I hate setting focus by halfway depressing the shutter release. I like gears and dials and mechanical things.
If money weren't an issue, I would shoot film nearly all the time.
The only times I wouldn't would be for shots taken solely for edification purposes: look at this thing I saw while I was out or that I'm writing about which has no aesthetic value. I wouldn't want a print of it, but I'd still want to share it by email or on my blog.
The truth is if having a digital camera rekindles my desire to shoot as the hunt alone has to some extent, then what it will rekindle is a desire to shoot film. Maybe I'll wait for a cheaper point and shoot digital camera and consider a better film camera instead, one that could share lenses with a digital SLR body down the line perhaps.
There is a photography club here at work, and some of the Real Photographers will tutor people on building skills. Mind you, I only have a point and shoot 35mm and my digital Nikon, but it makes me want to go out and buy a real-deal camera and ask for guidance. I mean, having access to National Geographic photographers who are willing to give advice? If I don't take advantage of it, I'm a fool.
ReplyDeleteMy father had a great Leica with tons of equipment, but one of my sisters mistakenly sold it at a garage sale after he died. For $25. Crap. (Unfortunately, I was overseas and couldn't stop the madness.)
That's so cool- the photo club. Some of my favorite photos are from N.G.
ReplyDeleteGet some guidance first before investing in a new camera- that way you'll know better what to look for. E.g., it's great to have a lens with depth-of-field markings on it, but they don't seem to put them on as much anymore. Faster lenses let you shoot in lower light (i.e., the lower the f-stop #, the faster the lens; faster also means more $$$ though).
As for the Leica, that's too bad, but the upside of the digital craze is that there are some much more reasonably priced film SLRs out there.