Anyone out there still use film? Camera suggestions?

[wasabi girl]

Hi guys,
I learned to take pictures with my Dad's old minolta, did the high school photographer thing for a bit, bought my own pentax 35mm (never a great or serious photographer though)...I bought a sony cybershot last year but...I think I like film photography better. Yes, I know my age is probably showing here, but, somehow the digital pics aren't as fun AND I really hate the lag time between when I press the shoot button and the camera finally takes the shot...so here's my question, what camera do I buy? I don't think I want the APS cameras, I like 35 mm, I feel like I've got more options...is there a website that recommends film camera? I've found dozens for digital but can't find any for film...any ideas? Thanks!

 

[MICKEY88]

Hi guys,
I learned to take pictures with my Dad's old minolta, did the high school photographer thing for a bit, bought my own pentax 35mm (never a great or serious photographer though)...I bought a sony cybershot last year but...I think I like film photography better. Yes, I know my age is probably showing here, but, somehow the digital pics aren't as fun AND I really hate the lag time between when I press the shoot button and the camera finally takes the shot...so here's my question, what camera do I buy? I don't think I want the APS cameras, I like 35 mm, I feel like I've got more options...is there a website that recommends film camera? I've found dozens for digital but can't find any for film...any ideas? Thanks!

used 35mm cameras are selling cheap on ebay.

if you hate the time lag with digital cameras, maybe you should consider a digital SLR.. no time lag, just like using a 35mm film slr.

I have 3 35mm MInolta cameras{SLRs} 2 years ago I bought a Minolta A2 digital, close to an slr but not quite, but digital is so much better than film, I know instantly if I got my shot or not, no cost for bad shots, and I only pay for those I want printed, can instantly upload to my website{FOTKI} and share with family and friends... from my website I can order whatever pics I want for 9 cents a piece{4x6} with good editing software you can have so much fun manipulating photos..
2 weeks ago I bought a Minolta 7D...digital SLR....it is awesome..I can do everything with it that I could do with my 2 PRO model 35mm SLRs, and then some,

a good digital slr will cost a little more than a 35mm slr, but the savings in film and printing, will quickly recover your initial expense..

 

[boBQuincy]

Here's my take on digital cameras: the P&S cameras are like little electronic thingies that take pictures; the dSLRs are like cameras that don't use film. The difference is huge.

Btw, we have three P&S cameras so it's not that I don't like them but they don't feel like cameras to me.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, when I got my first digital P&S ai still carried my film SLR, a "real" camera. When I got a Canon D30 I stopped using film and never missed it. The look, the feel, the sounds, everything about the D30 was just like a "real" camera, except for feeding it.

You can now get a Nikon D50 or a Canon Rebel XT for not much more than I was spending on film in a year! If you still really want a film camera consider Canon's Rebel, prices are good these days, but also consider that many types of film are being discontinued. Both Fuji and Kodak are rapidly trimming their film offerings while with a Rebel XT you "carry" everything from ISO100 to 1600, switchable at the touch of a button.

Borrow a dSLR, I bet you won't give it back!


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

(Kelly running away hiding her dSLR)

 

[crazyme5kids]

The lag time with a point and shoot drives me crazy. I can't wait to get a really good dSLR. Many moons ago I loved taking pictures of live entertainment, but somewhere along the line, between working and having kids I stopped taking those kinds of pictures. I must say looking at other peoples pictures here on the Dis is inspiring. One of these days I'll be able to show off my pictures too!

 

[IwasatWDWforamonth]

I highly recomend the olympus stylus, it a small camera that can have up to a 170 zoom.I love it.
If your wanting an slr id say go with the digital

 

[Zoesmama03]

I have the Nikon Coolpix P2(5.1 MP one) its P&S and doesn't have much lag.

I have played with the Nikon D50 and the Canon Reblel in stores and love love love the quick shots. I can't wait to get a DSLR.

But I'm thinking of getting a cheapie film SLR to learn on and take classes with. I'd love to learn to develop film too.

A friend that is a great photographer recommended the Pentax film cameras. They still are a great camera I hear.

 

[wasabi girl]

Thanks! I've been looking at pentax cameras (on the website). If I can find one for sale here or online, that's probably how I'll go.

 

[phinz]

But I'm thinking of getting a cheapie film SLR to learn on and take classes with. I'd love to learn to develop film too.

I can't stress how important this is. Film is more unforgiving than digital, and you have to take the time to compose your shots. In the digital world we have a tendency to shoot 1000 pictures for 10 good ones. With emulsion cameras you *have to* compose the shot and get it right, because if you don't you've wasted film.

For a good, basic camera I would recommend a Pentax K1000. Metal-bodied preferably. They're cheap on eBay and have no extra doodads to tempt you to cheat. Just a light meter inside the viewfinder. The rest is up to you. I learned with one and still want another one. I replaced mine with a Pentax PZ1-P and it's just not the same, though the PZ is a stellar camera for the price.

