I may be a little off on this, but it seems to me that when pro level digital cameras first hit the street, the cost was around $1000/megapixel. Even now, a 16mp back for a Hasselblad is just under $10K. I think the EOS 5D announcement shows that prices are coming down nicely. Maybe not as fast as we'd like, but coming down nonetheless.....

There was $10,000 Canon out just last year!
One might believe $3300 is a BARGAIN, not me however.

Ronk,
When 10000 dollars is the price tag for a camera I can help but think my car is not worth more than that. What happens when you drop that camera and by the way how much will insurance cost you? So do I think 3300 is a reasonable cost for a camera. Not in my buget. See this is the whole reason I do not go digital. Is the camera thay cost 3300 better image wise than the 1000 dollar cameras. I would hope that it would be at least three times better for the price. I like many of you live in a real world. Monte Johnson.

First of all, the Canon EOS 5D is not a consumer camera. It is close to the top of the line of their professional quality products. It was not that long ago that a Canon EOS 35mm pro body cost over half that and then you had to supply film and processing. For someone like myself who has been an active photographer the money I have spent on film and processing now saved by digital makes the camera cost a bargain.

Ronk,

How about $2895 for a Rollei TLR 2.8f. That's what a new one costs today, and there aren't that many used bargains out there.

David,

Now you talking when you brought the Rollei 2.8 TLR into the picture. That is a camera I would love to have. Putting that thought away for a moment I understand some one like yourself you processes a lot of film would condsider 3300 for a digital camera. That makes good sense, but for me I shoot around 40 rolls of film a year. That is why I can still shoot film. I admit with the cost of film and processing it does add up even with what I shoot. Here is a positive though though. With the price of the canon 12 meg camera around 3300 it makes me believe it won't be long until they become not only better but cheaper. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

Your car reference makes me think back to when I was getting ready in 1956 to attend photography school. The year before I had purchased a new VW for $1680, and when I left for school I had two cameras, a 4x5 baby Deardoff and 3 lenses, a dozen and a half film holders, and a 4 year old Rollei 3.5, all of which cost in those days more than the car. And in 1956 I could buy a 25 sheet box of film for what a couple of sheets are today. And since 1956 color slide film processing has increased by almost 10 times.

All I have to do to convince myself the Canon EOS 5D is a bargain is look at the last year's accounts when I was still shooting film to be reminded what I spent on film and processing.

Even though now retired from shooting commercially, I will gladly afford the camera knowing I'll not have to be concerned whether I can afford the film and procesing to do what I want with the camera. It used to be every time I made an exposure the sound of the camera resembled the ca-chink, ca-chink of a cash register.

David,

The Canon EOS 5D is going to attract Wedding and Portrait photograhers. I have a friend who does his photograhy bussiness with a Caon 10D. He makes it as far as I know. It is still less money than the Nikon. As much as I love film as prices drop and cameras get better I will join the digital side some day, Even though 3300 is a lot of money so will come the day processing and getting film will become exspensive compared to digtial processing of images. Monte Johnson.

David, I have used my E-1 for 1 1/2 yrs now for weddings, portraits, Santa at the mall pix, etc. I have gotten nice prints all the way to 16x20 with it, never printed larger.
Would a more expensive camera take a "better" picture, considering that it is still me behind the camera?
I do not think so, but I am open to new thoughts.

Monte,

When I shot film, much of the color I shot was for editorial which demanded transparency/slide film. Good slide film and processing today is $15 per roll. If you do much work, it adds up fast. And for me that would pay for the Canon 5D in less than a year. If you don't do much photography, that's another matter.

Ronk,

Most film people shoot wedding on 6x7 or 6x6 120 film. The 12.8mpx of the Canon 5D is comparable to the difference between medium format of film and 35mm.

David,

I will agree on the cost of slide film. I shot a lot of 35mm slide film, but medium format prices jump in price. Around 16 dollars here so I do not shoot very much. BW is around eight dollar for a roll of 120. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
Ronk,

How about $2895 for a Rollei TLR 2.8f. That's what a new one costs today, and there aren't that many used bargains out there.

