Is there any serious reason for getting a film SLR over a DSLR anymore?

[Speederlander]

Title. What are the benefits of a film SLR over a digital SLR at this point? The advantages of digital are well known, but where has it not caught up with film?

The only areas where I can see a good film 35mm beating a digital would be action-type photography (sports, etc.).

[r3g]

Depends on what level of DSLR we are talking here.

[Soulburner]

With the high end DSLR's of today action photography is not a problem at all.

The only thing I can think of is image noise, but even then we have some really impressive DSLR's.

[r3g]

High end DSLRs generally have pretty good high ISO performance so I wouldnt worry too much about noise. :]

[TheSamurai]

the "pro-sumer" dslr's are fantastic... and they only keep getting better. personally i'd go with a canon. the 30d should have some savings as the 40d just came out. don't forget some decent lenses too! as for the noise issue... i haven't found it all that bad. there are also plug-in's for PS that help with it. the one i use is noise ninja, works great and there are many configurations you can do to it. hope this helps!!

oh yeah, don't forget the part about being able to crop, edit, etc. with the digital! (cropping could be done with film if you have your own dark room!)

[Xenogias]

image quality and resolution/grain is still better with film unless you get a full-frame sensor dslr like the Canon 1ds or 5d. Quality of the optics matters a lot more with dslr (which necessitates $500+ lenses). dSLR is more convenient but more expensive. unless you take lots of photos, then you save on development costs in the long run, but don't forget all those ink cartridges still cost money! Also don't forget that you can get a film scanner (to directly scan negatives) and then do all your digital development like you would with raw or jpeg files, likewise you can scan your prints but this adds another digital conversion, noise, and it takes a while. Finally there is something romantic about film grain over the crystal clarity of digital... It really just depends on what you want. I shoot both.

[Jamsta]

as a professional designer and user of Film SLR's for over 25 years, there's no longer a need for film :shrug: My studio is fully digital and has been for a few years now. There's no reason to go back.

As with film cameras, a good digi relies on a really good lens! It's all in the lens, always has been, always will be. Image editing programs do the rest, which is far easier and faster, safer etc. than the darkroom.

Oh, and film will be extinct soon. The world is running out of silver deposits, therefor producing/exposing of film's costs will increase to unspeakable levels... you can't have film without silver :eek:

I hope this helps?

[Jedda]

What about all the old glass? Have nikon and hasselblad gear that I put in the cupboard after health issues stopped me working years ago.
Can I use them on a digital body or must get it all over again?

[Soulburner]

You can likely still use them, but they will not autofocus.

[Kunaak]

theres many reasons.

having been a photographer primarily in the last dacade of film, I could say, some things about digital will never really touch what you can do with film.

a simple instance, is many of the things you can do in a darkroom, just cant be duplicated well in a computer.
somethings just lost.

theres also the general idea, that your not really a photographer, if you need a computer to do all the work for you.
take a look at all the HDR shots around lately. horrible photos. hit 3 buttons, let the computer do everything... then you have cartoony photo everyone loves.
digital waters down the photo to the point where theres not much art left in it.

then theres things digital still just cant match, for example a good 6x6 photo done on ISO 32 film....
or degurrro types done with 8 x 10, to the feel of a 13 dollar holga camera, and it's aceptably flawed photos, used for art reasons.

to just a camera that can be used in any condition on earth, with no batteries required (like the nikon FM2N - or some of the older Leicas)

cross processing, infrared, horsemen cameras....

while so much is gained with digital.
so much, is also lost too.

film, is beautiful.
so can digitally done photos be too.

it really just comes down to the photographer.
but honestly, these are the last days of film.
films I use to shoot a hundred rolls a week of... are now gone.
honestly, it makes me sad to even think about it.
it feels like losing something I wish could live for alot longer.
makes me wonder, how my own kids will some day react to old masters, like ansel adams, and helmet newton.
will they understand the work it took to make such photos, before there was computers?
or will they trivialize them, cause they can push 2 buttons on thier computer to turn some horrible photo, into a great one, cause the computer made them a photographer?

film, has history.
I shoot digital, cause I have to be real about my stuff.
but I miss alot of the life that use to surround photography just ten years ago. when it really meant something to be a photographer.
something, was definatly lost in the last few years with digital.
the art is gone, changed to something less skillful, less artistic, and more immediate. its hard to say whats better.
I know I will always miss film though...

