You forgot a fourth group ;
People who use both film and digital to get whatever results they want from them at the time ( regardless of format size ) .

And where do the pinhole photographers fit in ?

 

Horses for courses.

I shot the occasional wedding on film and enjoy film "as a hobby"

To me the best thing that happened to photography was digital, in fact I have just ordered a NEW Digital TLR

 

I think this thread plus last week's AP might get encourage me to get film camera out and buy some FP4.

I've never loaded 120 film on a spiral. Any hints? 35 mm is OK once you've cut the leader, provided you don't drop the film, but not sure what you cope with the backing paper. I chucked my paterson tank and reels but I've got my grand-father's stainless steel tank and reel somewhere. I guess you have to push the film in, rather than rely on ratcheting it as you do with the nylon spool with it's bearing grips.

 

YES get THIS and don't use Patterson

The guides are MANY times larger than the Patterson guides they are a dream

Buy the largest dark bag you can find

Stainless steel is a real pain loading centre out with large film, bents too easily, when in the changing bag, take film off spiral removing backing as you go, then tear off taped end, like masking tape, don't remove it all as it will crease the film, now roll the film back the other way so the non sellotaped end goes on first.

Believe me it is easy NOT with a CL stainless spiral

CLEAN the spiral fully, after every use, teaspoon of bleach in the tank filled with water, then was it, dry completely just before use also as humidity will make the film stick

 

I did say MAIN groups...

Well, you can spend quite a lot on pinholes for digital cameras. Combined with extension tubes, you can even change the focal length...

I had a Patterson Universal tank years ago. Loading 120 wasn't that difficult, it's just held on to the backing paper with a a couple of pieces of tape. And the ratchet mechanism worked fine, from what I remember.

 

I agree. I've found that if I make sure the reels are completely dry they're much easier to load than stainless steel or other plastic types. Storing them in an airing cupboard keeps them ready for use.

 

For loading 120 I use the reels that Stephen shows .
So much easier than the Patterson reels .
With the large flaps it's really easy to place the film on it , slide it into the groves and rock it the same as loading 135 .
The paper just drops off the roll as your loading the film on the side of the feel facing you going up and over the feel , with the emulsion side facing you .
I don't use that type of reel for 135 as unless you split the reel it's a PITA to get the film off .
So I have two sets off reels , one lot for 135 and about 6 or so if these for 120 .

I've never used steel reels .

 

I would have thought that most people that shoot film also use digital cameras too .
That would put them in the majority type of film shooter .
Hipsters ?
Do they count as film photographers ?
Have any of them got film loaded in their shiny cameras draped over their shoulders ?
LOMO ?
Hmmmm O.K , nuff said !
I did look on the Lomography website to buy film once but couldn't make out if the film for sale was "defective" , it's "style" or if the sample photos were just crap .
Needless to say , I didn't part with any money .

It amazes me how expensive something with an hole in can be !
You try sell a bucket with a hole in , no-one wants it at any price !

 

There is a very real technical benefit to having a larger sensor, at any given resolution, and that is noise. The bigger the photo sites the lower the noise, apparently. Additionally, for a given size of photo site, a larger sensor can have a higher resolution. That former may not be of any practical concern is, to many, irrelevant. The latter is of some practical relevance but given that most people are happy with around 24MP* it probably makes no difference, obviously if you want 45MP that isn't going to be a MFT or APS C sensor, yet.

My main problem with smaller sensors is that the cameras rapidly become too small for me to hold comfortably. The Olympus OM D EM1X is about the right size, about the same as my Nikon D4, but the cost/benefit comes down in favour of the Nikon, because I already have the lenses.

For the vast majority of people, especially those without any "baggage" from the days of film, the physical size of the camera is likely to matter more than sensor size.

*As far as I could determine the largest MFT sensor available in a camera is 20MP

 

Yes, the key to the Patterson reel is that it has to be dry when loading it.

 

True, but the difference is less than it used to be.

Agreed. But then in film days I used a Pentax MX, which feels tiny compared with modern DSLRs, even though I have smaller than average hands. What gets me is the fact that even tiny cameras that really need an add-on grip (my X-T100 for example), feel so much heavier. But maybe that's what my GP calls 'an age related problem'.

Yeah, probably.

 

On top of which: noise, grain or other "defects" are irrelevant to most viewers if the image is sufficiently interesting.

 

Ok thank you both, I need to get new tank and reels to save some grief.

 

I used an OM1 from 1978 until 1990 but I very rapidly discovered that it was much better with an Autowinder and I later added motordrives, I don't think I ever used my OM4s without.

 

To a point, beyond that it rather depends on the nature of the defect but yes, with the right image defects are irrelevant.

 

The handling of noise seems to have improved immeasurably. The pixel density of a 20 MP MFT camera is enormous. My 5Ds and my Fuji X-H1 have similar pixel densities. I haven't compared the noise because I rarely use high ISO but they are both very clean.

I too like big cameras - though I seem to be the only person in the world who likes the X-H1 (with grip, naturally).

 

The Fuji X-H1 with grip isn't that much smaller than the D4 so the same cost/benefit comes down on the D4 for the same reason.
The camera that I find strange is the Fuji GFX 100 which is pretty much the same size as the D4 but with the ergonomics of a brick, shame because it obviously has a lot to offer, if you can get a mortgage to buy one.

 

I'm still toying with the idea of picking up a film camera, I posted about it ages ago. I was thinking about 35mm, but I think in the thread someone suggested a medium format instead to make it less like just shooting an old DSLR.

I probably won't do anything about it (photography mojo at an absolute all time low), but I'm keeping my eye on ebay just in case.

 

My daughter has a couple of film cameras (I think the novelty wore off after A levels). I am waiting for my brother to give me my dad's old camera which he doesn't use. All I know it is a Balda. Other than knowing it was 35mm and had a brown leather case, I have no idea which model it is. I would quite like to run a film through it, but TBH I reckon I won't!

 

I still have my film cameras, 2 x F5 and an F90, one F5 had a roll of XP5 through it a few years back but it seemed very slow after a D3.