Some say film photography is better than digital. Film has a more organic, natural look. Shooting with an analogue camera is a better experience and a purer form of photography. Others say digital photography is better because computer technology makes photography easier. You can shoot more frames and focus quicker, and experiment more by shooting more without the need for a second mortgage. Buckle up, this might get ranty.
In recent articles, I mentioned I’ve gone back to film photography again. I said I believe it’s easier to understand and learn the principles of photography on an old film camera because there are no buttons, dials, or menu functions to distract and confuse you. This caused a huge debate in the comments and made some people angry. If it were the Middle Ages, I’m sure I would have ended up being burnt at the stake for sharing these opinions that are nothing short of heresy. And this is the key word—opinions. I share my opinions here, not facts, just opinions. We all have them, and clearly, we all want them known. Sadly, though, some people mistake their opinions for facts and insist they are right. That’s when the problems really kick off.
So if you’ve decided to continue reading this article, dear reader, be warned it is laced with more opinions—and some facts too. Luckily, I’ve figured out the difference and will hopefully make this clear.
Some Background
Our opinions are often formed from our experiences—at least, they certainly should be. When it comes to film photography vs. digital photography, I have 40 years of experience, starting with learning photography on a basic film camera at college.
I spent the first 20 years shooting on film—35 mm and medium format cameras, from faster black-and-white negative to slower transparency. I must have shot hundreds of thousands of film photos during that time. I started out learning on a used Nikon I picked up at the local camera store, made in the 1970s. I loved that camera, and still have it. Recently, I dusted it off and took it out to play. I made a vlog about it, which you can watch here.
By the late ’90s, I had purchased a Nikon F5—their flagship camera at the time, and one of the best modern film cameras ever made, in my opinion. I also had a Bronica ETRS for bigger client projects where photos being reproduced on large posters and store displays were required. Both of these cameras allowed me to get the photos I needed and earn a living. I also shot for fun, as photography has always been both work and play. But then it all changed—along came digital technology.
The first few years of digital cameras were of no interest to me. I had a Nikon D200, which was terrible in low light, and then a D300, which was a little better. It wasn’t until 2008 that I was really happy with the results of a digital camera for all the types of photography I was doing. That camera was the Nikon D700. I still have it and use it. It’s fabulous.
So I shot on film for 20 years and now digital for 20 years. I had no bias; a camera was always just a tool that allowed me to transfer an idea to paper, or more recently, a computer screen. Whether shooting in studios or on locations around the world, I simply chose the right tool for the job and gave it no further thought. Photography was simple; life was good.
I Started To Hate Digital Technology
Maybe hate is a strong word—maybe it’s the wrong word. Digital technology has made life so much easier for photographers. I’ve undoubtedly benefited from that. I think I have more of a love/hate relationship—a Richard Burton/Liz Taylor kind of deal.
The ability to see how a photo might turn out before you press the shutter is incredible. The ability to see a histogram to make sure you don’t clip highlights is very useful. The ability to focus track fast-moving subjects for sport and wildlife photography is a game-changer.
But it all gets a little ridiculous. Small tweaks and changes keep getting added, and yet another new camera model is created. Sometimes a newer model is not as good as previous models, and there is often no real reason to upgrade. But we’re persuaded into thinking there is. Camera models are turned around so quickly it seems the quality of manufacturing has declined too. Cameras and lenses have become plasticky and cheap-feeling, and they break easily.
Recently, I decided it was time to replace my trusty Nikon Z6. I’ve had it for eight years, and bits have been falling off from so much use and abuse. It’s my workhorse, and I love it. It does everything I need it to do for all the genres of photography I do both for work and pleasure. Having a strap lug break off means I can’t have it around my neck when I travel, and I need a camera with a neck strap.