[Jedda]

I hear you.
Long way from hand shading exposures on platinum paper on my old big besler creating 3x2 foot b and w prints each one unique.
History in a lot of senses.
I still have boxes of stuff from Kabul when the russians came in, Indira Gandhi the day Sanjay Gandhi died that I shot up at the chinese border, Pakistan when Zia el Haqu hung Bhutto, Katmandu before there were any cars in the city and the air was like crystal,
Being a photographer in my time was very different than today.
Sad thing is my images were valued much higher than most today and I had a better life making them than today's guys.
One big difference I see is they don't think of everything and see it in terms of light like I and mine did. We painted with light twice to produce an image. Just like Ansel showed us.

[rra]

theres many reasons.

having been a photographer primarily in the last dacade of film, I could say, some things about digital will never really touch what you can do with film.

a simple instance, is many of the things you can do in a darkroom, just cant be duplicated well in a computer.
somethings just lost.

theres also the general idea, that your not really a photographer, if you need a computer to do all the work for you.
take a look at all the HDR shots around lately. horrible photos. hit 3 buttons, let the computer do everything... then you have cartoony photo everyone loves.
digital waters down the photo to the point where theres not much art left in it.

then theres things digital still just cant match, for example a good 6x6 photo done on ISO 32 film....
or degurrro types done with 8 x 10, to the feel of a 13 dollar holga camera, and it's aceptably flawed photos, used for art reasons.

to just a camera that can be used in any condition on earth, with no batteries required (like the nikon FM2N - or some of the older Leicas)

cross processing, infrared, horsemen cameras....

while so much is gained with digital.
so much, is also lost too.

film, is beautiful.
so can digitally done photos be too.

it really just comes down to the photographer.
but honestly, these are the last days of film.
films I use to shoot a hundred rolls a week of... are now gone.
honestly, it makes me sad to even think about it.
it feels like losing something I wish could live for alot longer.
makes me wonder, how my own kids will some day react to old masters, like ansel adams, and helmet newton.
will they understand the work it took to make such photos, before there was computers?
or will they trivialize them, cause they can push 2 buttons on thier computer to turn some horrible photo, into a great one, cause the computer made them a photographer?

film, has history.
I shoot digital, cause I have to be real about my stuff.
but I miss alot of the life that use to surround photography just ten years ago. when it really meant something to be a photographer.
something, was definatly lost in the last few years with digital.
the art is gone, changed to something less skillful, less artistic, and more immediate. its hard to say whats better.
I know I will always miss film though...
Very well said I for one agree 100% with Kunaak on this !I had the occasion of teaching my younger brother to get to grips with his new D200 recently and after shoot we were talking and I realized how spoilt and how degraded my own photographic skill has become.I used to shoot weddings ,these were always nerve recking as you DONT get a second chance and used to shoot around 200 pics a wedding to be accurate of which I had around 190-195 decent pics.digital is so much more forgivung etc and with photoshop I think if given film camera now I would proberbly only keep 150 of my 200 :mad: So for me i went back to basics and now do all my shoots on manual to keep in touch except for focus.:)

[Flambo]

Film has its own special look. No film will ever look like Kodakchrome (and digital never will) and do you know why people love the Tri-X? Because of it big blocky grain that added a special look that no other film could. Cannot anything ever look like the surrealistic original Velvia? No, nothing will give you that kind of yellows and greens (not to mention often terrible skin tones.) Can digital ever give you the beautiful soft pastels that Fuji Astia 100F can? No, it will give you lovely pastels but not exactly like that. Can you ever have a digital camera that has no start up time and never needs a battery like the classic Rolleiflex F3.5? Never. Can you ever have the delight of looking at a 8x10 transparency on a light box. No, instead your zooming into a tiny pixel to fix that little imperfection on your 24 inch monitor. I think film will never go away, just like oil paint, and become a medium for the artist. A different look. But if you just want to take pics of your friends and instantly share it around the globe then digital is your choice. It depends on what you want to do with it.

