jimmy_s.

The thing about the Nikon D7000 series that I don't like is that they are all small bodied consumer cameras with a mediocre build. Right now I'm shooting a D300, a Nikon D2X, and a Nikon D2H. They drive and meter all my old Nikon lenses. At base ISO, where I do 99% of my shooting with prime lenses, the pictures are very clean and sharp and I have very little money tied up in them. I do own a Sony mirrorless camera with a modern 20+ megapixel sensor, and while I admit that it does produce markedly superior photos compared to the three aforementioned Nikon bodies in terms of detail, dynamic range, and resolution, I don't find myself using it very much, if at all. I guess I would like to get into a Nikon 800E at some point. But I'm waiting for the prices to fall a bit more. I don't have the latest and greatest cameras but that doesn't really bother me.

What are you shooting with these days, Shun?

<p>Sorry</p>

<p>"Reminder, the forums are not to be used for sales solicitations. That is what the Classifieds are for."<br> <br> I don't see this kind of thing as warranting a "sales solicitation" rebuke, particularly since many film shooters nowadays no longer know where to turn for quality processing at a reasonable price. I can say for myself that until now I had no awareness of the existence of Denver Digital Imaging Center, much less that they offered dip and dunk E-6 processing for $8.95 per 36 exposure roll, shipping included.<br> Considering that I was paying more than that for slide processing done locally 16 years ago (in a far less sophisticated lab), I can only extend a big MUCHAS GRACIAS to the person who posted that link. I think I'm going to go shoot a roll of frozen Ektachrome 64 now. </p>

<p>A used Eos 1v is by far the best deal going right now on a top shelf 35mm film camera. They are literally giving them away and there is an endless supply from the Japanese used market. For personal reasons I generally prefer to shoot with a Nikon F4s (since I own more and better Nikon lenses than I do Canon) but if I only had my Eos 1V and a 50 f1.4 USM I'd be more than thrilled to go out shooting with it from now till kingdom come.<br> I miss the old days of EOS film cameras and shooting 35mm slides. Feels like just yesterday. </p>

<p>What does a girl like you want an big bad old camera for, huh sweetie? (just kidding)</p> <p>But seriously, my advice would be that unless you are willing to commit to a costly CLA with a real professional camera repairman (as opposed to some hack on eBay with a set of cheap jeweler screwdrivers and a can of all-purpose door hinge oil ), I'd stay far away from old mechanical cameras. They seem like such a good deal until you realize that the shutter is firing at 3/4 speed, the seals and damper foam have melted into a sticky black goo, and that the entire mechanism is literally dry humping itself with each crank of the film advance, any lubrication placed there by the manufacturer having long since evaporated and gone unreplenished amidst the desolation of digitally induced desuetude.<br /> <br /> All the good, well maintained classic cameras will come at a cost which is equal to, if not greater than, that of any of the more recent professional cameras offered by major manufacturers like Contax, Canon, Nikon, and Minolta.<br /> If you prefer a more manual feel, then I would suggest something like the Nikon F4, which is available in almost perfect condition today for about $200-$300, and even less if you are savvy shopper like moi.<br /> This way you can get your hot and heavy manual groove on while availing yourself of the most advanced technology in 35mm. And certainly the F4 will exhibit far more precision, reliability, durability and longevity than any old camera.<br /> I would start hitting eBay if I were you. Lots of great deals if you exercise a little patience (not a feminine virtue, I know...LOL)</p> <p> </p>