The sensible me figured if I love the Z6 so much, then buy another Z6. They can be picked up for around $750 now, which is great value. But then the smart me thought, I do more video for clients now than I do photography. So if I get the Z6 III with its incredible new video capabilities, I would not only have a great photography camera but the perfect backup camera to my Z9 for video projects. Smart thinking, huh? It turns out it wasn’t. I got the Z6 III, and four months later, I wished I had gotten a replacement Z6.
Sure, it’s a great B cam for video, but all the new tech, from a photography point of view, is not needed—for my requirements, anyway. It’s also made the camera bigger. The fold-out flippy screen is terrible for photography compared to the Z6 screen. Little Brittney might like it for recording her makeup reel for TikTok, but little Simon finds it bloody annoying and impractical, particularly when using a camera strap. And then there’s the partially stacked sensor. It’s the same 24 MP sensor as the Z6, but those engineering techy types at Nikon bolted on a faster processor, making autofocus and processing snappier. I don’t need that, and I’m sure, with their attention aimed toward speed—because that gives the marketing boys and gals something to work with—the Z6 III’s image quality is compromised. The Z6 III’s image quality and dynamic range are no better than the Z6’s, from what I can tell.
The point is, image quality reached its pinnacle years ago, so now we’re being convinced we need faster focusing or improved video—or more silly program modes like black and white and built-in color presets called “recipes” (recipes, my arse) in case we can’t figure out how to move a few sliders in Lightroom.
Today, I’m back with the beaten-up Z6 a lot of the time, but have less money in my bank account. Yup, a little ranty there, folks.
Photography YouTube Influencers
Worse than the ever-improving technology in a digital camera are those little buggers who keep hyping it up and trying to convince us to part with our hard-earned cash and buy one, just so they can make a commission or fee from doing so. These guys call themselves professional photographers. Most of them are just professional snake oil salesmen. Maybe I need a separate article about this to say how I really feel?
We need more conversations about creativity and why we take/make photos, not about buying new gear. We need to understand a new camera is not going to make us a better photographer—practicing and experimenting is. Time is our answer, not money. We need to see more and spend less.
The Computers Are Taking Over
As much as digital cameras allow us to experiment more and potentially create incredible images, I find that because cameras are loaded with so many features, many people new to photography are overwhelmed. Too much choice can be confusing and actually block creativity. So many new photographers don’t take time to really understand photography and how a camera’s basic functions like aperture, shutter speed, and exposure control actually work—because they don’t need to. I’ve known people to buy a new camera, get frustrated at how much there is to figure out, and simply say, “Sod it, I’ll leave it in fully auto mode.” Your photography is then created by luck, not skill. That’s like trying to make a living by buying a lottery ticket every day instead of learning a skill and getting a job.
Understanding shutter speeds, apertures, and exposures was once the cost of entry into the world of photography. It got you through the door. Now there is no door—just walk on in with a camera you picked up on Amazon, with a fully charged battery. You can now blindly rely on the technology to do all the work for you. Is this a bad thing? If you want to become more than a mediocre casual photographer and make wonderful creative photographs, I think it is. But this is just my opinion.
My Relationship Today With Digital Cameras
Digital cameras have become hybrid cameras—a tool that allows you to create photos and video. These cameras undoubtedly have their uses. As someone who shoots both photos and videos for work, they are amazing. But what about those who just want to pursue a love of photography and aren’t interested in videography? Only Hasselblad and Leica make pure photography cameras. Unfortunately, these are professional tools and/or luxury items, the price of which cannot be justified for the majority of us. A few other brands are trying to create that retro photography experience, but no one has got it quite right just yet—possibly Fujifilm with their X100 series is close.
If I take my client work hat off—which I’m doing more and more these days—as a passionate photographer who has lots to say artistically and plenty of personal projects to work on, a new digital hybrid camera isn’t ticking any boxes for me or getting me excited about wanting to own one. I’m using a six-year-old cropped-sensor Nikon Z50 for hiking trips, an eight-year-old Z6 for travel and street photography, and more recently, I’ve turned to my 17-year-old Nikon D700 for many urban and landscape projects. Black-and-white photography is my biggest passion, and I bought a Leica Q2 Monochrom two years ago for that. Its simplicity allows me to use it like an old film camera. The drawback for many would be its fixed lens.