Ah, now THAT'S a camera. But also an investment. The value will never go down, but not that you'd ever want to sale it anyway. The fine German craftsmanship that goes into 1, can't be matched by much anything else these days.

My brand new Nikon N80 35mm cost $300. I'm not rich, so I can't shoot digital. And I haven't seen a digital to match the quality that I get out of a film camera.

Monte,

It will also attract serious amateurs -- like me -- who have a few(!) extra $$$ to spend.

I took my new 5D out for its first serious workout yesterday: a karate tournament at a local school (where my wife trains, and my son used to.) Over about 4 hours, I took about 950 shots, filling up 4 CF cards. I used flash on almost all of them (sometimes when shooting sequences the flash couldn't recycle fast enough to work on every image), and at the end of the day I was still using the batteries I started out with (on the 10D, I would have run through both the batteries.)

I also found one other benefit to using a DSLR: when people see that rig, they tend to give you a bit of room to work, which is really helpful in the tight quarters of a karate dojo.

-EdT.

if you insist on having a full frame sensor......then this is the price you have to pay. These things cost lots of money

personally Id rather a D200 a 12-24mm and an extra $500 in my pocket

but if you REALLY feel you HAVE TO HAVE a full frame sensor.....enjoy :-)

as for the rest of the world...I think that mainstream APS-C DSLRs have really gotten to a nice pricepoint. $1000 buys A LOT of camera and $550 will buy you something that is really as good as 99% of us need

Uni-Q,

One reason for investing in a 5D is having an already large investment on Canon EF "L" lenses. which function identically to shooting 35mm film with the 5D.

Second, the viewfinder image is as bright and clear as the best 35mm Canon SLR bodies, a significant improvement over any APS dSLR I have used, which is most of them.

And if I add more optics, they also apply to use with my film camera bodies, while the lenses made for the APS chip dSLR's do not.

Finally, I also have a collection of special purpose lenses made for the 35mm format, that do not function as affectively applied to an APS dSLR.

Different strokes for different folks!

i totally agree David.....i was not knocking the full frame sensor....only pointing out that $3300 was only extravagant for a DSLR if you insisted on the full frame route....and its only an issue if you are a Canon user anyway ( good or bad,.,,its the truth)

DSLR's in general have become VERY reasonably priced. Give it one more generation and we will be back to where we were with film with entry level DSLRs costing about the same as entry level film SLR's .....and the "pro" ones in the same range as the "pro" film SLRS....and if the F6 is a gauge then figure $2000 for the "gotta have everything" model and $1000 for the "does almost everthing" model.

Shortly $3300 will look like a bargin to the Jones. Lucky for me I have interest in keeping up with the Jones. I have a couple Yashica TLRs, filters, flash, tripod, bag, etc ... all for about $600. The 4 element Yashinon lens produces sharp prints at a bargin price. And in terms of mega pixels it leads the $3300 Canon by a long shot. Not sure what mega pixels the 6x6 produces but I would guess it to be around 50 .. any thoughts on that ?

Tom

Quote:
Shortly $3300 will look like a bargin to the Jones. Lucky for me I have interest in keeping up with the Jones. I have a couple Yashica TLRs, filters, flash, tripod, bag, etc ... all for about $600. The 4 element Yashinon lens produces sharp prints at a bargin price. And in terms of mega pixels it leads the $3300 Canon by a long shot. Not sure what mega pixels the 6x6 produces but I would guess it to be around 50 .. any thoughts on that ?

Tom

I'm willing to bet that if you got your hands on a D50 with the kit lens ( about the same price as your TLR)... you'd be amazed at what you could do with it.

people often forget that its not the digital file that matters.... the weak link in the chain is absolutely the printing tech... you may very well be able to make a file from a drum scanned film source that shows differences when enlarged to ridiculous levels....but I defy you to get that difference onto a print using regular sources that MOST photogs use ( home printers...the local camera shop....Walmart...and online print services)...

I used to feel the same way as yourself, but I've seen 20x30 prints made from 6MP sources that rival anything I ever did in medium format with my RZ...

I can't deny that the kit lenses on these cameras lack alot when it comes to distortion.......but I stand by the opinion that even an ENTRY level DSLR can produce images that can be favorably compared to anything made with a medium format film camera...

