Does 35mm have to be film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Annika1980 Guest

    It must really piss you off that this group still exists despite your
    long history of trying to kill it.
    Annika1980, Oct 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. No, it doesn't. The only reason full-frame digital cameras have a sensor
    that's the same dimensions as the image gate on a 35mm camera (24mm x
    36mm nominal) is so the lenses designed for a manufacturer's 35mm film
    cameras will also work on their full-frame digitals, too, without
    vignetting the image. That way, someone who already has invested a lot
    in lenses with their 35mm film cameras only has to buy a digital body to
    go digital, and doesn't obsolete all those lenses by doing so.

    There are some digital users who post here that claim that since digital
    SLRs are built using 35mm film SLR bodies that that qualifies the DSLR
    for posting in r.p.e.35mm. Rubbish. That's like saying my totally
    enclosed 4x4 is a pickup truck simply because the manufacturer used the
    frame and axles from their 4-wheel drive pickup as the foundation for
    another type of vehicle. Other "rationalizations" justifying posting
    digital queries in this group are equally inane.

    In reality, r.p.e.35mm was created about 25 years ago when digital still
    cameras were more "proof of concept" than anything really usable. (There
    were no digital camera groups at that time.) This group was and still is
    for ANY still camera that used 35mm film, hence the name, and that
    included SLRs, of course, but also rangefinders, viewfinders, half-frames
    and panorama-cameras like the 35mm Widelux. (There was a 120 film
    Widelux, too, but posts for it went in the medium-format group.) They all
    qualified since they all used 35mm film. Digitals, SLR or otherwise,
    don't use 35mm film, so they don't qualify, but I doubt that will make
    any difference to the digital users who post here. (It's like trying to
    convince a 5 year old that Santa Claus doesn't exist.) Why they do or
    must post here is beyond reason when there are 4 or 5 groups specifically
    chartered for digital photography. Guess they like the exclusiveness of
    having their own private swimming hole away from the common folk.

    Some profess that by posting digital stuff in r.p.e.35mm it is reviving a
    dying group as if there isn't enough spam here already. Well, there are
    hundreds, maybe, thousands of Usenet groups that are "dead." If
    r.p.e.35mm is to die, let it die. Sometimes--most times--extinction is a
    natural consequence of progress. How long has it been since you've heard
    of 110? Or 126? Or Super-8?
    Don't be concern. So many cans have already been opened and dumped on
    the floor here no one will notice one more. ;-)

    Stefan Patric, Oct 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    I got the strong impression that digital slr users started posting in SLR as this was the natural habitat of SLR users
    in general. was chiefly concerned with point
    and shoot digital cameras, software and printers. Something that did not
    align well with the typical DSLR users posts.  So although digital SLRs
    are obviously digital the interests of the posters were better served by
    rpe35mm, especially as the 'early adopters' for digital SLR's were the more
    active 35mm film slr users - i.e. the same people. and various others was created after this
    precedent had become set, or entrenched.

    I wonder how many of the film 35mm SLR users would get fed up if 80% of the
    posts were about disposable cameras and which was the cheapest 1 hour
    processing place to do a free film?

    Too late now I would think for a new newsgroup, but it would have beeen
    perhaps sensible to have for SLR's in general and
    have something equivalent to for the film
    specific stuff and for the people who use

    Peter Chant, Oct 20, 2008
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I think a more appropriate analogy is that a modern pickup truck is still a
    pickup truck even though it has an MP3 player installed instead of a
    cassette. What do you think?

    No, I'd say that exagerating the degree of discrepancy is inane.
    Funny, some of these guys seem a bit more mature than a 5 year old?
    Are you, yourself, not ignoring the 4 other groups that cater to 35mm?
    So, Steff, by your logic, a $10 disposable 35mm film camera is more
    deserving of discussion here than something like the Nikon D3 or the Canon
    Mark whatevers?

    I think that the exclusion of the word film in the group's charter has
    already been beat to death and should pretty much be one of those
    self-evident truths that should have killed this debate ages ago, so I won't
    go down that time-worn trail. I'll simply ask you this:

    Why is extinction more desirable than evolution?

    I can understand why people aren't that concerned about 35mm film so posts
    trail off and the group dies. But, why would someone argue that extinction
    by non-use is preferable to the natural evolution of a group as it
    progresses from film to digital? Is it that some die-hard film users know
    that their medium is dead, and there is nothing left to say which hasn't
    already been said. Still, there is this new brand of photography which is
    similar, and which offers possibilities never imagined with its predecessor.
    I guess that if I felt like that, I might want to take a bit of the bloom
    off of the new threads. But I don't think so.

    It's much more fulfilling to pick up a cheap digital and join the

    Take Care,
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
  5. Hey, what about those of us who use 35mm rangefinders only? BTW, what's
    an SLR?

