The DigitalRev team is back, this time as the AnalogRev team as they do some comparisons to see if using an old film SLR is a cheap alternative to using a full frame DSLR. Kai, Alamby, and Lok discuss the costs, quality, and functionality of their three film cameras, the Nikon F65, Canon A2E, and Minolta Maxim 7000:
While you can’t deny that these camera were obvious inspirations for later models, it’s hard to say that the film cameras are better than their digital counterparts. It’s an unfair comparison really. Two of the cameras the Rev team uses are from the 80’s, while the newest one is still over 10 years old. The digital cameras have much better functionality and flexibility because they have decades of innovations and research behind them.
The quality, on the other hand, is debatable. It really depends on what kind of photography you’re doing. Film produces a kind of quality that digital cannot match and vice versa. They are simply different. For my personal work, I typically shoot film. But for professional portraits and events, I shoot digital.
I feel I should also point out that this “test” by the AnalogRev team seems biased in the fact that they are using cheap film cameras. They set up a test to judge the quality and functionality of film SLRs vs DSLRs, but it’s based on price(with film included.) Since they’re comparing the film camera against a nice $2,000 DSLR, perhaps they should have used an equivalent $2,000 film camera or one that can actually compete with the quality of a new DSLR.
Even though Kai admits that most people will choose digital over film, he gives the film cameras credit for being quirky and fun to use, and says that they have everything that you really need.
Like This Article?
Don't Miss The Next One!
Join over 100,000 photographers of all experience levels who receive our free photography tips and articles to stay current: