Back to Film [was Re: [Leica] Nocti-luck]

[r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard S. Taylor)]

Sonny - Thanks for letting me know what you had in mind in setting up 
the fire-truck shot.

In talking about going back to film you said:

(snip)

>One of  the reasons
>I am going back to film is that the camera will shoot when I want it  to, 
>not
>after it calculates all the stuff in the histogram, minus the phase of  the
>moon.
>

My Digilux 2 spends most of its time in the bag now for just this 
reason.  I got really tired of trying to figure out ways to work 
around the delays.  Having to deal with the noise at high ISO, was 
another big issue.

There's another reason to stay with film, too - at least for me.  The 
digital camera market is still far too unstable to allow reasonable 
buying decisions to be made.  We're still in the Wild West of camera 
development.

A couple of months ago I was almost ready to plunk down real money 
for either a *istDS (when I was feeling frugal) or a Canon 20D (when 
I felt richer).  Just as I was ready to make a decision, up comes the 
preliminary announcement of first the *istDL, then the Canon 5D. 
"Uh, oh," I say to myself, "better wait."

Further, the value of used digital cameras is pretty low and at least 
one camera store here in the Boston area won't even take them in 
trade.  I all ready have too much invested in obsolete technology 
with the Digilux 2.  The last thing I want to do now is spend 
big-bucks on a camera that will be behind the state of the art in 18 
months.

The combination of film and commercial scans provides, to my mind 
anyway, the best of both worlds, with inherent archival storage 
thrown in, too boot.

Besides, using film will let me put some miles on my still pretty 
much brand new M7 that was otherwise languishing in the closet.  The 
delay between shooting and seeing the result is something I can live 
with.

I've even put my Olympus Stylus Epic back to work.


-- 
Regards,

Dick
Boston MA