TP: Digital vs. Film - the lenses tell a story.

This has been moved from the Equipment forums to become a Talking Point.



In a continuing effort to promote reflection and discussion on our shared interest in photography, I plan to bring out a new topic occasionally. This is just one more in a thread:



I do not pretend to have the answers,: I'm just asking some provocative questions in many of these threads.



This one: Why is it that we demand a new camera body, film or digital, at least every couple of years, while we tolerate and actually revere lenses which are over 20 years old? Could it be that we actually value the vision we are trying to achieve more than the technology we use to achieve it? I think so.



I have worked with professional photographers for over thirty years, some using 8x10 view cameras where everything was manual... a lens mounted on a square of wood, fitted into the front frame of a bellows. Exposure timed with a watch, the lens opened and closed accordingly, the lights jolted into action, then extinguished with seemingly mammoth switching gear. But at the end of the day, if the photographer seemed to show affection for anything in his equipment stable, it was the old lens mounted on the front of the camera.



Most of the lenses I use are over 20 years old now, but are the product of the auto-focus age with Minolta. Many have been refined over the years, but not so much that I have bothered to upgrade them. They are just so good. And while I have become impatient, along with others with Minolta, then Konica-Minolta, then Sony with their inability to react to our changing needs for ever-more advanced camera bodies, we have been pretty patient (in fact enamoured) with the lenses. In fact, many users have been on a mission to acquire pre-owned lenses often nearly 20 years old, and willing to pay increasing prices for them.



There has been some debate here on the potential resurgence of film as an altenative to digital, and it has sparked a lively debate, where some members are eager to explore the differences and applaud the strengths. They will be using different bodies in order to do so... but for the most part, the same lenses.



So in the long run, whether it is full frame or a cropping factor, film or digital, it is the lens we rely on to achieve our vision first. And differences aside, it's what we see through the lens of our SLR/DSLR that realizes our vision.



In this regard, the difference between film and digital takes on some perspective.

Edited by rovhazman - 08 November 2013 at 20:48

Good points, OniFactor.

One thing more to this discussion: It's a question of money too: The tolerances are too small for mass production, especially when we talk bigger sensor sizes. You can easily notice, cameras with smaller sensors have new lenses ... or do you remember any 15* Zoom from 20 years back? Why it's so ... coz it's more easy to build lenses for smaller picture size.
In fact, there are new lens construction for Canon and Nikon ... for professional the price doesn't matter as much as for amateurs. And mostly those professional photographers don't pay lenses themselves ... payers are big magazines etc...

edit:
about those pictures; I'd say, upper one is film....(my guess)

Edited by Raimios - 22 April 2007 at 07:47

My guess is that, once the technology is more mature, the race for changes to camera bodies will fall off, although dSLRs affect image quality in a way that film ones never could: so many of the improvement we see in bodies are about giving better resolution and better dynamic range which were things that film bodies could never have an effect on.

It does of course, still hold true that a dSLR that took great photos two years ago, will still take great pictures now, even if it has less pixels and lower dynamic range than current models.

Bob

The development of optics is not as fast as the body with it´s electronics and computers inbeded.
The reason I "need" Sony to make a new good camera house is that when my camera breaks down need to know there is a new good camera to replace my old.

Mojorick

Im not certain wich are wich, but I do like the first one better.. the second seems to lack alot of the detail wich is in the first image. Also seems like there is more blur, a much smaller part that actually is in focus in the 2nd image.

#1 is digital
#2 is film, with film the DOF is more tight, so you get more blur even if using the same aperture, which you didn't.