AND you can buy it new...with a warranty...with parts and acessories available at any corner Best Buy

AND there's no film to buy

AND you get all the niceties like in-camera metering

AND you have a lens selection that is second to NONE...

AND you can do types of photography that are not possible with a TLR...like macro, or action photography...or hell....try doing candids with a TLR..its hard to blend in when you are lugging around a big camera at chest level

AND you don't have to change film every 12 shots

AND you don't have to lug around a big heavy TLR

AND you don't have to order your E6 film in bulk from an internet supplier because your local store stopped carrying your favourite emulsion 6 months ago

AND you don't have to wait a week to get your slides back because the local camera shop had to send them to their main lab in Arkansas because they don't operate an E6 machine anymore...

AND its simple enough to use that you can hand it to your grandma and let her take a pic...

AND you can have an image ready to print in minutes....even with editing...while the film requires processing, scanning, correction of scanning artifacts...then editing and prep for printing....and dont forget that you either have to pay $30 a frame to have it drum scanned or you need to scan it yourself...and if you are using a flatbed or any other medium format film scanner that costs less than $1000 you are absolutely NOT getting images better than what's coming out of a simple DSLR. I can say this from MUCH experience on that end..... half the time I keep shooting film to justify the ownership of all this VERY expensive scanning gear that to be fair, is realy obsolete....no matter how good it is.

I shoot quite a bit of large format and more than the occasional 120 panoramic..... and I got to say... I see no purpose in shooting any film smaller than 4x5 or panoramic 120 unless you need something truly unusual like hour long exposures or super ridiculous print sizes. Sure you CAN drum scan a 120 frame...pay a lot to have it done, pay for the film and the processing...do thru all the hassle of storing the film in expensive binders and labeling and keeping track of all of them.......and MAYBE come up with a difference that is so subtle that only you and your magnifying glass can see.... but the reality is that even the entry level DSLR's are capable of producing the same quality images without any of the hassles.

I used to be one of those holdouts.....and to be honest, half the time I shoot large format because the client THINKS they need it... The reality is that I let them insist because I can charge a premium for the service....in almost all those cases even a 35mm sized DSLR could do the job well.....and a medium format digital back can cover 90%+ of the remaining slack...

Im saying this only because if you are holding out ...I really honestly feel you are holding out for nothing, ..... you really can't put together a film setup that can rival what a DSLR can do for AMATURE USE...( meaning you aren't looking to make 20x30's all the time...and the camera doesn't need to be able to hold up to 10,000 images a week in use)...and NEVER forget...that if you are going the film route...you need to factor in the cost of film, storage, development and scanning. And if you scan yourself don't forget to add in the cost of the scanner and if its not a VERY expensive scanner then you really aren't getting good quality anyway......hint...you could buy a 70 and kit lens for less money than a good multiformat film scanner and save yourself a lot of headaches.

if you happen to live near a Cord camera outlet...they just held a photo contest where they gave the employees D50's with the kit lens and had them submit their best pic. They printed all the entires at 20x30 in house on the same machines that anybody else can make prints from....were required to send in high quality JPEG's with NO post-camera image correction....and WOW... my jaw almost dropped. I'm good friends with the manager at the local Cord and we were both commenting on why we ever bothered to shoot medium format anymore since these pics were BETTER than anything we ever had printed from a 6x6 or 6x7 source ( he is a HAssy guy and I shoot Mamiya)

it was like having your eyes opened for the first time... the reality is that anyone agonizing over a $3300 full frame or a pro level $5K+ camera for non professional use is crazy... a $550 entry level camera is likely better than the photographer especially if they are making prints at home even on 13" printers or having the images printed anywhere else than custom print shops.

if you love your TLR...then great...enjoy it.... I had a Mamiya C330 back in the day and loved it. If it suits your style and your personality then awesome.... just don't be trying to convince yourself that you are walking around with the DLSR equivelent of a 50MP camera....

