DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2008-11-17, Christopher Tidy wrote:

Ignoramus5437 wrote:


I have a interesting project for this winter. I'll post some pictures at
r.c.m for people to see, but it will probably have to wait a few weeks.
I've gone back to using a film camera for most things as I got annoyed
with digital cameras breaking, losing my pictures and their batteries
going flat.


I would say, buy a better digital camera.

A better digital camera will mean that those things don't happen so
soon, but they'll still happen in a relevant period of time. You'd be
lucky if a good digital camera lasted you more than 5 years. But pick
the right film camera and it'll last you a lifetime.


Hmm ... my Nikon D70 is probably around 5 years now, and it is
still working fine. And -- it uses lenses from the earlier film Nikon
cameras.

In my mind the 5 year figure was referring to compact digital cameras,
as opposed to digital SLRs. With a good digital SLR you may do better.

But any digital camera suffers from the problem that it is usually
impossible to repair and refurbish faulty parts, so when the supply of
spare parts dries up, you can no longer fix the camera. And the
repairman's task is not helped by the fact that a digital camera is so
complex that a single person cannot be familiar with the detail of how
each part functions.

It's a personal thing. I like the idea that I've got a camera that I can
always get fixed.


Perhaps -- though the number of people capable of working on
them is slowly reducing.

I know of two good repairers at present, and they weren't too difficult
to find. But I think it's easier to find repairers who specialise in the
higher quality film cameras.

Also, I find that because film isn't free, the quality
of the pictures I get is actually better.


Note that film is becoming less available and more expensive as
time goes on -- along with photographic paper. The reason is the silver
in the emulsion plus the reduction in the number of users over time.

Personally, I pay less for film today than I did 5 years ago, and the
film itself is better. Online shopping means that I can get better deals
on film than I could in the past. But I don't use the most unusual types
of film, and I have heard that some of those are being discontinued.

I get the film scanned by the laboratory, as the results are far better
than I could get scanning at home. Today's scanners are far superior to
the scanners of just a few years ago. Here's an example of a picture I
was particularly pleased with:
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/~cdt22/north_bridge.jpg

That's Edinburgh, Scotland.

Even back in my film days I probably shot a lot more exposures
in a given day than you do. (Typically three 36-exposure rolls between
two cameras in a given weekend day.)

It depends on whether you mean a typical day or a very productive day.
Once or twice I've been known to shoot 5 rolls in a day. But on average,
three rolls per month is more typical.

Best wishes,

Chris