I think my next film venture will be Lomography. Cheap, light-leaking, low-tech cameras that take some of the most incredible pictures.

 

[TriMom]

Having a similar story to the OP, I would recommend a dSLR. I love mine. But if your heart is set on film, (and I do understand, I still have my Rebel G) Wal Mart has the Canon Rebel ??? - what ever the latest end number is - for under $200 35 mm film.


HTH

 

[handicap18]

From what I've seen recently, price difference between a film SLR and digital SLR body is about $400 (a Nikon N80 is about $200, a Nikon D50 is about $600). Lenses are interchangable between the 2.

Digital SLRs can change the ISO from 1 exposure to the next. With film you have to shoot the whole roll or waste the remaining exposures in order to change film ISO.

With a dSLR you can turn it on and take anywhere from 3-5 exposures before you take 1 exposure with a digital P&S. Shutter lag is un-noticeable to the average photographer.

You can practice with a dSLR all you want and not worry about wasting film and photoprocessing costs. Set on the highest JPG resolution my D50 will take the equilivent of approximately 12 rolls of 24 exposure film on a 1 gig memory card. Thats about $18 of film cost (ISO 200) plus about $40 of photo processing (at an inexpensive 'photo lab' {ie, Wal-Mart). If you experiment with about 1000 exposures a year, that over $200 for film and processing. (I've already taken about 600 exposures on my dSLR this year so far and we haven't been to Disney yet and summer parties and x-mas is still to come). 1 gig memory cards go for about $50-60 and can be used over and over.

 

[PaulD]

I just picked up my old film camera (Nikon N90s) the other day and took some shots with it. Wow do I miss that viewfinder! It's so big and bright compared to the 10D. It's manual focus Nirvana.

That said, I much prefer my dSLRs for a lot of reasons. The cost of film and development is high on that list. I think someone already said this but Kodak has announced that they will stop producing film in the next few years (not sure when exactly). I believe that they've already stopped making medium and large format. Fuji is bound to follow suit. At some point you will need to switch to digital regardless of your feelings toward it. Such is progress...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Comparing N90 to a 10D is like comparing N90 to (the original 35mm) Rebel. Try comparing it with a Canon 5D and you'll be amazed with the (lack of) difference in the viewfinder.

 

[phinz]

I just picked up my old film camera (Nikon N90s) the other day and took some shots with it. Wow do I miss that viewfinder! It's so big and bright compared to the 10D. It's manual focus Nirvana.

This is the biggest issue with my 20D. The viewfinder is so dark that sometimes in bright light, with light bleeding in around my eye, I have a heck of a time seeing the settings. You can forget leaving your sunglasses on. Focus can be hard too. I miss the focuser of my K1000.

 

[wasabi girl]

Problem solved....I dug out the old Pentax ES II, and took it to the camera store for some lens cleaning....I guess I'll just use the oldie but goodie when I want a film camera....I'd love to buy a digital SLR but budget is a factor at the moment...so I was looking at an Olympus SP 310 or 320 and it looks like it would a good casual use point and shoot digital with enough manual options to make me happy...we shall see.
DH is of the opinion that if I want buy a film camera I should buy a leica...I guess we'd be selling the house to be able to afford one....

 

[PaulD]

Comparing N90 to a 10D is like comparing N90 to (the original 35mm) Rebel. Try comparing it with a Canon 5D and you'll be amazed with the (lack of) difference in the viewfinder.

I'm sure that's true but full frame comes at a huge price. $3000 for the 5d when I could buy the Nikon f100 for $800 or the Canon EOS 3 for $875. So if we're comparing from a price standpoint then dSLRs have a long way to go to catch up with their film counterparts, even when the price of film is considered. So, you have to admit that we are giving up a LOT with digital compared to film at the same price point. It seems absurd that it's so difficult to manual focus with a camera that costs less than $3000.

Don't get me wrong, I love my digital cameras. But a $2100 premium to add a digital sensor to an equivalent body is a bit hard to stomach. I think that the manufacturers have simply convinced us that we should expect to spend that much. If they can throw an 8mp sensor into the Rebel and sell it for $800 then why should we believe that it costs $2100 to put a sensor in the equivalent of an EOS 3 body? I just can't justify spending that much but I suppose that's a completely different discussion. Flame away...

 

[boBQuincy]

The $2100 premium starts to look better when I consider $1000/year for film and processing. Add in the cost for high quality scans of the film and the payback for the 5D is pretty quick.

It was getting to be trouble carrying enough film to get through a full day of photography, not to mention the issue with taking it through airport security. 20 GB fits in my pocket and is good for a whole trip.

I held off on the 30D because it is not that big a jump over my 10D but I can definitely see a full frame dSLR in my future. Give the 5D another year and the price may come down to $2500. I'll buy it!


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I'm sure that's true but full frame comes at a huge price. $3000 for the 5d when I could buy the Nikon f100 for $800 or the Canon EOS 3 for $875. So if we're comparing from a price standpoint then dSLRs have a long way to go to catch up with their film counterparts, even when the price of film is considered. So, you have to admit that we are giving up a LOT with digital compared to film at the same price point. It seems absurd that it's so difficult to manual focus with a camera that costs less than $3000.

