Toolbox: a Faithful Friend

By Malcolm Street

Pssst... want to know a little secret? Don’t tell anyone but now is the best time to buy a really good film camera. Why? It’s quite simple: in the current craze for high-tech digital cameras, good film cameras are cheap as chips!

Is this Luddite thinking, I hear you ask? Surely all professionals use digital, and isn’t that the way to go – think of all the money you save on film and processing?

Some of that is true, but let’s check some of the facts; I will be looking mostly from the viewpoint of a keen amateur who uses a single lens reflex (SLR) camera with a good selection of lenses. This camera can be obtained, new, for about $600 and that includes a decent zoom lens.

There are many advantages to having a digital camera – no film to worry about; no waiting to see if your pics have turned out the way you want; the relative ease by which digital pics can be emailed to friends and relatives and the fact that you can alter your images later on the computer. For many professionals, especially those who work for a newspaper or magazine, digital photography is a necessity.

However, for those who do not have to work with tight deadlines and either just want family snapshots or simply like photography as a hobby, is digital essential? I think not!

Pros and cons
The setup costs of a digital camera can be high, depending on the equipment you already have and, generally speaking, photo quality is poorer when compared to film cameras of the same price.

Late last year, I decided the time was probably right to move to a digital camera. Because I work commercially, I needed a quality SLR and I wanted a camera body that I was familiar with and that matched my existing Canon equipment.

A problem I faced was the fact that most affordable digital SLRs have image sensors that produce pictures which are physically smaller than 35mm film. There are two types of sensors; charge coupled device (CCD) used in most mid-range cameras and complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) used in professional, high-end models. 

Without getting too technical, this translates into a focal length multiplication factor of something like 1.6 times. My 20-35mm wide angle lens, – excellent for shooting in confined spaces of caravans and motorhomes, suddenly becomes a 32-56mm lens – much less effective in tight areas.

Of course, I could have splashed out on a Canon EOS 1D, which has a CMOS sensor which produces the same size image as 35mm film; my only holdup was the circa $12,000 cost for the body alone!

Luckily, Canon brought out a 10-22mm lens (16-33mm film scale) which was considerably cheaper and matched up well with its EOS 20D camera. I then needed a new flash to cope
with the wide angle, otherwise I would have ended up with a vignette effect.

A lack of wide angle is not the only problem with CCD size. Picture quality suffers, too. While digital SLRs have a CCD size of about 23.7mm x 15.6mm (35mm film frame is 36mm x 24mm), compact digital camera CCD size is about 10mm x 67mm.

This means that the smaller the CCD, the poorer the image quality. It might be just okay for a 6in x 4in print, but any size above will lack clarity.

That same CCD size also affects control of depth of field, that is, what is in focus in a photo. There’s no difficulty for the average family pic, but the more serious photographer will have a problem. Resolution, that is, visual information captured by 100 ISO film, is considerably more than the most expensive digital compact or 35mm digital SLR, and transparency film like Kodachrome 64 leaves digital in the dust.

Two other non-photographic factors also come into play when considering the merits of digital and film cameras. The first is battery life: digital cameras are quite heavy and use up a lot
of it – much more than film cameras – therefore spare batteries and battery chargers are not optional extras!

The second is storage of photographic files. Digital pics can use up vast amounts of computer disc and CD-R space and in order to preserve images for the future, it’s important to ensure that back-up and record systems are firmly in place.

With prints, if you don’t happen to get them into the family album – even if they are kept in a shoebox with ‘Trip around Oz 2004’ on the print wallet – a physical search will eventually find the pic you remember.

However, looking for image F1030001.JPG (assuming you can remember the number) in your computer files will be so much harder.

I suspect that is one of the differences between a digital and film photographer.

With digital photography you are going to be spending more time in front of your computer – downloading camera files and digitally manipulating images or carefully planning filing systems.

Since I spend too much time in front of a computer now, I’d much rather be out there taking photos and letting my local film lab handle the processing. If I want one, they’ll give me a digital record of my images on a disc as well.

And since I like to indulge in black and white photography, there’s nothing like spending an hour or two playing with an enlarger, dabbling in photographic trays and watching the images appear before my eyes.

I have no doubt there is room for both a film and a digital camera in your camera bag – I can’t claim anything else, since I own both. It’s a mistake to think a digital is a ‘must-have’ and to throw away your trusty film camera.

There are some affordable, quality film cameras available, and the price difference compared to a similar digital camera will buy plenty of rolls of film.