Tom,

Both film and digital are just two different ways to record visual information with a camera. There really is no way to compare them directly. Film records visual information as grains or as dye clouds in color, and if you magnify a film image you readily see that all it consists of is organized noise (grains), the arrangement of different densities (and colors) of bits of noise. With digital the visual information is essentially free of noise. If you eliminate the noise (grain) in a film image, you can do this with software after scanning film, you really do not end up with all that much information, especially if the grain is large as it is with fast films.

Has anyone thought to mention that a used digital rebel can be had for $500 or a new XT for around $900...I think they make these models for people who can not afford the higher priced items,

I have gotten over the battle of film vs digital, but I must add that there are some factors in why one uses a certain camera. FIlm or digital it is the experince the connection to what one is doing that really matters. I have used only one digital camera. I am not opposed to having another one, but the feeling I get from using my Rolleiflex brings a feeling of satisfaction and gratification to me. A digital today may or may not produce am image as this camera does but that is not the point we should focus on. Instead we should all ask ourselves if we are happy doing what we are doing or are we just afraid to be our own person and do what makes us happy. I will not pass judgement on anyone for what camera they use because chances are they are enjoying doing just what I am doing. I have no right to take the wind out of their sailes. I hope I can encourage them to just keep doing what they are doing. There are many photographers who have years of experience ahead of me. I want to learn from them, but at the same time I hope they show me some kindness along the way. I have found this to be true. Film grain or no grain from digital is always a personal choice. If everyone was happy with digital cameras they would not go to the trouble to scan film and work with large files, but some still perfer that choice. Don't forget many of you have had years of working with film. Some may never get that experince. The move to digital is a warranted one for many and some are just tired of film, but there are some of us who still choose it because it works for us. It is that simple. I think cameras like the Canon 5D are amazing, but I also think the same for old TLRS and 35mms. So I think the best way we can support one another is to always show respect for ones choice of format. Thanks Monte Johnson.

Monte I agree wholeheartedly......shoot what you like...

BUT there are a lot of people out there who fall prey to the 100MP myth... the idea that you can walk around with a large format camera and drum scan everything and somehow you have this mythical 100MP monster at your command. The REALITIES of this approach are far different than the idea....and when put into use I think that the vast majority of photographers would prefer the DLSR system if they compared both concepts side by side....in practice.

I guess it really depends why you are holding out..... I personally still shoot a lot of film, but its all LF and some 120 panoramics. I admit to using these cameras for my personal use on many occasions as opposed to just using them for work. I like the more contemplative approach.

$15

Well, well, well,

it is quite interesting to hear that you have to buy film from far away! Around here every photo store has a wide variety of colour neg,- slide- and b&w film. I live 60km (40 miles) North of Toronto, I get my slides back in two to three days, 35mm and 120/220! There are five dealers in our little town who handle all those films.

"Lugging" around a "big heavy TLR" is certainly not a true statement, my Rolleiflex 2.8F is lighter than my Nikon F90 with a standard zoom lens.

I don't want to get into this "Grandma" argument, my wife could read this, oh, would I be in trouble!

AND, as far as printing is concerned: I waste more inkjet paper than b&w paper, and the inkjet paper is quite more expensive! Not to forget those cartridges. A set of cartridges for my hp photosmart runs around can $ 90.00, for the hp designjet around $ 400.00. They don't last long.

On another note, I take a lot of slides, 35mm and 120. Some are individual slides, others are assembled into AV shows. On my Rolleivision dual 66P I have a Schneider lens, what a colur burst! What about projected digital pictures?

Is it a holdout? No. I got no problem spending this kind of money for my hobby. But by now I need a new 8 1/2 x 11 printer, the photosmart is outdated, only two cartridges, colour and black. My Durst enlarger in the darkroom is around 15 years old, still the same, bought some Rodenstock lenses (50 and 85mm), only the light bulb wants to be replaced once in a while.

Yes, I do have a digital camera, and even though, the results are stunning for those 5 MP, and mistakes are instantly forgiven, there is this mechanical feeling in those Rollei's and Leica's, Nikon's et cetera. in Medium Format you see a 6X6 (mirror)image on the screen, you think, you try to compose, and then, often you realize, this is not the shot I thought it was. This, I find, is exiting. With the digital camera, but also with any of the auto-everything cameras, you just take the shot anyways, much less thought goes into it. And aren't we all dreaming of being a little Ansel Adams?

