I was thinking about this again yesterday at our Christmas party. I started this thread partly because I'm new to digital. . .didn't really have an interest in it until my film dinosaur died and couldn't be repaired. I was frustrated by it initially, but am learning to really love digital.
At first glance, I thought I agreed with liza's comment. But on reflection, I don't think so. I shot 303 images last night, many of which were not keepers and only a few of which are outstanding. I think that's normal (ever look at the old film counts on National Geographic projects?). However, I'm getting more total keepers and more outstandings with digital, perhaps simply because I'm not worried about the film and processing costs. My ratios are likely the same, but I get more good photos now than I did with film. I'm shooting a karate tournament in January that I might have budgeted three rolls of film for last year. This year with my BG-E3 and a sled with 6 AA batteries for backup, plus a couple of CF cards, I may shoot six times that much. I'll throw away six times more, but I'll likely have six times more good shots. I'll slow down on macro or still life shots, but I doubt I'll enjoy it any more on film than digital. I think for me, film is simple nostalgia.
I've not noticed any gain in tonal range in film over digital, but I'm no expert. I'll defer to the experts that say there's really not much or no quality difference anymore. . .or that the edge has or soon will go to digital on that score. I had as many bad shots due to color balance or exposure on film as I do now on digital, but now it's easier to fix. Much easier. And I loved being able to go from AWB to tungsten available light and bouncing around the ISO ranges shot to shot last night at the party. Like changing film whenever I wanted, shot-to-shot. Remember those old photos of pro photographers with 2 or three bodies slung around them so they could shoot different film types? Seems laughable now. Almost like picturing someone with their head under a hood using flash powder. I do admit to being confused sometimes and losing track of what I'm doing. I shot a bunch last night accidentally using tungsten light balance with the flash and they all look bluish. But as I get more familiar with digital shooting and more mentally disciplined, I suspect I'll do less and less of that sort of goof. It's all part of me getting used to digital and internalizing some of the stuff I didn't think about with film. One might say that's a drawback due to complexity, but I think it's a positive. I have more immediate control in a shooting environment, and that's the benefit. The cost is having to think more. But I've found that using complex equipment or software becomes easier with time and experience. And no matter how much I gripe about having to get up the learning curve--I've never gone back and wished for less capable equipment or software once I learned the new stuff. Never.
I asked the question originally, because film bodies are ridiculously cheap now. Time was you could spend a couple grand on a Nikon F or Canon A1 with a couple lenses. May not seem like much now, but that was 30 years ago! Care to inflation adjust those numbers? Now I could pick up a film body without much thinking about it, budget-wise. But my guess is I won't. I expect digital to coninue to outpace developments in film technology by a bunch, and if I get another body, it will likely be an upgraded digital in a couple years, relegating my Digital Rebel XT to a backup body.
Next thing I need to tackle is post processing, which right now I find befuddles me. I'm looking for a quick correction for those tungsten WB shots I did with the built-in flash last night and I'll post over in that forum for some help. I tend to fiddle around too much not knowing what I'm doing, but I think I can find someone to give me a simple DPP fix for that I can apply in a batch.
Couldn't do that with film! After 2 months with a Digital Rebel XT, I'm no longer feeling nostalgic about film. Well. . .I do have fond memories about building my plywood sink and processing b&w in my basement when I was 13. But after being dragged into digital by my old camera's demise, I must say, I'm very happy here, all things considered. I think I came at about the right time, too. The technology I hold in my hands with that DR-XT and the 17-85 IS USM, for the price, is simply mind boggling to me. What a wonderful world!
Liza, you have fun! Me? I'm going to "take a deep breath and revel in the joys" of moving deeper into digital photography. It's a great world that gives us these choices, isn't it?
JPC
They are designed to stick into the camera a bit further then normal EF lenses, and do have a smaller image circle.