I often get asked what the best all-round digital camera is to buy, and I’ve given this a lot of thought. What would I buy? What if I didn’t need a Nikon Z9 and Z6 III for video work? Well, my old Nikon D700 is almost perfect, but it’s only 12 MP. That’s fine for most things, but I’ve found 24 MP is the sweet spot for all my needs. This means the best all-round camera I would choose is a Nikon D800 from 2012, with 36 MP. The D850 from 2017 has some improvements in quality apparently, but that’s getting into rather boring pixel-peeping territory for me. The D800 does everything I need it to. If only it were smaller and lighter. It’s hard to find the perfect camera, but this one is close. What I love about this camera is it’s an F mount, so I get to use all my lovely old Nikon lenses on it—proper lenses, not the delicate focus-by-wire plastic crap Nikon makes today. Actually, there is another more modern camera I recommend: the Nikon Z5. An absolutely fabulous 24 MP mirrorless camera. It’s an underrated bargain. The challenge is finding good lenses for it, though. The Z-mount f/4 24-70mm is a good option, but my preference is to use older manual-focus primes that are built like tanks and have some character to them. It’s good to see brands like Voigtländer make Z-mount options now. If I didn’t have vintage Nikon glass, I’d be looking at their superb range of tough metal helicoidal lenses.
Leica Doesn’t Let the Market Dictate What They Do
I can understand why Leica cameras are becoming increasingly popular. A Leica M digital camera is the nearest thing to a traditional film camera experience—actually, it’s the nearest thing to the perfect camera.
With a Leica M, you are once again forced to learn the principles of photography, and you have to actually do some work and contribute something to the process to get your photo. You don’t have a load of silly distracting buttons and dials, just things you actually need: a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, and a distance scale on the lens. You have to manually focus. Yes, there’s a little tech inside if you need it, but most photographers choosing these cameras don’t need it. Leica says this on their website: “Rangefinder cameras that deliberately don’t offer everything that’s technically possible, but rather remain limited to what’s photographically useful.” That nails my thoughts perfectly. They also state, “Photographers are empowered to capture the very essence of a moment, unburdened by technological distractions.” I often wonder if technology being added to cameras is nothing more than a pissing contest between engineering and marketing departments at the different camera companies. It’s all about them, not the photographer. My wise old granny said to me once, “Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.” She could have worked at Leica.
Yes, a Leica camera and one or two wonderful Summicron or Summilux lenses are cost-prohibitive to many of us—unless we still have a healthy liver or kidneys to sell. But in the long term, once you buy a Leica you won’t need another camera for many years—maybe never again. And think of the savings from not buying film and having it processed!
I have to wonder—why on earth isn’t Nikon or Canon playing on their heritage and making digital versions of their wonderful 1960s rangefinders? Imagine if they took the Leica approach and made a simple, high-quality rangefinder, free of plastic, that provided a simple photography experience? I’d wager they wouldn’t be able to keep up with demand.
Back To Film Photography Then?
With all I’ve said about digital technology, and how it gets in the way of photography, is it any wonder I dusted off my old simple Nikon EL2 and have started running film through it once again? I made a video about my first outing with the camera and stated how much I like the feel of holding something simple and solid. I said how much I like the tactile experience of using something mechanical, of understanding it and being in control of it, and how much the shutter noise and film advance winder sound makes me happy. Someone said in the comments, “It’s 2025. Give up on the film crap. It does not look better. Shooting film because the shutter sounds cool? Who cares what the shutter sounds like.”
