I know the feeling.

Lately, I have been shooting 2 to 3 rolls of colour-print film/week. This morning, I dropped off 2 rolls and picked up two I had left last week.

The two I picked up: one shot in a Canon Elan, with a 17-40mm f4L zoom + red enhancing filter, scenes of Autumn foliage, the other with a Canon EOS630 24-80 and 20-300(?) zooms -scenes at the beach and Autumn foliage (no filters).

Excellent results with both: already showing them off to friends!

The two rolls left this morning: Fuji Superia color print film, Hoya Polarizing filter, 40year-old Tokina 28mm f2.8 lens (bought for A$25-00 and what a beauty results-wise)+ Asahi Pentax SV + Minolta Spotmeter F. Scenes of historic buildings about town + Sunday scenes of the Botanic Gardens.

Can't wait!

Sorry to butt in, but I too have both some older Canons A2's which I use to shoot Kodak or Ilford XP2 B&W chromogenic film, as well as a Canon EOS 5D full frame digital. Unlike the APS dSLR's, the full frame cameras are just like shooting 35mm film SLR's, same great viewfinder image, same lens performance, etc. But I can assure you the results I get in color with the 5D reproduce better and larger than what I got shooting slide film 10 years ago.

OK full-frame digitals are expensive, but my 5D was more than paid for since I've had it in what has been saved in 35mm slide film and processing I don't have to pay for and at today's prices.

At my rate of shooting, I would take at least 10 years to pay off your EOS 5D, let alone any consumables, hardware, & software

As I just remarked in another forum, I'll keep shooting 120 film until they quit making it. Or, until a digital back for my Hasselblad costs less than several body parts (any day now, right?)

I could say something in reply but I'll be kind and keep it to myself.

Other than having a healthy investment in hardware, I think Sony's announced yet to appear pro dSLR with 24 megapixels may just make the medium format digital entirely moot. In other word it looks like the dSLR adopted from 35mm with a pixel resolution as high as most medium format digital backs may just make any advantage a medium format digital might have, disappear in terms of the quality of image file produced.

Few individuals I think have or want to afford wide format printers unless they are really making a lot of large prints to sell, and what other use is there for very high pixel resolution. I believe that rationale also applies to film. I let my medium format cameras go because I had no real need or interest in making prints larger than 11x14 and that was 10 years ago. But by then I could get just as good quality from 35mm in a 11x14 print as I could from a medium format film image.

But of course when something is just for one's own pleasure of doing it is being logically practical any test of anything?

But of course when something is just for one's own pleasure of doing it is being logically practical any test of anything?

That's the whole beauty of it: we're in for fun, not for profit!

My next project is to look into some 40+ year old Voigtlander range-finders (can't afford Leicas, as yet). I'll keep you posted.

Sorry, 40 plus year old stuff, especially if it has been idle a long time needs to be thoroughly cleaned, adjusted (shutter) and lubricated by an expert repair technician (rare) to be reliable and able to predictably produce accurate exposures.

Leica's to me are more myth than reality. For a reasonable amount of money a new Rollei 35mm with fine optics as good as Leica will perform as well as a new Leica and in some respects is a better handling camera, but still not cheap compared to used prices for what you can probably buy a Voigtlander for.

If I didn't already have two very good 35mm Canon bodies, an RF would be nice though. But I expect things to work right like have accurate reliable shutter speeds, so old used stuff is out of the question.

Dear David,

No need to be fussy.

I have several 40 and 50 year old cameras (and equally old light-meters), all of which work very well: i.e. they produce well exposed negatives which give most acceptable prints. Only one of these (a Minolta 7s RF needed a CLA (because of a sticking diaphragm, a fault I have noticed Minoltas are prone to).

The funny thing is that they produce very sharp -equal to Canon "L"- pictures with very cheap (at second-hand prices) lenses. Also, the lenses are very well engineered (glass and metal, not plastic), so you don't feel you have a lens made by "Lego" in your hands when using them.

The closest thing I have had in my hands -recently- was some M8 Leica gear, at a Leica promo last weekend (at A$6,000-00 for body only and another $2,000-00 per each lens!)

Now, that's a camera: but, frankly, I'm not really photographer enough to justify such an indulgence. Hence, I'll be looking into what a Voigtlander (second-hand) can offer me.

If they can make a DSLR with 24 megapixels,then couldn't they make a medium format with more? To me,while people can get great shots with digitals, they get it at a cost. I'm not a professional who can justify the high cost of a digital,or who has an $8,000 one given to me. So, I can announce in a photomag, that I switched to digital.I can take great shots with alot cheaper film cameras. B&W is what I do 95% anyway. Also, remember, having the digital photo printed does cost. So, digital expenses do go beyond buying the camera. All digital does is remove the cost of the film. Unless, the person just wants to put all their photos on their cd,computer, etc.Of course the cd's cost, too.

The answer to your question is numbers. The Sony 24 megapixel camera will probably be priced a small fraction of what a digital back for a medium format camera would cost because their potential market is hundreds of times larger.

The price of things is set by what it costs to develop and manufacture, then divide that cost by the number of units that can be sold sets the price. The number of medium format camera owners is a small fraction of that of the smaller 35mm based digitals.

MegaVision does have a high resolution B&W digital back for MF cameras, but because the demand is so limited the price has to be high. $27,000.

Plus with digital there is no advantage in quality acquired by using a larger camera. You needed larger film sizes to record more information in a piece of film in the past to improve quality. With digital just cram more pixels in the same space and you obtain more image quality and larger potential print size. Digital technology is still young and who knows how far they can go in the development of chips. A couple of years ago pixel site size was limited because if too small they would not be sensitive enough to light, and if too small resulting in image noise, but in the last year new technology has wiped out that barrier with new materials for chips. Now who knows what the limit of chip resolution will be in the future.

Quote:
A couple of years ago pixel site size was limited because if too small they would not be sensitive enough to light, and if too small resulting in image noise, but in the last year new technology has wiped out that barrier with new materials for chips. Now who knows what the limit of chip resolution will be in the future.

Interesting! Thanks.

I do like my digital but the feel of my 645 and 6x7 just isn't in a digital. I have an F5 that I'll probbably never shoot again but with my med formats, I really have fun. Bought a new scanner a week ago that can scan 120 film an just getting started doing that. Makes really nice photo's from 120 slides and neg's. B/W it gives a sepia tone to, probably the printer and an uncalabrated computer.

Any way, the cost of film is still up here and I still have to have it processed but 5 or 6 rolls a month won't kill me.