Je vous recommande spécialement la page de news :
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm où ce photographe très largement utilisateur et testeur de digital (il vit de son site), fait l'éloge de l'argentique.
C'est en anglais, mais basique comme tout, même moi j'arrive à comprendre !
En résumé : les appareils numériques sont sympa, les revues leur consacrent toutes leurs pages pour des enjeux marketing, mais le support préféré des pros reste le film
Finalement je copie l'extrait c'est limite mais je ne pense pas qu'il m'en veuille :
Viewfinders: I'm astounded at how pathetic the finders remain in DX cameras.
Nikon's newest, best and most expensive DX camera ever, the $1,800 D300, has a finder the same size as Nikon's cheapest 35mm SLRs ever made, the N55 and N75. Every other Nikon film SLR, even the cheap N70, loathed N60 and the hated-by-collectors-since-1979 EM, have big, beautiful finders that make every DX camera look dim and worthless by comparison.
This was driven home again when I peered through an F80 (N80) just sent to The Retirement Ranch by a generous Mr. Collins in Toronto.
No one wants these film cameras anymore, but I'm astounded that this is true. I think they're great. Do any of you read magazines? Reading the past few months worth of Outdoor Photographer and Popular Photography last weekend, I'm also amused that the only cameras these magazines ever talk about, review and push, are the forgettable and expensive new digital crap. Look at the featured photos and photographers (not the reader contests), and the guys who matter are shooting film — today.
Page 82 of the April 2008 issue of Pop Photo points out that 35mm ISO 100 print film has better resolution (3,000 lines) than even the $8,000 21 MP Canon 1DS Mk III (2,830 lines), and 35mm and ISO 100 print film is for amateurs! The inside back cover? Shot on film in a Hasselblad.
Cover of May 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer? 4x5 film as usual. Article on Carr Clifton? Shoots Velvia — today. Article on Anne Laird? She shoots the indomitable Nikon F4.
May/June 2008 issue of American Photo? Article on William Abranowicz? Shoots Contax 645. Martin Parr? Shoots a Nikon N90 (not even the newer N90s). Alec Soth? 8x10" film. Luca Trovato? Pentax 67. Francesco Lagnese? Contax 645. Stephanie Stylander? Mamiya 645 - and these are travel photographers. What is every article in the magazine pushing? Forgettable digital stuff.
May 2008 Pop Photo? Page 20 article on a guy who shoots Hawaiian volcanoes? Shoots a Nikon N8008s and Pentax 6x7. Why? Because he says (page 21) that Velvia looks better than digital. You can't even give away a N8008s today! Page 30: Mike McNamara confirms what I've been telling you: raw converters can give worse results than JPG.
To quote a software developer I met at one of the biggest makers of raw conversion software "With what the camera makers are doing today with smart in-camera processing for their JPGs (like Nikons ADR), we can't keep up."
Inside back cover of May 2008 Pop Photo? More 4x5, but it was shot in 1998.
Anyway, of course some pros shoot digital and most magazine readers do, but the reason magazines push digital is because its fun and it makes the camera companies (and the magazines who place their ads) record profits. The real pros whose work matter shoot a lot of film, often with cameras that today most people are dumpstering. Talking about used film cameras doesn't make magazines and camera companies money, so it seems I'm the only guy left doing it.
If I didn't do this stuff for a living or if I was even cheaper than I am, I'd be shooting nothing but film and scanning it all as I used to do, like the pros. Digital is wonderful for processing and printing, but film, especially large film, remains the best way to capture things that hold still, and it's much less expensive than digital capture. High ISOs are for news photographers; art shooters bring their own lighting or tripods for film. Digital cameras are for people with money to throw at them and convenience, not for ultimate quality for serious work that matters.
I do have to give the magazines credit for not hiding the embarrassing facts that film cameras are used for the important shots, not always the digital junk they're peddling. Recently I see Outdoor Photographer not always sharing the fact that their covers are shot on 4x5," probably because I called them on it, but at least the magazines are sharing it for many shots. Read a travel or other non-photo magazine where there is no tech data, and you have to figure it out for yourself.