Don't get me wrong, I love my digital cameras. But a $2100 premium to add a digital sensor to an equivalent body is a bit hard to stomach. I think that the manufacturers have simply convinced us that we should expect to spend that much. If they can throw an 8mp sensor into the Rebel and sell it for $800 then why should we believe that it costs $2100 to put a sensor in the equivalent of an EOS 3 body? I just can't justify spending that much but I suppose that's a completely different discussion. Flame away...

Not to be argumentative but....

1. you'll need to compare full frame vs full frame. Otherwise, you should compare APS SLR camera (yes those things exist) vs APS-C sensor dSLR
2. The plate the chips are created are in a circle shape with a constant size. The larger the sensor, the less chips can be made out of that plate. Also the larger the sensor size, the higher percentage of unused edges of the plate can't be used. IIRC, according to Canon Japan during a seminar, they told us that for the time being, manufacturing a full sized sensor cost more than double a regular APS-C sensor due to the waste.
3. Why $2100 premium? You're comparing XT and 5D, they are completely different beasts. Even XT vs 20D vs 30D although supposedly they share the same chip, the ISO noise levels are different, AF capability in low light is very different from one to another, shutter lives between models are very different. At the most, you should compare 30D vs 5D, which is not even doubling the price (yes it's still quite a leap in price, but it does make sense)
4. For one concert, I usually take about 500 pictures. That's equivalent to 14 rolls of ISO 1600 film, which is about $70 plus processing (forget about printing) easily making it $100 in total before printing. Multiply that by 8 concerts a year, that's $800, plus my other projects (headshots, portfolio, trip photography, weddings). Each year alone I can spend close to $2,000 in film and processing alone (without printing) So if I really want to nickel and dime this, by buying 5D (which I also have) it's like buying a Rebel XT + $2000 in film and processing.

Peace.

Cheers,
Kelly

 

[PaulD]

Not to be argumentative but....

1. you'll need to compare full frame vs full frame. Otherwise, you should compare APS SLR camera (yes those things exist) vs APS-C sensor dSLR
2. The plate the chips are created are in a circle shape with a constant size. The larger the sensor, the less chips can be made out of that plate. Also the larger the sensor size, the higher percentage of unused edges of the plate can't be used. IIRC, according to Canon Japan during a seminar, they told us that for the time being, manufacturing a full sized sensor cost more than double a regular APS-C sensor due to the waste.
3. Why $2100 premium? You're comparing XT and 5D, they are completely different beasts. Even XT vs 20D vs 30D although supposedly they share the same chip, the ISO noise levels are different, AF capability in low light is very different from one to another, shutter lives between models are very different. At the most, you should compare 30D vs 5D, which is not even doubling the price (yes it's still quite a leap in price, but it does make sense)
4. For one concert, I usually take about 500 pictures. That's equivalent to 14 rolls of ISO 1600 film, which is about $70 plus processing (forget about printing) easily making it $100 in total before printing. Multiply that by 8 concerts a year, that's $800, plus my other projects (headshots, portfolio, trip photography, weddings). Each year alone I can spend close to $2,000 in film and processing alone (without printing) So if I really want to nickel and dime this, by buying 5D (which I also have) it's like buying a Rebel XT + $2000 in film and processing.

Peace.

Cheers,
Kelly

The point was that I was comparing price point to price point. The fact that you can only buy a Rebel XT for the same price of a high quality EOS 3 film camera says a lot. These cameras are in totally different leagues. They can take a $200 film Rebel body and throw a high quality sensor in it for like $600 but it takes $2100 to do the same thing for a 5D (assuming an $875 EOS 3 body). That's 3.5x more. And it's not the extra cost of the electronics. Remember the original Rebel used essentially the same sensor and the same software as the 10D. They just dumbed it down to keep it out of the same market as the 10D (remember the Wasia hacks?).

Incidentally, I just noticed that Canon is offering a $300 rebate on the 5D. Obviously, they overestimated their market. It must not cost them that much to go digital because they are still making a profit at $2700.

If you really want to make comparisons lets look at the 1DS Mark II. That thing is $7000! The top of the line film EOS 1V is $1650. That's a difference of $5350. Does it really cost that much to go digital? Maybe it does and I'm totally off base (I realize it's a 16.7mp sensor) but that still seems excessive to me. That's almost 9x more expensive than the XT sensor.

For a pro photographer I can see how you could still justify the cost over time when your film expenses are figured in. But for the average person that's a hard pill to swallow. I am eagerly waiting for the day when I can buy a 5D for a reasonable cost (because I REALLY want one). Until then I'll keep trying to persuade my employer to buy me a really expensive camera so I can have my toy! But it won't happen.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

very true. For the average person, get a Nikon 50D ro Canon RebelXT and be happy. Seriously.