[Alex1994]

It's an old question, and with perhaps 95% of photographers using digital cameras, I think 35mm needs do concede defeat.

However, allow me to say some things in defence of the old rolls-to clarify, whenever I say 'film' in the rest of the post, I mean 35mm film.

Things I like about film:

1) Initial cost of buying a camera is much lower, with well looked-after SLRs going for as little as under £100, and something new with AF and things at perhaps £300 with a very good lens included.

2) Film cameras older than 20 years almost always look better than their modern counterparts.

3) Batteries only need to be replaced once every two years or so.

4) I still think flicking through prints is a better way of viewing photos than staring at them on a computer screen. Likewise, they can be put easily into albums, swapped around, enlarged etc.

5) Whenever I use my IXUS 70, I feel like a sort of appendage to the camera, the one simply pressing a button, and it does all the work. On the other hand, my Leica and Minox feel like they are an appendage of me, giving a lot more control over the shot and making more satisfied when I get a good one =)

Some things I don't like about film. These are niggles digital doesn't tend to have.

1) Buying rolls of film and paying for them to be developed. Shot per shot, film is a lot more expensive than digital.

2) Older cameras can be unreliable.

3) Film grain. However, digital does to some extent have digital noise, though the better cameras on the market are close to having none, even as high as 1600 ISO

4) The fact I can only have 1 film speed at any one time. With a CCD, this can be varied to my heart's content.

5) AF on digicams makes it easier to shoot shots very quickly, which is invaluable when the subject is an animal or a rapidly moving object- in these situations, I can't fiddle around with the dials on my Leica.

Overall, the logical choice is still to go digital. Yet for some reason, my Minox, Leica and Canon EOS 30 soldier on, in an age where they are merely dinosaurs of the past, where photography was a rather chemical matter. Maybe I can't stomach the thought of stumping 400-500 pounds for a dSLR. Maybe it's something else in these old buggers, the fact that the Leica just has 'soul', it's an heirloom with a feeling of solidity and precision that I haven't come across on any other camera but the extremely high-end ones. Now that I'm still very much learning to shoot, I think a camera where the photographer is compeletely involved in the picture-taking process is best for me.


What do you guys think? When did you switch over to digital? What film cameras did you have before?

Thanks

Alex