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    We may be talking at crossed-purposes.. I just repeated my search at
    Giganews for "" (note - NO "-systems" on the end,
    as per David's claim) and got no result.

    David continually suggests we go to this "" group,
    *not* "rec...slr-systems". As far as I can see, the ..slr one did get
    to the creation stage, but never quite made it into being a 'real' group
    (however that is defined).

    So it's really just a quibble about David's continual quoting of the
    wrong group name - this has been brought to his attention before but he
    keeps repeating his recommendation to use a group that afaics doesn't
    exist on any major usenet provider.
    Mark Thomas, Oct 21, 2008
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    You're fine, Harry. You got a direct mention in the charter. So post on...
    Damn good question. I understand it was a brief sojourn by (mainly
    35mm) camera manufacturers as they progressed from a hideously complex
    and bulky viewfinder/prism/groundglass/mirror/shutter/film design, to
    one where a simple sensor records the image electronically, and where
    that sensor provides a realtime high-definition view on either a screen
    or viewfinder. As we know, this latter, simpler design had some initial
    problems (mainly to do with speed of AF and quality of viewfinder
    image), but by 2010 of course those problems were effectively solved
    (ref. "µ4/3") and therefore the need for an 'SLR' was removed.


    BTW, what's an HFL? ....
    Mark Thomas, Oct 21, 2008
  8. Dudley Hanks

    jimkramer Guest

    I don't know, but a 35mm rangefinder sounds like a poorman's golfing aid.

    Have you done enough testing of Kodak and Ilford's chromogenic C-41 films to
    say which you like best yet?

    jimkramer, Oct 21, 2008
  9. I'm leaning toward the Ilford, but I have a roll of Kodak in the camera
    now for further testing. It's kinda hard to decide because of the many
    variables such as exposure latitude, quality of scans, tonal range, etc.
    Unlike digital, where one can fire off a thousand shots and do
    statistically significant comparisons of a collection of variables, film
    is much more limited. (I know, I know, you'll say that film has many
    other limitations as well.) But I plod on.

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  10. An HFL, in the opinion of some, is one of a class of individuals who
    cling, stubbornly, to the past, i.e., a Luddite. But it now appears
    from your flash forward projection that 2010 will be the time for

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    (bigger grin)

    Sigh. I wish we had more HFL's...

    And to make you feel a little better, while I may not be into exotica
    such as your good self... I *have* kept my YashicaMat 124G. And one day
    I shall take another photo with it!
    Mark Thomas, Oct 21, 2008
  12. Dudley Hanks

    jimkramer Guest

    Actually I place more value on my film shots as they will cost me more in
    terms of money, time, and effort to see results so I want each one to count.
    ( Not always the case :-( ) My biggest problem with film is my impatience;
    I am I child of the digital revolution and I want my results now. Faster!
    Faster! :)
    jimkramer, Oct 21, 2008
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    Yes, on the whole it actually matters little. How the images are recorded.
    I would not worry about it. I suspect that it and the arguments were
    inevitable with or without you. In a few years the majority will post to
    one or the other. If the majority post here then perhaps film will move
    off to a new group. I'm not being faceious.

    I've largely stayed away from rpe35mm for a while. A number of reasons.
    I've not gone digital, I instead went MF by getting a TLR. But whilst I
    enjoy taking pictures I'm building up a large backlog of scanning, my
    darkroom skills are poor and frankly I do other things as well - I don't
    have the time to learn those and do the other things I want to do.
    Scanning is time consuming.

    The shoot in intreagues me. But for such a casual film shooter as myself,
    who can't without reasonable effort get a quick turn-around on film
    processing, I can't keep up.

    On another front it all got too silly in here. Keeping personality issues
    aside, does it really matter who uses what make? I suspect that I could
    use an old Cosina plastic body and lens and if I did not shout about it no
    one would be any the wiser. Perhaps it would not be as good as someones
    pet equipment but I suspect its 80/20, you pay 80% of the price for that
    small difference.

    Re-going digital. I've not really made my mind up. Do I get a SLR or high
    end P&S? Lugging SLR is not much fun at social events and when a camera is
    a "nice to have" but not that important. (ie it gets in the way). OTOH
    I've got a number of nice film cameras that I like using for various
    reasons. It's just the scanning that gets me.


    Peter Chant, Oct 21, 2008
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    Harry Lockwood wrote:

    Hey, you take my Yashica Electro GS from my cold dead hands...

    Perhaps a little "low end" than you are thinking but I find it rather
    Peter Chant, Oct 21, 2008
  15. And don't forget to fire the shutter a few times, once a month or so.

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  16. To use film is to practice self mortification.

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  17. I've been there and done that. Now I take the C41 to a local shop and
    get a CD of jpegs plus the film strip ready for scanning the next day.