This is the difference of the different levels and media! I envy those who have the time to take large format pictures. But, in a few years, I will be retired and then......

Good light to all of you, digital or analogue! Monte, keep the good Rollei work up!

Siggy

The Rollei will stay with me for now. I feel there is plenty of time to go digital. For film lets enjoy it now. Monte Johnson.

my comment was not to dismiss TLR or any other film photography

it was to point out that any person whose ultimate goal includes DIGITAL WORKFLOW....who thinks that they can save a bundle of money and make some 50MP digital camera with a mixture of film capture and scanning.,.........that scanning film, no matter what the format....is not nearly as economical, convenient or practical as direct digital capture. A DSLR would be a better and more cost effective tool. As a side note, that same DSLR would also have all the benefits of being an SLR and would have more portability and versatility ( to an amature user) than a TLR....or a view camera ( often touted as the 100MP digital camera :-)

This is the reason the most pros have switched to digital capture....its not about the amazing image quality ( although it has progressed quite nicely over the years)... it about the fact that scanning film and "hybrid" photography is VERY expensive and time consuming.....often for results that are not as good as what can be achieved with direct digital capture. As a photographer who invested heavily in the hybrid approach I;m just trying to help other photographers who are considering this approach to consider all the options available to them and to make an informed decision.

You are obviously very pleased with your TLR and I wish you the best of luck with your photography. I am jealous of your large format projector........ as for digital projection.....slideshows are not really very popular in the US. Digital projection is more a tool of the business person making a presentation to clients rather than a tool for exhibition of images.

in the film days they used to say..if you want to make prints then shoot print film. If you want to project then shoot slides.

I think its appropriate to add a third line to that. If you want to work and print digitally then shoot digital. That's all Im really trying to say.

and yes...it is getting pretty hard to find film locally. ...

beleive it or not I still shoot film on a fairly regular basis...but mostly LF and recently some 120 panopramics

Thanks,
I appreciate the fact that you do not think that those who stick to film are just prehistoric dinosaurs. You are absolutely right, professinal photographers have to cash in on the advantages of digital photography, if they like it or not. It is faster and more versatile than analogue, corrections to the image are easier and less time consuming.
For many amateurs this is the way to go, especially the younger ones, who grew up with computers and calculators. They may not be able to multiply or pull the square root of a number, but, who cares, they have a computer or calculator (unless there is no power). The world has changed. I sometimes teach advanced courses in plastics processing and design at a local college, and those kids cannot believe that I still can calculate a square root in my heaad, without a calculator or even a piece of paper!
Translating this to photography, the main ideas of taking a picture may disappear. Instead of evaluating a scene and finding the best composition, just take a few dozen digital shots, pretty sure, there will be one or two outstanding ones. Doesn't cost anything.
But I shouldn't be that critical, because over the last ten or fifteen years, film photographers did not think so differently either. What's a few rolls of film?
I still think about wasting film, as I said in my last posting, I can afford this hobby. But why take a picture of inferior quaity? ( well, my pictures may not be good to start with)
Still, I believe, film will be around for many years to come. Here and there we read that some professionals are switching back to film. True? I don't know. But don't put down your old Hassy's, or Mamiyas, Rollei's or whatever. And there are all those professionals, raving about their digital equipment.
But on Sunday, when they have time, they sneak out with their old M4, Rolleiflex, RZ or whatever, and take some pictures on film. Later you can find them somewhere hidden in the basement, mixing some witches brew, called developer, well, I guess, you know the story.
Let's have fun!
Best regards,
Siggy

Uni-Q, I would have to disagree with you. There are at least three pro landscape photogs that I admire greatly with what they do. Each one of them will tell you quickly that they will continue to shoot film instead of digital. They all shoot medium/large format and each says that they have not seen anything digital touch what they can produce from their film cameras. That does not mean they don't work with a digital work flow.

I am by no means a pro, though that is what I hope to reach towards. Will I become another Jack Dykinga, or John Kay? Maybe not, but I plan on doing my best to get there.