Any Reason to Keep 35mm Film Cameras?

I'm sure this will come across as a stupid question, but I'm in a

dilemma. I haven't used a 35mm film camera in 18 months. I've only

been using digital. I have a sizable collection of 35mm film cameras,

some of which have never even been used.

 

My dilemma is this - I want to sell some of them, but am reluctant to

sell all of them. It's disappointing to see that prices have plummeted

and they are not worth much, any more. (It almost seems hardly worth

it.) I'm trying to decide how far to go in selling them (these are all

Nikon SLRs).

 

How many of you, that are using digital, still use 35mm film cameras?

What are some situations that I might want to use a 35mm camera? (I

also have some medium format cameras, but do still see a use for them.)

 

I can see a use for B&W film, for instance, or maybe for long exposure

shots. I also like having mirror lockup on some of them, for macro. (I

have a Nikon D70, but it doesn't have mirror lockup. I am planning to

get the D200.)

 

I'm rambling, but guess I'm just worrying about it too much.

 

Thanks for any comments (and your indulgence).

 

Steve

during the last 2 years I sold all my 35mm stuff; very fine cameras from Nikon and Contax with excellent prime lenses and it was a shame what I got for it, but prices sink all the time and so I am happy that stuff is away, next year prices will be much lower, and the year after nobody will buy. <p>So my advice is to sell all as quick as possible, for long exposures or mirror lock up and landscape alltogether look for MF, for people and street stay digital.

Slides.

I sold my way out of 35mm before digital was even in its teens, so I got good prices for my SLRs. Of course, I was going for medium format at the time. I've still got my trusty Minolta TC-1, Olympus Stylus Epic and a Canonet QL17-III, though, but that's it.<p>

I have entertained thoughts of selling those as soon as my stock of 35mm film runs out (or expires by a few years - whichever happens first), but I also like having at least the TC-1 around for those times when I want to pack really light.<p>

Perhaps when the full-frame 22 megapixel digital TC-1 arrives in a few years, I'll have to consider switching over...<p>

Considering that the equivalent DSLR to my EOS 1V costs nearly 8000 USD, and considering that I do not need to send my pictures on the ether immediately, I am still sticking to slide film.

 

For me, film is still cheap, and it is much nicer to round up the family in front of a projection screen, rather than in front of a computer screen.

Film cameras (especially the heavy ones) are excellent for keeping doors open, stopping papers from blowing off yor desk, making you look like a REAL photographer (none of that girly digital stuff) and displaying in your camera collection.

 

They also give you that secure feeling that if your digital toys ever break, you COULD shoot film - if you had to.

 

I have a dozen film cameras and several shoeboxes full of film, so I know what I'm talking about...

Reasons I still shoot 35mm film - B&W (and the wet darkroom experience), slides, full-frame -- especially my 85mm f1.4 AFD with a full-frame field of view.

 

Also, my F5 is in a nicer class film-wise, than my D70 is, digital-wise. I grant you, that's apples to oranges, but that's what I have.

 

As to prices, either you sell them at a loss, or they sit in in your closet for another 18 months. If you want an investment, talk to Merrill Lynch. Photo equipment is either a tool (to pros) or a toy (to amateurs).

 

KL

My only reasons for keeping film cameras come down to sentimentality. My Rollei 35s, Minox

35GT-E, and the brace of half-frame 35, APS, Minolta 16 and Minox subminiature cameras

are like old friends which I am reluctant to let go even if I rarely touch them at all anymore.

 

All the expensive, pro-quality 35mm and medium format equipment is gone, however. I sold

it all off in the past two years to fund new photographic equipment in keeping with my

current work needs.

 

Godfrey

I kept my Hassy XPan because they have yet to build a panoramic digital camera. If I wanted a digital camera to emulate this body I would need one with over 10,000,000 pixels which be probably too expensive for me at this time. It's nice to take panos with slide film. It's a slow process and almost the opposite of the digital process. I like it. I think I'll keep this camera because it's also nice to be able to view the chromes without having to be glued in front of a computer.

My F100 is getting dust too. Still I can't get it over my heart to sell it. Pure sentiment nothing

more. In 10 years time it will become a relic.

My Elan II sits in a plastic storage container. I can't sell it because there are four shots left on the roll I put in last year.

 

The annoying this is, it's a better camera than my 300D in almost every way.

 

DI

There is absolutely no reason on earth for you to keep your 35mm film cameras. Place them in a box and ship them to me, and I will see to it that they are well exercised and fondled:)

Anything that Stephen does not want you can send to me as well.

Anything that Stephen does not want you can send to me as well.

i use film because i am a right wing luddite. i started serious photography in 1979. At that time i took one or two rolls of 35mm or 120 when doing portraits, for example. In 2005 I don't have a need to take 500 shots of a portrait session....i can still do with 72. Yes, I dabble in digital P&S, but if and when I get a dslr, it will be used at a fraction of the new price purchased from all you technoholics that are on the dpreview-prescribed upgrade bandwagon...