    Harry Lockwood, Oct 21, 2008
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    | On 10/19/2008 6:25 PM Dudley Hanks spake thus:
    |> Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go elsewhere.
    |> I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for this group, or
    |> does it have to be film?
    |> Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious... :)
    | Already open, don't worry.
    | No, digital stuff does *not* qualify for this group, for the simple
    | reason that there already exist other newsgroups specifically set up for
    | digital cameras (for instance, for posts about
    | DSLRs, which are the lion's share of digital posts here).
    | Please use r.p.d.slr for its intended purpose. (There are other
    | groups as well.)

    I read the charter and it is NOT specific to film. It doesn't say "film".
    It doesn't say "digital", either.

    If the argument that there exists a specifically digital group means that
    any "all digital" (that is, the topic is applicable to digital only and is
    not relevant to film) discussion goes over there, then the same argument
    can be used to say that any "all film" (that is, the topic is applicable
    to film only and is not relevant to digital) discussion goes into the film
    group. This argument makes sense. But it shouldn't be used one sided.

    There is overlap. There is film that is 35mm and film that is not. There
    is digital that is 35mm and there is digital that is not. 35mm covers both
    digital and film. So does medium format. SLR covers digital and film. SLR
    covers 35mm and medium format.

    If a topic is specific to 35mm or 35mm based equipment, etc, then it seems
    appropriate based on the group name for it to be HERE. The charter does not
    appear to contradict that. That would mean a discussion that is, or could be,
    applicable to both film and digital.

    OTOH, if the topic is specifically digital in nature, it clearly belongs in
    the digital group. Likewise, if it is specifically film in nature, it clearly
    belongs in the film group.

    Digital seems to be so popular, especially among those that need to ask a
    lot of questions, that this issue doesn't really come up much with film.

    I'm sure there will be fuzzy areas that will trigger disagreement, such as
    things that some people see as specific to one thing while others see it as
    at least minimally useable for others.

    A question like "what 35mm system should I buy that lets me do both digital
    and film" sure seems like it belongs here, even though some aspects of some
    info responding it it could very well be specific to digital or film.
    Guest, Oct 21, 2008
  19. Dudley Hanks

    jimkramer Guest

    mor·ti·fi·ca·tion /?m?rt?f?'ke???n/ [mawr-tuh-fi-key-shuhn]
    –noun 1. a feeling of humiliation or shame, as through some injury to one's
    pride or self-respect.
    2. a cause or source of such humiliation or shame.
    3. the practice of asceticism by penitential discipline to overcome
    desire for sin and to strengthen the will.
    4. Pathology. the death of one part of the body while the rest is
    alive; gangrene; necrosis.

    I don't see how def. 1 or 2 applies. I'm not much in to def 3 - Gott weiss
    ich will kein Engel sein. And as for 4 eeeeeww! Don't stand out in the cold
    so much?


    jimkramer, Oct 21, 2008
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    I'm a bit "lower end" compared to you. Mamiya C330f and Epson 4990. Still
    gets nice results, perhaps not the best the film can do but nice. How do
    you find the square format? I quite like it and generally
    compose "square", I generally don't intend to crop later.

    I'll have to plan ahead. Not so sure about borrowing the P&S. I've only
    ever used old ones and they are slow and the menu systems are klunky. For
    example exposure compensation either involves one knob or a meter and
    adding or subtracting a stop. Not buried sub menus.

    Well, see your point. I've not got a massive investment in financial terms
    in 35mm lenses, I have a fair few but most are second hand and cheap.
    However, I have 24mm to 500mm (mirror) lenses in various shapes and sizes,
    that is a fair bit of flexibility to throw away if I jumped ship.
    Well, at least it did not crash and burn like the Epson software on my
    Well, trouble is, with film did not feel locked into any specific upgrade
    cycle. You buy a decent camera and it lasts years, or indeed a cheap one.
    A 10 year old expensive nice film camera is still a nice camera after 10
    years. With digital its more like computer equipment. It might work just
    the same but it would be a bit galling to find it does not play well with
    newer computers, it is clunky compared to something a third of the price.
    Next years model is always better and cheaper...

    I know a lot of the above is perceptual not real, but those are the very
    reasons for buying shiny toys in the first place.
    Well, a bit more than I'd pay for a camera, but you do a lot more than me.
    Looks nice.
    I'm wondering how long it will be before we see e-ink (e-paper?) photo
    frames in those sizes. Only a matter of time. It would be nice to say
    have four up in the room and change the images daily depending on mood.
    Like getting pictures printed and framed but it is an expensive game if you
    don't get it quite right. I think if I put just a few more up it will
    start looking like I have too many and I only have a couple per room.

    Only done one, but photobooks are nice.

    Peter Chant, Oct 21, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.