I'm switching back to film. Who's with me?

Posted by teofilrocks on April 3, 2012 04:44 pm 73

It's been a while since I sold the last of my film cameras and shot only digital. Recently, though, I had a change of heart and decided to return to the format where I started. Here's why:

For one, I'm tired of being caught up in the upgrade cycle mentality. I don't need 33 megapixels, but I want it. I also found myself spending more time staring at the back of my DSLR reviewing photos then actually looking throughout the viewfinder and taking them. Where had my instincts gone for exposure and composition? I've got fast, accurate autofocusing lenses so I don't have to worry about being out of focus — yet here I am reviewing these shots for focus.

Finally, I really missed shooting full-frame. To do so digitally costs quite a bit, even though prices have come down. A used Canon 5D still costs about $1,000 and a Nikon D700 costs about $1,700. So, after some consideration, number crunching, and looking at some great film photography, I made the switch. I'm selling my Nikon DSLR setup (worth about $1,200±) and bought an awesome used Nikon F100 body, 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and 20mm f/2.8 AF-D lenses, and pro-packs of Kodak Porta 400 and Fuji Pro 400H film — all for just over $600. Now I get real ultra-wide angle shots for much less than digital and the 50 covered my other bases.

I can say it's much less money for three reasons: 1) I don't a shoot a crazy amount of photos in general. 2) Film makes you slow down and not waste shots on mediocre frames, so my 'hit count' is much higher. 3) I still have my dedicated film scanner from years ago. Plus, should full-frame digital bodies continue to go down in price, I could eventually buy one and still keep using my film lenses.

This has been my revelation. Yes, it goes counter to what many may think logical, but it makes perfect sense to me. Anyone else have a similar experience?