SLR vs. DSLR


Nikon700

New Member
May 15, 2011
195
0
0
#1
Hi , i'm curious if you guys would switch system ?

i'm heavily poison by leica and film cameras.

Do you think i should switch D700 to leica ?

On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?
 

Sep 14, 2009
1,787
0
0
#2
both have pros and cons. and if you're poisoned by the leica system, i'm assuming its the M system, not the R system.

might wish to ask yourself, why you want to change for a start? and know that there are many limitations when you do make the switch. you enjoy relatively clean iso 6400 now. imagine having to make do with 800 or so.

as for whether or not you'll be hired, its more a matter of, will you be prepared for the job? as a professional, you'll probably want to have something that adheres to their needs. and that typically means, digital captures which are easily processed and quickly processed.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,926
84
48
#3
You got to know why you want to switch to film.
Why are you poisoned?
Why it needs to be Leica?

Do you have a convincing portfolio on film to make ppl hire you?
What about film and dev costs?


Food for thought
 

Daoyin

Senior Member
Nov 25, 2008
2,808
6
38
West
#4
A Leica costs much more then a D700. Is money that easy to come by?
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,488
26
48
Pasir Ris
#5
On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?
Are cooks being hired for having a certain set of knifes and pans? Or rather for their skills, recipes and signature dishes? Can you taste which pan has been used to fry your noodles? Can you smell whether gas or electrical power was used?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#7
Hi , i'm curious if you guys would switch system ?

i'm heavily poison by leica and film cameras.

Do you think i should switch D700 to leica ?

On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?
For many commercial shoots, the client will be with you in the studio expecting the images to show up on the computer monitor the moment you hit the shutter button. So you need to ask yourself what is your priority? Making photography your career or you want to keep it as a hobby?

That said, there is a very small handful of very skilled photographers who uses film and still get their jobs. But film is their selling point, and their customers are wedding couples, who can wait a couple of weeks to get their prints. And these people still mix it up with both digital and film.
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
804
10
18
#8
Hi , i'm curious if you guys would switch system ?

i'm heavily poison by leica and film cameras.

Do you think i should switch D700 to leica ?

On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?

Dear TS,Please get real,come down from the clouds,big business made sure film is "dead" just like when sony/philips introduce audio cd
to the world and replaced vinly records but after more than 30 yrs. hifi people still find records produce superior sound than digital cd because records are analogue in nature versus digital conversion artifacts(harsh sound but have made great improvment),same goes for film at a higher price because of scarcity.

In the days of film camera,photography enthusiasts never wow about the look of film because everyone is using it,instead they wow about
medium and large format because of the sharpness and resolution ,not to mention the extra large prints.To be sure digital is improving and once the threshold of 3000 lines per inch is reached ( which is the resolution of film) there will be no excuse to not go digital.Currently with
24MP sensors it is about 2800+ LPI.Sure the look of film is unique but life goes on.If you aspire to a photographic career then you have to "toe" the line which is alot cheaper and faster or convenient.You are only limited by your creative genius.Make technology your partner
and you can do more than film picture wise.
 

Last edited:

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#9
Hi , i'm curious if you guys would switch system ?

i'm heavily poison by leica and film cameras.

Do you think i should switch D700 to leica ?

On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?
Sorry but I have to admit I don't really understand how you can make $$$ out of photography if you can't even answers you own questions.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#13
Hi, Thanks for the update,now really no excuse to use film.:)
It is not all about picture quality, how sharp and detail a photo is that actually make lots of people crave about digital or film. Sometime the process of getting the photos out is also very very fun... plus with film there is just some quality that digital do not have... it is the feel that no words can describe.

To me... I will not go to film though... I am too pampered by digital.
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
804
10
18
#14
It is not all about picture quality, how sharp and detail a photo is that actually make lots of people crave about digital or film. Sometime the process of getting the photos out is also very very fun... plus with film there is just some quality that digital do not have... it is the feel that no words can describe.

To me... I will not go to film though... I am too pampered by digital.
Hi, I agree with you on an artistic level but the real world does not understand art as "propagandised",they only have real life as a reference so sharpness and detail, they can relate to.But seriously how many can delve into the apparent reality and percieve the intangible and limitless infinity.On the bright side everyone can "see" if they will "allow" themselves the possibility of it.
 

tangerine

New Member
Jul 6, 2011
94
0
0
#15
rhino123 said:
To me... I will not go to film though... I am too pampered by digital.
I go digital too. Started off with film, skills too poor, after waiting for film to develop then realised the shots kana-sai.... By then too late. Ha ha.
 

Fuzz55

New Member
Jul 21, 2010
113
0
0
#16
Basically for me was a legacy issue as I was and still am using my minolta Dynax 9 (which I have 2 and it's pointless to sell them nowadays)
The reason I used film (particularly slide film or color reversal films) is also to sharpen my technical knowledge of exposure settings as slides are very unforgiving as compared to films or digital cameras. Downside to it is that it is quite expensive and you normally get 20-50% usable shots at most for any given shoot.

This is my take:
You will spend at least $40 per roll of 36 shots ($16 for film, $26 for processing & high res scans) that like $400 for 360 shots which you can take with a 4GB memory card which cost less than $40. The high res scans also gives you very limited range for PP as for slides, you need to get it right for actual shoot. So if you are confident to shoot with the right exposures and/or want to learn and experience what it is like, with lots of money to spare, you can try it... but if you want good pictures and do not need to use it for commercial purposes, then I rather you spend that $400 on a good Leica or Carl Zeiss lens... as the lens makes all the difference in the pictures... even if you use a low range camera body... you can still take very good pictures and PP them to look even better than those of film or slides...

On the other hand, to own a Leica M9 with the noctilux 50mm f0.95 or Leica S2 is a dream and if you have the cash... why not? I would, if I could :)
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
804
10
18
#17
I rather you spend that $400 on a good Leica or Carl Zeiss lens... as the lens makes all the difference in the pictures... even if you use a low range camera body... you can still take very good pictures and PP them to look even better than those of film or slides...

On the other hand, to own a Leica M9 with the noctilux 50mm f0.95 or Leica S2 is a dream and if you have the cash... why not? I would, if I could :)
Hi, I second that,good practical advice.:) Can $400 get a 2nd hand Leica or Carl Zeiss lens? Probably need to to save up more.;p
 

Fuzz55

New Member
Jul 21, 2010
113
0
0
#18
Haha I doubt you can get a 2nd or 3rd hand leica or CZ lens for $400... maybe $800 - $1000 but mostly $1-3K range. It also depends on what lens you are looking at. You can check on the forums here or at ebay... can try to either get a 35mm or 50mm f1.4 or f2 lens. Go for primes :)

On the question of:
"On the other hand , If i use film camera , will people hired me to be photographer ? or people prefer photographer that use DSLR ?"
I think if you are good photographer in film camera, you should not be a problem shooting DSLR... It's like driving manual car (SLR) and auto car (DSLR)... if you got class 3 driving license, you are eligible for any kind of work that requires class 3... but if you apply for Formula 1 car racer or grand prix ... then that's another story as professional jobs starts from being in the industry or with good foundation or track record or some kind of port folio.

For most people, they will see the works of the photographer, they don't care if he uses SLR or DSLR or medium format.. but rather his skills and eye for composition, lighting, art direction, cinematography, etc...

Hope this makes sense :)
 

Top Bottom