Well, DA Photography from Canada, I appreciate the comment, and thanks for the great T-shirt idea. Does anyone want to buy a T-shirt that says, “It’s 2025. Give up on the film crap. It does not look better”? I might just get that made!
I do agree with DA, though, that film photos don’t look any better than a digital photo. You can achieve a film look digitally if you know what you’re doing. Using a vintage lens with character on a digital camera, over a perfect and sterile modern digital lens, can make a difference too. Film photography for me is about the experience, the nostalgia, and the way the physical process makes me feel. I’m a huge believer that gear really doesn’t matter—until we find something that we want to pick up and use, and enjoy holding. Then it matters very much.
Possibly the biggest appeal, particularly with older film cameras, is the craftsmanship that went into making the camera. Same with lenses also. I enjoy holding something that’s been skillfully made by hand, by an expert craftsman, using the finest quality components. An old camera is like owning a vintage Rolex—you can’t help but appreciate its heritage, quality, and beautiful design both inside and out.
To that end, I just purchased a 70-year-old Leica M3—a mechanical masterpiece. It’s made with brass, even the cogs are brass, and the 1956 lens I bought for it is solid brass and glass. Come on! The experience of using that is next level. I’ll do a separate article on it, if you’re interested.
My Solution To My Film vs. Digital Dilemma
Let’s be clear—this is my solution, not the solution. I enjoy the experience of using a film camera. More specifically, an older film camera with nothing but a shutter speed dial and a manual-focus lens with an aperture ring and distance scale. But this is not always practical, and film is expensive.
A digital camera does make life easier for many scenarios. When it comes to street and travel photography, with my Q2M or Z6 I can easily shoot 400–600 frames in a day. I would go bankrupt if that was shot on film.
My solution, at the time of writing this article, is to go out with two small cameras. For black-and-white photography, I take my Leica Q2M with its 28mm Summilux. And I also have my Leica M3 with a tiny Summicron 50mm lens, loaded with HP5+ film.
I have the best of both worlds. I can shoot digital and get shots quickly and easily, without worrying about cost. And when I see an opportunity to slow down and really enjoy the experience, I can pull out my M3 and shoot some film.
For color photography—which admittedly I’m doing less of these days—I take one of my Nikons, preferably with some vintage glass. I’ll typically choose just one lens: a 20mm, 28mm, or 35mm. And the other camera in my bag is the Leica M3, or maybe my Nikon EL2, with a roll of Kodak Portra 400.
I am finding I shoot maybe just 4–5 photos on film on most outings, so a roll will last for a month or so. No great expense there. If I don’t take the M3, I’ll grab the 50mm Summicron and pop it onto a Nikon with an adapter. This works really well.
There are only two things a digital camera gives me over a film camera—other than saving on film costs. The first is the ability to program a zoom-in/out function on one of the camera’s buttons, because I use manual glass. My old tired eyes need some help to focus, so zooming in to fine-tune the focus is a huge help. It’s interesting to note that the viewfinder on the M3 is huge—better than any other Leica rangefinder—and the focus patch is easy to see and use. So is the split focus screen on my old Nikon. I don’t need additional help on either of these cameras to set perfect focus. But I need help on a modern digital camera, despite being able to adjust the diopter. Old analog OVFs are better than modern digital EVFs—interesting.
The second thing I love with a digital camera is the ability to have a histogram in the EVF or on the screen. I prefer to shoot manually, so seeing the exposure so easily means I can adjust the shutter or aperture dial instantly. I really love that.
Summary
There is no one solution, or right solution. If you like film and manual cameras, go that route. If you like the convenience and speed of digital technology, go that route. There is no better solution—just the right solution for you. So long as you enjoy what you do, and it makes you happy.
So it turns out, after lots of playing this past year, I’m very happy enjoying the best of both worlds.
Oh, FYI—the main image alludes to showing a digital photo next to a film photo. They are both film. One was processed digitally, ironically, to look more “film-like.” It’s all about the end image, not how it was created.
