Yes, you read the title right: the digital imagemaker returns to film. But not exclusively or even frequently.
Lately I have been experimenting with long exposure photography. As we all know with our digital cameras the noise level rises with the length of the exposure. So I wanted to compare this with film. I dug out my old Mamiyaflex C220, cobbled up some step-up rings and fitted my modified Cokin filter holder so I could use the Cokin 13-stop neutral density filter and went out shooting. The camera (well lens actually) is not up to general shooting. The shutter had no use for almost 10 years and so it does not fire properly and can’t take proper short exposures. But on bulb it works and is loud enough that I can hear when the stutter eventually opens and start the stopwatch.
Results on the photography are still a work in progress but I feel I am getting there. But boy was it a shock going back to film. No immediate feedback, no surety that it worked and the quickest feedback is a day turnaround on the film processing (it is 120 format, so no 1 hour shops, at least here). You have to wind the film on (what a horror) and loading the film is a hassle. Plus lack of familiarity with the camera after so long screwed up a couple of rolls.
Apart from possibly addressing the noise issue with long exposures, I am also seeking higher resolution. This is why I am using medium format rather than 35mm. I am curious to try large format but not just yet. A twin lens reflex, like my old Mamiya is perfect if you are going to use extremely dark filters, such as heavy ND (neutral density) filters because you can still see to focus and compose with the other lens.
Of course I’ll be scanning the negatives and working on them on the computer. So at least it is half digital. More reports as the experiment continues.
Size does matter. But not in the way it is commonly expressed.
Recently I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mind who is also a photographer. We were talking about all the new camera releases at the current PMA show, and specifically the release of the new Canon 450D and the non-release of the expected replacement for the 5D. He and I both have a 350D and I also have a 400D. I made the observation that it is amazing just how good these cameras are and how they have taken a lot of use and abuse and exposure to the elements. Whilst I would love the full frame capabilities of the 5D (or 6D) or even better the 1Ds Mark III, I certainly did not want to carry one around. I also related how, last year when over in Barcelona and Arles I spent time with a group of photographers. One of these was a woman photographer shooting with a 5D. At some point of walking around in the heat with our gear she asked to try my 400D and was so impressed with the resulting images and its low weight that she decided she needed one.
All the above is to set the focus for discussion of camera weight and suitability. I don’t know about you but my camera bag, if I took most of my gear, would weigh a ton. Some of my lenses are L-series and thus heavy. Plus of course there are a few. So the weight adds up there in lenses. Then a flash gun and all the other accessories. So when I go out shooting I tend to try to estimate what I will need and pack accordingly. Even with small cameras the weight gets heavy. There is a noticeable weight increase as you go from the 400D to the 40D, then again to the 5D and then more to the 1Ds Mark III. I am not suggesting that weight should be the only determining factor but, I think if we are honest, it is a factor for more of us than you would think. Olympus, for example, did very well with its OM-1 and OM-2 models, which were amazingly capable cameras that showed that you do not have to get bigger and heavier as you go up the price range. This should be especially the case today, when so much of the functionality of a camera is a software function and so basically takes up no extra space.
At the present time we have the mentality among the marketing people of the camera companies, or at least it seems that way, that small and compact means low end and that if people are going to pay more for a camera that they must be larger. This is a strange mentality when, say, in notebook computers the cheapest are the middle sized ones, and they get more expensive at both ends of the size range. I believe that rather there is a fair section of the dSLR buying public who want great quality pictures and control from a compact and light camera body.For this I think we need two things: a dSLR family that offers varying capability at varying price and a compact camera like the Canon G9 that has an SLR-sized image sensor and a 3x zoom for those times when even a compact SLR is too big. Imagine the option of a 400D sized model with a full frame sensor and a G9 with an APS or even better full size sensor. Wouldn’t they be models you would want to have?
Another thing to be noted it that there are a great many people who need high quality camera gear who are not primarily photographers, such as digital artists. They may well be less willing to carry heavy gear but still want great images. Now some will be happy with compact cameras but most will want the lower noise and greater control that a dSLR or high quality compact will offer. Even for photographers there are times when you do not want the photography to be the main focus, but you want a camera with you. For times like that the large sensor G9 I suggest would be perfect.
Note that I am not saying that the current smaller sensor G9 is not an amazing camera or is capable of great images. But for those of us where the quality of the image or the degree of control we want is paramount, it would be nice to have the option without having to break your back.