Tim Sewell

The thing is, by shooting on film I don't need to be 'extremely skilled' or spend any time at all to get the look I want. Plus I get all the fun of developing my own films, with the artisinal satisfaction that it gives me. I wouldn't use film for most paid jobs, I hasten to add - my cameras are old and cheap and I wouldn't want to rely on them if I absolutely have to get the shot. But for personal work I'm finding that 7 times out of 10 I'm plumping for analogue. And, as Mattias says, and as I mentioned previously WRT one of his images - there's a particular quality, especially to out-of-focus areas, that film gives that I have never, ever, seen fully mimicked digitally. I've seen lots of digital files that look like analogue, but I've got lots of analogue images that could be nothing else.

Depends on the film stock. Some films I've been using recently would be quite hard to replicate digitally.

I see your point, but that just isn't how most people buy cameras (ebay, shopping around etc). Exactly what they want to do is to walk into a big name store and take whatever the assistant tells them is best for them. It's not (at this level) that much of a considered purchase. In fact, I'll bet the majority of cameras at this level are bought within a week of someone's holiday when they suddenly decide they ought to get a 'proper' camera. There's nothing wrong with that and it shouldn't really even be worthy of a thread on what is, in fact, a highly specialised forum. Edit: Forgot to add - it may well be that they had to switch to a plastic mount in order to keep the price the same.

You only have to go to a big box store to confirm this - around 3/4 of the TVs on display at my local Curry's (one of the main UK TV shops) are 1080P.

Why on God's green earth would they?

If Canon didn't make and sell stuff like this it's doubtful they'd have had the resources to research and develop DPAF - so that's good, right? Anyway - they make cameras for every segment - why grouse every time they bring one out that isn't for the segment represented on this forum?

Oh no, sorry, I just meant in general - not related to camera buying habits.

The rule of thumb I give my children is to always assume that at least 75% of the population are stupid.

Actually Canon are very canny, as a business, when it comes to releasing new cameras. Here's the thing - we all know that Canon have the resources and the patents to bring to market a stunningly advanced mirrorless camera. We all get frustrated because they continually fail to do so and we wonder why. Well. If Canon were to produce such a camera it would, undoubtedly, dominate the market and sell in the millions. But for how long? Canon know that they have a number of very hungry competitors snapping at their heels who are apparently willing to spend pretty much whatever it takes to build market share. Any amazing camera from Canon would only have the market to itself for what? A year? 18 months? By that time PanaFujiOnyUs would leapfrog them and the cycle of huge R&D investment would start all over again. Where is the benefit in that to Canon? They know that they can release cameras that tick a few boxes and are 'just good enough' for Mum, for Dad, for the kids on their gap year trip to Thailand and sell oodles, getting a great ROI - and they can do that year after year, model after model, because their market position is such that the vast majority of people's first 'proper' camera is always a Canon (see also white lens effect). The moral of the story is - don't waste emotional energy expecting anything ground-breaking in a Canon mass market camera. That's not their segment.

I think you'll be able to buy cameras affordably that will do that, but I don't for a moment anticipate that that will result in the demise of the true stills camera. There will still be a substantial group of people who want to take individual shots - myself among them - for the art and craft of it. I can definitely imagine frame grabs becoming much more prevalent in commercial and reportage situations though.

Fabulous! It's the out-of-focus areas, to my eye, that make analogue images so organic. I've never been able to get my digital files' to look like that.

Definitely right there. The Fuji users' forum I frequent is, in general, pretty sniffy about video. Most times, when someone comes up with a video related question, at least 25% of the responses will be 'buy a video camera'.

We've got a company here in the UK called Nik & Trick who are marketing Vision 250D in 36 exposure rolls and have perfected low-volume remjet removal and processing (using RA4 chemicals, I understand). I'm eagerly awaiting the return of my first roll of photos taken on that. They sell the Eterna movie films for stills use as well. I look upon film photography now as having a bag full of different sensors - quite intoxicating, as you say. Now I must go and replace the seals on the Canonet QL19 that arrived yesterday (£40, perfect condition) so it's ready for my monthly trip to London on Friday. Speaking of stills - your Instagram account is one of the best I follow - keep it up!

