
(still in that kind of mood)
Interesting, what brand of heatorch would make the best pinhole then? And would i be better off trying using a lightweight matchbox or normal.
(still in that kind of mood)
In reply to misslizzie:
or do what Lindsay does
http://www.recirca.com/reviews/2005/lindsayseers/ls.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/yv3zf2
or do what Lindsay does
http://www.recirca.com/reviews/2005/lindsayseers/ls.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/yv3zf2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...