Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
But I have. Food for thought:I've no use for film
I used an Olympus OM-1 as my main camera body for 30 years, and a few OM-10 bodies for backup plus an OM-2S where the electronics failed after a couple of years. Although I was tempted buy other cameras along the way, I never felt that they would represent a major improvement of my photography. So I didn't upgrade until 2003, when I bought a used OM-3. There was no change in image quality from the OM-1 to the OM-3, but metering was better and the OM-1 was broken.
Since I converted to digital 12 years ago, I've had Fuji S3 and S5, Nikon D80, D300, D2Xs, D700 and D810, Olympus E-1 and E-M1, and Panasonic L1, GH1, GH2, GH3, GM5 and GX8. Technical image quality and feature set have improved more or less for each model. But if my Fuji bodies were good enough 10 years ago, why aren't they good enough anymore? I see to my horror that my favourite activity has turned into consumerism of the worst kind. That never was the aim of my photography, and it's scary that this happens in spite of me being well beyond my teens. I've always believed that people slow down as they are getting older. Apparently we aren't.
After I converted to digital, I've owned a Contax RX and a Nikon F6, both of them great cameras and both of them with better ergonomics than any digital camera that I have used. The Contax unfortunately won't power on anymore, but the F6 works like a charm. I also have a new-in-box Nikon F80 that I paid less than $100 for. The Nikon bodies will probably be good for many years, and no upgrade will improve on their image quality. I also have all my Olympus gear still.
After the dawn of digital photography, several new film types have entered the market. In addition, older films are being upgraded and renewed. A good example is Kodak Portra that was launched as late as 1998, and upgraded in 2006, 2010 and 2011. After having tried Portra 400 for the first time, and had it processed at a good lab, I've started wondering why I mainly use digital cameras. For some kinds of photography, digital vastly superior, particularly when a large number of exposures are needed or high ISO is unavoidable. But I rarely need a large number of exposures, and even when shooting night scenes, I'm mostly comfortable with ISO 800. That's what large aperture lenses are for.
With film, the latest sensor technology is included with every purchase.
So I've ordered more film and will, at least for a while, shoot digital only when it's needed for practical reasons. Will it be more expensive to mostly shoot film? Possibly, but I'm not sure. If it is, that's a luxury that I'm willing to pay for. Just having to wait a few days or a week for my photos will make it worthwhile.
One more thing: I keep hearing that digital photography is good because it makes things simpler. To start with, I don't need simpler, I need to develop my skills. Secondly, as cameras get increasingly advanced, they get more complicated and more difficult to utilize fully. Even the very advanced F6 is kid's play compared to most amateur digital cameras. I don't want to spend time figuring out how my camera works. I want to spend time taking photos and again: to improve my skills.