Originally Posted by james_ant
Seams wierd that you would need a film camera and that a regular DSLR wont do the job. The end result is the exact same thing and I would think a DSLR would give you far more flexability in terms of settings.
At least thats what I used in my film classes last year.
You used a DSLR for your film class?
Originally Posted by Marin
Because it's a craft that should still be learned. I absolutely hate that there are people who think because digital came into existence that film should me completely pushed away.
Going to go into rant mode since this actually really annoys me. Like a lot.
- First of all digital only covers 35mm and medium format (6x4.5). And don't even mention scanning backs, they're basically only useful for tabletop. There is no digital large format so if you want to shoot 4x5, 8x10, etc... you need to shoot film. But thanks to digital this format is becoming more of a niche without any digital alternatives. So less film to choose from, less companies pushing stuff out for it and no digital version. Wow, awesome. And to point out LF absolutely wipes the floor with digital when it comes to IQ, control, tones, color, DoF, movements, etc...
- Film is an art and should always be taught. There are so many processes out there that are very interesting to use and get unique results. Digital doesn't have this at all.
- DIGITAL B&W IS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE. When you do a B&W inkjet print you're not getting true blacks since it's just mixing colors. It doesn't even come close to a nice fiber B&W print that's skillfully printed.
- Just because the commercial world has adopted digital doesn't magically make film dead.
- Films for hobbiest? There is so much fine art that's still done with film that is absolutely amazing. Here, let me post an example.
Richard Learoyd shoots "film". I can't actually say it's film since he doesn't use film. He actually shoots directly onto sheets of RA-4 paper that's hung in a separate room, exposes for hours at a time and processes the sheet. The prints are absolutely amazing, the DoF falloff is so soft, and the tones are fantastic. Oh, and for people concerned about IQ the pics are beyond sharp. (and for the people curious about how much each print goes for, $40k+).
The whole process flat out can't be replicated with digital.
A lot of the work is nudes so I can't post it.
^^ I really like the way you think.
Originally Posted by gtsteviiee
Woah I didn't mean to make people angry in this thread.. Sorry if I did. But what I think why my teacher is making us have 1 is clearly what Marin said: "Because it's a craft that should still be learned. I absolutely hate that there are people who think because digital came into existence that film should me completely pushed away. Film is an art and should always be taught. There are so many processes out there that are very interesting to use and get unique results. Digital doesn't have this at all."
I agree with Marin, it's nice to learn film photography too.
OT: Ok guys thanks for the help, I'm stuck between the Canon FTB and Nikon N80. Which would be a lot better? Thank you all.
Still looking for a cheap AE-1
^^ I like the way your teacher thinks too...
To the OP: Are there any requirements as far as the camera goes? If it has to be completely manual and you don't want to spend much money, you might also look at the Pentax K1000. They can be had for cheap and they're about the most durable camera I know of. You can throw one against a brick wall and all you'll have to do is dust it off...then replace the broken bricks.
As far as the other 2 choices, I used to have an AE-1 system, but it got stolen about 25 years ago.
I do have an FTb now, and it's a lot of fun to shoot. If you get one and take care of it, you should be able to sell it for about what you bought it for.
Just my 2c worth...hope it helps,