[Soulburner]

Any and all color can be manipulated digitally, as can any film grain effects. You can print on a transparency. I see editing pictures on my monitor a huge advantage over film as I have control over the final product before any materials are wasted.

[TheSamurai]

soulburner, i agree 110%.

flambo, it sounds as if you've never used digital in a professional setting?

[Flambo]

With digital processing you can get a facsimile of film grain and colors but never never exactly the same effect. It also depends on how you want to work ... mastering pixels on the monitor or just knowing how a certain film works because you've used it more years and years. Not only that but the current digital cameras can never ever get the "shoulder" that you can get on a film. Maybe one day they will but not now. If you don't know what a shoulder is then I guess you don't really understand photography. And no, you can't recover what you didn't get in the first place. You can substitute with something that you think is supposed to be but never the original. Not saying that you can't get great works from digital because you can but just that they take a different path. I like digital for what it is and film for what it is. They have different inherent look ... used them to capture the image that you are looking for. Digital processing is great and all but no substitute for original intuition and knowledge of the medium. When you are at a spot and want to take a picture right there, only the through knowledge of the medium will allow you to capture the image that is in your soul. I'm debating the superiority of either medium ... I'm just saying use them in the way that enhances their strength. What counts is the final output ... nothing else. Make it strong, make it bold. Pour you mind and heart into it ... the best medium is the one that does not stand in the way of your expression. REMEMBER ... only the final output counts. If the final output is optimal with digital, use it. If it is film, use that. If it a watercolor, use that. Oh yeah you "can" simulate watercolor look on a computer ... and it never looks like the tip of a red sable brush dipped in flowing pigment mixed in the infinite variety of the trillions of atoms composing the water and its interaction with paper. Use digital for its strength ... emulating other medium is just that, emulation. It doesn't matter what medium you use ... just master that medium and know every facet of the medium so well that you don't even think about it. That's when you can truly create.

[Trike]

Not wanting to turn this into a heated film vs. digital debate..

I personally still like the "film" look better. To me. the "film grain" and "softness" looks better. Where with digital, everything is crisp and detailed.

But honestly it all comes down to the user preference and what they are doing.

I still find that film looks better when shot with a higher ASA rating. (ex. 1600)

I have shot with a Nikon F5, and processed my own C-41 with a Jobo ATL processor. The F5 got stolen, That was replaced with a Nikon D80.

I still shoot film with a Mamiya 645, and the D80 for the casual shooting.

IMO bottom line is, shoot with what *YOU* think looks best.

[hieuhef]

i'd love to see what a digital 8x10 would cost oO

you can't get that kind of resolution on a digital system. even the cropped sensor dslr have too many pixels jammed into them these days, and a hassleblad digital back will run you lots and lots of money, and still won't reproduce as high a res image.

i can't knock digital, it's the future, and where i lay now. but when you look at the world and the craptastic images they now provide to us, treating it as gold, that's where it went wrong, the accessibility. my school still makes us go through 35mm, medium and large format, before we get into digital. i can't blame them, it makes us that much more hardened and skilled when we set our viewfinders to our face.

kinda off topic, but just thought i'd throw that out.

[Rinsewand]

From a very amateur photographic point, i'd say film cameras have more history (I'd highly recomend watching "Shooting The Past" by Stephen Poliakoff) and digital cameras open up photography to more people at less cost.

RwD