Does Anybody Use Film Cameras Anymore?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Not a question that matters to a bird in flight photographer, if i take a burst of 10 the bird may be sharp in all 10, only one or two could have the bird in a position i like, to try and get that in one or two shots would not work for most BIF photographers,i keep far more than i PP, i print none, 200 taken could equate to between 50-100 i could keep,10-50 i do keep.
As the taken image costs nothing i see no point in limiting them.
I never used much bulk film as i tended to shoot Kodachrome 25 or Ektachrome, the latter i processed myself.
My first 35mm was a Minolta XG-M which was a manual focus body. And back at that time (before AF cameras came along), pro photographers had to focus manually on flying birds. I never tried birds back then but do remember working on panning (slow shutter speed) taking fast moving boat images on the river. Just panning from left to right while trying to maintain the focus was difficult. I can't fathom how difficult it would be to focus on a bird that flies erratically (front to back and/or side to side). But I imagine many pro photographers had the money to lose a few shots when shooting film. 
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
My first 35mm was a Minolta XG-M which was a manual focus body. And back at that time (before AF cameras came along), pro photographers had to focus manually on flying birds. I never tried birds back then but do remember working on panning (slow shutter speed) taking fast moving boat images on the river. Just panning from left to right while trying to maintain the focus was difficult. I can't fathom how difficult it would be to focus on a bird that flies erratically (front to back and/or side to side). But I imagine many pro photographers had the money to lose a few shots when shooting film.
Yes, back in the old film days with manual focus cameras and hand held light meters, one really had to study, spend lots of money on film and processing, and work hard to get great photos. Now, with the latest cameras with auto everything, almost anyone can get some pretty good pictures. In some ways, the old challenge is gone. Heck, people with almost no photography skills and their cell phones, luck out and produce some pretty nice photos. They have no need to spend lots of money and time on expensive camera gear and learning to get the occasional great shot. I am sure the old time photographers like Ansel Adams, are spinning in their graves. But the world goes on
I agree, Brent. However, since I learned the old-fashioned way, I still apply a great deal of the info I learned. There are times when I simply walk away from a scene that I know won't amount to much. Guess I'd rather not wrack up the shutter actuations for images that just won't cut it. It costs money to replace a worn-out shutter. :beguiled: That's like wasting film....
What are you shooting that much of?
Birds can be a difficult subject take one shot and they have closed eyes so even a stationery bird IMO needs 2 or 3 , birds in flight could be a burst of 10 shots as they go by, i run my camera at 5 FPS, its like sports photography and possibly other action shots, why risk missing the vital moment because of outdated thinking on how many shots you should take.
Even the lightweight Z50 i now find gets heavy holding it on a subject and 3 or 4 shot burst gives me more chance of getting a sharp one.
Gotcha. Yea, birding/ wildlife will likely yield a high rate of images and perhaps not the best for dabbling in film
I shoot film for street photography and casual events in my life.