<p>To all those endlessly kvetching about the increasing cost of film and the trivial inconvenience of waiting for developed slides or prints in the mail, get over it. You want quality? Either pay for it or be content to join the rest of the rabble with their obnoxious cell phone cameras and Facebook "portfolios" brimming with tons of dreary snapshots that seemed like such a good idea at the time and which, thankfully, few will ever be compelled to look at ever again. And remember, patience is one of the most important yet seldom acquired virtues in this appalling plastic culture, with its philistine tastes and fierce pursuit of the plebeian pseudo-virtues of utility and convenience and the "instant gratification" of a quick and dirty mediocrity in all its affairs.</p> <p>There is a reason why so many of us who do not practice photography as a mere workman's trade tend to avoid digital for anything but those occasions where the most uninspiring subject matter and the laziest of moods coincide to sufficiently suppress our more profound aesthetic instincts in favor of the sickly blandishments of the totalizing forces of technique, mass society, and fashionable consumption, that work in tandem to encapsulate all expressions of human creativity in generic, commodified forms which are, in turn, increasingly amenable to social engineering and manipulation by a class of professional corporate tastemakers for the benefit of the few who rule by force of the almighty dollar.</p> <p>The latest public watchword of "digital everything or bust" is only the most recent expression of a larger trend. It is part and parcel of the psychological warfare of mass hypnosis by which a condition of mental slavery, mediocrity, and social control is imposed upon the masses in the guise of freedom, equality, and so-called "progress". It is simply one more imposed uniformity having nothing to do with "facts" and everything to do with promulgating a particular set of values in society, values which compel a fierce reliance upon gadgetry and the collective consciousness formed in the depersonalized crucible of the "virtual world"(courtesy of a reinvented concept of image as electronic artifact, freed of all ground and context apart from that which is bestowed by the impersonal forces inherent in the very mode of communication itself, and through which it derives a rigidly conventionalized, albeit aggressively trivial, significance and meaning) by which we come, finally, to form the common coin of our conscious experience of the world and of ourselves.<br /> <br /> In short, there are tons of "reasons" to use or even prefer digital, though none of them matter if what you care about first and foremost is making beautiful images and, for whatever reason, are also blessed to be free of that bad taste which animates those who wish so desperately to agree with many people.</p> <p>The fact is that film looks terrific. Digital looks nothing like film. At least to these thirty-seven year old eyes, digital is harsh and clinical, and the tonality is unremmitingly and irredeemably vulgar. It doesn't matter how sharp the photos look or how many megapixels there are, nor the enlargement sizes: Aesthetic judgments properly belong to wholes, not parts, and then these are qualitative in nature, and do not therefore intelligibly admit of any kind of quantitative analysis, much less may judgments based on such analysis lay reasonable claim to expressing anything meaningful in the way of the essential desirability in aesthetic terms of one image versus another. This explains why some of the most detailed, sharpest, most enlargeable, grain-less, digitally produced photos often appear to pale before photos made with "primitive" film emulsions in hobby formats like 35mm. There is no comparison between digital and projected slides. The color palettes of films like Provia and Velvia cannot be reproduced on a computer screen, anymore than a virtual forest in a video game can ever hope to reproduce the vividness and immediacy and acute visceral thrill of smells, sights and sounds of a real forest. It isn't a matter of technology or time. It's not achievable in principle, as it is the nature of human beings to construct and represent certain stimuli and experiences within consciousness in ways that aren't reducible to the sum of their parts and can't be translated quite as neatly into quantifiable patterns of 0's and 1's as the technology geeks would have us believe.<br /> <br /> The attempt of digital to "imitate film" is a fool's errand. It's like asking Bach to sound like Bach on a Casio Keyboard, or a rubber blow up doll with a molded rubber vagina to feel just like your wife. Whatever dubious benefits may accrue from either of these two undertakings, it is certain at the very least that better sounding Bach and better sex can not be counted among these.<br /> <br /> Just a few "inconvenient" facts for the modern apostles of convenience to turn over in their minds while the interest lovingly accrues on their $3000 flavor of the month DSLR.<br /> <br /> So to sum up, I continue to use film because film remains a thoroughly satisfying way with which to express my personal aesthetic vision. It is as sharp as it needs to be and the color and tonality is out of this world. Whereas digital, well, fifteen years and some odd years on, I find that digital still looks like s**t.</p>

<p>The vast majority of the better mechanical SLRs have now reached a point in their life cycle where function may be impaired in ways too subtle to be readily apparent to a beginner, or even someone with extensive experience in photography, until the film is developed and things don't look quite right. Some of the recent production Nikon F3's are an exception to this, but short of finding someone willing to part with one of these units at a fair price, you'd do much better with any 2000's era professional grade AF camera from either Canon or Nikon. The electronic systems of both cameras will be perform with considerably greater reliability than any old mechanical camera that hasn't been recently serviced by a skilled professional, and can also be employed in full manual picture taking mode with no loss of user control.<br /> <br /> Some people here simply prefer the feel and dynamics of all metal mechanical cameras and lenses, and while I find myself in sympathy with such sentiments, the fact is that from a practical and economic point of view, it's difficult to justify a classic camera that will require costly calibration and adjustment at regular intervals when there is a glut of perfectly functioning cameras of recent make at our immediate disposal for a small, probably one time investment; literally scores of perfectly functioning Canon Eos-3's, 1n's, 1v's; Nikon N90s's, F100's, and F5's, now available for literally pennies on the dollar, and offering as an additional bonus, full lens compatibility with many of the most recent generation of digital SLRs.</p>

<p>The One Hour processing places have always sucked donkey testicles, in any event. Hardly worth mourning their passing. I think the lament often heard over events such as these have less to do with realistic concerns regarding the continuing viability of film as a medium than it does with people afraid of being horribly passe and out of step with what "everyone else" in the world is up to.<br> <br /> But I say, If you truly care about film as a unique and irreplaceable art, you shouldn't be worried about what others are doing.<br> <br /> Or, as Nietzsche once eloquently put it "One must shed the <em><strong>bad taste of wanting to agree</strong></em> with many people".</p>

<p>In the long term, the N8008/8008s will definitely retain greater value and desirability. While not as advanced as the N90s and F100, it nevertheless has the distinction of being more compact, and handling equally well with both AI/AIS and AF lenses. It a relatively straightforward picture taking machine with legendary flash exposure capabilities and uses no materials or appointments that are likely to "melt" over time, rendering the camera unattractive or unusable. All the other Nikon bodies suggested above, the N90s, F100, F5, etc., all have the misfortune of, after a time, developing stickiness problems of one sort or another.<br> <br /> I actually own about 4 Nikon N90s myself that have had the backs replaced with new ones from Nikon USA, without a repeat of the "sticky back syndrome", but to accomplish this, I've had to take great care to wipe them very carefully after each use with a microfiber cloth and store them in cool, dry bookcase cabinet. I suppose with heavy use, there would result, at the very least some serious wear along the grab points. This is why, to me, the N8008s will remain desirable and active long after the later series are relegated to the dustbin.<br /> <br /> I've noticed the same thing with Canon cameras. Some of them just seem more liable to develop tackiness in several parts than others. So far my Eos-1 and 1V and 3 have been free of this, but I have yet to see a used 1N without a sticky palm door. For the same reason I won't invest in a Nikon F5. More and more I'm seeing sticky ones show up and the problem is only getting worse with the passage of years.<br /> <br /> I think that in the end the cameras that will retain the most value are the classic mechanical cameras with basic mechanical parts and durable appointments. I expect to be using the N8008s along with my classic mechanical cameras long after every N90s has become a sticky, unpleasant, unserviceable mess.</p>