Some lovely stuff there @Rodolfo Fernandes (I just hope no-one quotes your post in full, though!)

Mattias you've put into words the same experience I've been having. For my part one of the main drivers in my moving more and more to stills shooting is time. I have 3 children and a full time job. Generally, the most I can expect is to get away on my own for maybe one afternoon a month. As Andrew says above - video is slow - especially for me as the kind of video I want to shoot can't be done handheld with a single AF lens. I need tripods, prime lenses, filters etc etc etc and I would spend so much time lugging all that stuff around, setting it up, breaking it down, that I just didn't feel able to create anything that matched whatever artistic vision I have. With stills shooting I can go out for that same afternoon and (generally) generate enough material to keep me happily editing for most of the month; especially as I can, unlike with video, also take a camera or two and a few lenses out in my messenger bag when I'm on family outings and shoot more satisfying images. I'd still love to realise the visions I have for video - who knows, maybe when the youngest reaches teenagerhood in 10 years I'll be able to devote the time to video that it requires and deserves (and be shooting on a 18 stop DR organic global shutter sensor with 14 bit 8K at 480fps, no doubt!). Until then I'll concentrate on stills, I guess (and all the fun I'm having down the analogue hole I've recently fallen into). Although I really do hope I can give my X-T2s a decent outing this summer - maybe when the wife takes the children away to the Isle of Wight?

Fuji X Photographer Jonas Rask's somewhat, er, idiosyncratic X-H1 test vid:

Heh. I'd sell everything I own for an affordable, ergonomic camera with global shutter and raw recording., especially if it had all the other features of a modern hybrid. Edit: Apart from my lenses and my Olympus OM1.

Reading the full American Cinematography article it seems that the choice to use DV was in part driven by cost and logistics, but also because Boyle and Mantle felt that the harshness of the format matched the script's darkness and brutality. So a technology choice deriving artistic benefit from an economic necessity. the impression I get from the musings on how great the London scenes would have looked on 35mm was that there is an unspoken proviso - 'but not for this movie'.

the Clerkenwell Road (or 'the hipster highway', as it's known locally) is an alternate dimension.

With you to a point. When I see a victorian-dressed bearded guy in wooden headphones riding a penny farthing in Clerkenwell, however, it's not fear that's my motivation when I snort about hipsters. I wouldn't, mind you, use the word to denigrate someone's choice of imaging technology.

I can't be bothered to get into any lengthy discussion about this, but 28 Days Later wasn't shot on those cameras because they couldn't afford to do it on 35mm. As he says, in the passages you quoted:

I can't find where he says he would have preferred to. he said he could imagine how lovely those vistas would have looked on 35mm, but that that wasn't what they were doing.

That's interesting. I was intending to get the 50/2 as my next purchase (although that's been put off for a while as I'm enjoying the 7Artisans 55/1.4 far too much to take it off the camera right now). Obviously there's a major price difference with the 56/1.2 - is it £300 better?

I have the 35mm f2, the 18mm f2 and the 18-55 f-whatever and they are all among the best modern lenses I have ever used. The 35, especially, rarely leaves one of my bodies. I also use my Samyang cines via both a straight adapter and a speedbooster clone; all work very well with the excellent X-T2 EVF (which has been considerably improved in the new cam). In addition I use a plethora of old Tamron Adaptall and OM Zuiko lenses which are all, again, extremely easy to work with. So I would say have no fears about the small, light f2 range of Fuji primes, but also know that your existing adapted lenses will fit right in to a Fuji kit. Of the Fuji zooms, Fuji forum dwellers seem to rate the 16-55 and the 50-140 most of all.

I think that people who want the image Fuji X series cameras give will overlook or work around the ergonomic shortcomings of this new camera, while those who don't will continu to happily shoot with their preferred camera. 'S all good, man.