>>3913632Shooting exclusively film these days seems somewhat silly if you ask me. Digital basically 'caught' up with 35mm film with cameras like the Nikon D3 and the 5D. Obviously those cameras weren't affordable then for amateurs but we're moving into a point now where second hand FF DSLRs don't cost much more than a used Nikon F5. If you shoot MF/LF and have chemistry/darkroom I guess, but even then it just seems to be inconvenient. I can see the 'fun' in it but I feel like photos are the most important part of photography for me, so why would you make the journey from shutter-click to final picture so much longer if you don't have to? I'm not even talking about chimping here, I'm just saying that processing 200+ images can take <1 hr in Lightroom. No water baths, no timers, no paying a lab. That's why shooting both makes sense to me, but shooting ONLY digital in 2021 seems to be the equivalent of listening to vinyl: trendy but ultimately sorta gay.
>I am interested in the Olympus digital lineup though, the OM-D looks fantastic.Do your research. People on this board love them or hate them and will probably give you the wrong idea one way or the other. Manual focus with native lenses is shit as most are focus-by-wire/stepper motor pieces of crap (they might be better these days but I doubt it). The crop factor brings with it all sorts of differences and the camera struggles in lower light compared to bigger sensor DX and FF cameras. A plus point is the IBIS in many models and (controversially) smaller size. Aside from looks the OM-D is about as far as you can get from an old 35mm camera.
This might be an unpopular opinion here, but I tend to voice it whenever I meet someone who only shoots film cameras.