This is a dilemma I am facing at the moment. I have not bought a DSLR yet and really the only way I can afford to is to sell a large part of my film gear to finance it. I really want to come out without spending too much money but old film gear is just not worth what it used to be. I would like at least one year warranty and at the same time I would like to change to from Canon to Nikon so I can keep my FM2n for the occasional roll of B&W or when I want someting lite. I would hope that I can get a good price for my Canon EOS gear but I don't hold up much hope.

Hurricane Katrina perhaps ?

I for one am buying a DLSR, not because itﾒs 'the thing to do' but I want to practice, and hopefully learn, at a faster pace and a lower cost than film allows. I still have a Canon AE-1 that I love however all too often I end up with 8-10 rolls of film sitting around that need to be developed. Even when I take notes all too often weeks sometimes months go by between shooting and developing those rollsﾅand the learning process suffers.

 

I live in a small town, with one stop light, in the Rockies and the closest town that offers any kind of developing is 15 miles away. Granted, thatﾒs a short tip in the car, but I like my relative seclusion and I donﾒt like ﾑgoing to the cityﾒ more than absolutely necessary. My hope is that with a decent DSLR I'll gain enough experience to have a sounder understanding of what I'll end up with when using film, and avoid any more trips to the city than necessary. Maybe even graduate to a medium format camera someday, when everyone else is unloading theirs of courseﾅthough Iﾒm sure I wonﾒt be ditching my DSLR at that time either.

<I>Any Reason to Keep 35mm Film Cameras?</I><P>

 

1. You can get a high-quality, wide-angle lens for a 35mm film camera without spending much money. Try to duplicate that for a 1.5x, 1.6x, or 1.7x DSLR.<P>

 

2. If you use good lenses and good technique, some films still resolve more detail than 99.9% of the digital cameras out there. I'm guestimating that to replace 35mm TMX's ability to resolve fine detail with a Bayer-sensor camera, you'd need about 24 MP. So unless you can afford MF digital and a 22 MP back, for some types of shots, 35mm still has the advantage. Moreover, I believe that Superia Reala 100, Provia 100F, and various other films can resolve finer details than 6 or 8 MP digitals. (Yes, I realize that image quality depends on a lot more than resolving power, but what aspects of it are most important vary, depending on the subject etc.)<P>

 

3. Viewing slides on a light box with a good loupe, while not for everyone, cannot be duplicated (easily, at least) with digital.<P>

 

All of that said, I must admit that, since I got my DSLR, I haven't touched my film cameras much. I have seriously considered selling some, except that I doubt I'd get enough money to make it worthwhile.

I did not find a reason and I'll be selling all of the 35mm equipment that does not work with my DSLR very soon. However, I keep and grow my medium format systems (and plan to get another one).

 

I use a simple rule for prunning the equipment: 12 months of non-use means eBay. Exceptions rarely granted.

One thing is for sure. Film is not going to die... never ever. Everybody talk about SLR prices "slide" down but I do not hear anyone talking about rangefinder prices. I do not hear anyone talking about the improvement of film quality. Anyway!

 

Let me tell you what I saw two weeks ago in B&H store when I went there to buy some NPH & REALA film. I saw many people in the film department who were waiting for their turn to buy film and many of them were carrying DSLR around their neck.

 

Conclusions are all yours.

 

Best wishes & Happy holidays!

Hmmm, last time I went to B&H I was one of two people at the film counter and the line for the digital camera counter would have been out the door if it hadn't wrapped around. That and the fact that my favorite films have disappeared, well, the handwriting is on the wall.

People buy and collect all sorts of things that just sit around with little to no use: books, CDs, DVDs, baseball cards, stamps, model trains...etc that have no promise of future value. Selling &/or donating unused stuff can be quite liberating, however, if you're concerned you may one day want to shoot a roll of film, pare down to one or two choice film bodies...if you just like having them around, keep'em! Look at it from the grand scheme of things...over the course of your remaining lifetime, chances are the money you'd get from liquidating your gear now (or at all) is pretty insignificant.

I made the mistake of selling my film cameras when digital first appeared. It has taken me a lot of time and money to restore that lost equipment...so I would not advise anybody to totally divest themselves of a camera only because it uses film.

Reason #1: low-light photography. Aside from high-priced DSLRs, ISO 800, 1600, and 3200 films are your only choices.

 

Reason #2: No one ever complained about dead pixels, or dust particles on the sensor, when using film SLRs.

 

Reason #3: Any decent Nikon SLR body made since 1977 will likely stop a bullet and keep shooting. My Nikon FM's still doing its job.

 

Reason #4: Wide-angle photography. Short of a full-frame sensor DSLR, my 24mm Nikkor lens is of no use on a non-film body.

 

Reason #5: Reaally long time exposures, such as star trails and night photography. Digital simply isn't able to compete with Ektachrome.

 

Reason #6: Where's the digital camera that can shoot underwater below 12 feet?

 

Reason #7: Nikon FM = battery-less photography. Show me the digicam that can shoot with a dead battery.

 

Reason #8: Film cameras are, by and large, THINK and SHOOT. Everything else is point and shoot.

 

I, too, have a closet full of compact 35mm equipment. And pure sentimentality aside, the vast majority of them are dependable and far more interactive than anything with a CCD or CMOS sensor.

 

-Dave