Does is make sense to build a 35mm "Film" System?

[rdeanda]

Hello. Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

Does is make sense to build a 35mm "Film Based" System?

With the prices of film cameras dropping due to the digital

revolution. Does it make sense for me to build a "film based" 35mm

system at this time? I started with digital prosumer cameras and

moved to a film SLR for improved handling, speed and resolution. My

photography greatly improved because I had to finally "think" and

not just shoot and chimp like before. I currently shoot with an

N80+MB16 and scan my own film. I still have a 4mp digital P/S.

 

I am tempted to get a mint F100, MB15, and a few lens with the cash

that I might use for an entry level DSLR and DX lens. Should I get

the "High End Film Gear" with my cash or get the "Low End Digital

Gear".

 

Any comments would be appreciated, especially from those that are

also holding out on DSLR's at this time.

 

Thanks.

[gaius1]

You won't get F100 responsiveness and control in a DSLR without spending thousands more on it and that's a fact. Well, I guess you could buy a used D1 and get close to the same price/performance. And you can easily get a 12MP equivalent image from a competently-done film scan.

[jim mucklin]

Robert, I too went this route, It was hard to let go of my F3. I ended up with a N80 and held out and waited not sure to get a 70 or to sell the car and get a big D, but I am glad that I am still waiting with my brand new used F100. I guess like the debates, it all depends on how and what you shoot. For the price I paid for the 100 I wish the guy would have had two to sell me,the mb has a button for shooting the camera in portrait positon. If I wait the price may come down on the digital model I want, if not I'll hold on to my two n80's and the F100 and give them to my grandchildren to sell some day to some collector of those funny cameras that you use to put film in.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

And remember, that if you eventually want to go digital you only have to invest in a dslr body. That's what I did, and in my opinion it's a very cost effective way to go. I didn't buy all my lenses at the same time but I've build up my set over several years. Recently I bought a D70 body and the learning curve is much more acceptable because I am already familiar with my lenses, so I could concentrate on the D70 manual...

 

Good luck

 

Remco Jan Woldhuis

[andrew_kendall]

If you like messing about with equipment, why not? Your next camera isn't for life, it's only for a couple of years. Personally I feel it's my duty to collect kit as and when opportunity arises. I have a big fat camera bag which currently holds a Nikon D70, 2 zooms, an SB800 and associated stuff, but I also have a camera cupboard, which holds a Nikon F65, Bronica SQAi, Yashica Electro 35GT, Olympus Camedia 2040Z, Pentax P30n. In my coat pocket today I have an Olympus XA which I have pulled out to try a bit of surrepticious street photography. I wouldn't mind an F6 at some point. Film, digital, whatever. It's all great, as long as you keep churning out results for your viewing public.

[jose_angel]

Good question. I thought about it a lot of times; my question would be "Does it makes sense to START a 35mm film based system? I know that there are different users and needs, but my answer probably will be "no".

 

35mm film cameras are now obsolete. Film cameras are still "better" in some aspects, but all that came behind the film are obsolete. Film vs memory cards, developing, printing, etc.

Prices on film cameras looks dropping (I?m not sure at all), but take note that cost per shot on digital are much lower. Image quality and easiness of control on digital is proved. Digital zoom lenses are even better than old primes.

 

If you like to enlarge your own negatives on silver, or if you have an special artistic dedication to b&w, my answer could be different, but I probably advice you to buy a bigger format, even for color negative scanning.

 

Nikon lacks a medium level DSLR, in the way of the EOS 20D. You can wait for it if you like Nikon. Digital cameras are expensive, but you save shooting, film and procesing are more costly.

 

Andrew has also a good point here. If money is not an issue, why not?

[gaius1]

Digital might be cheaper in some cases. If time is money, or shooting volumes are very high. But you can buy a LOT of film and developer for the price difference between an F100 and a D2Hs which is what, these days, GBP 2000? A roll of film (usually FP4+ or HP5+), including developing it, costs me GBP 2-3. Let's say that's around 28800 shots before digital becomes cheaper. 78 shots, which is two rolls about, every single day of the year. Averaged out, I don't think I even shoot 1 roll per day. It's amazing how many people will happily spend thousands of pounds in order to save a few hundreds!

 

Still, DSLR owners (or "techno-sheep" as I like to call them) are driving the price of the gear I want through the floor, so cheers!

[lex_jenkins]

This may be the *best* time to build a sensible 35mm film system. (After 30+ years in photography I only recently bought a "serious" dSLR and still don't plan to completely switch over from film anytime soon.)

 

The cost of good quality used film equipment has depreciated considerably. You'll get more for your money.

 

The trick is to choose wisely. Don't pinch those pennies too hard. It makes better sense to buy the best you can afford but less of it if the budget is tight. Too things usually lead to "buyer's remorse":

 

1. Buying an inferior product - such as a lens - just because it's cheap. If it can't make good pictures, it's not worth any amount of money.

 

2. Spending way too much money for more equipment than you need or for a "better" camera or lens than you need. Sometimes, good enough is good enough.

 

A good example is when you have a choice between an expensive f/1.4 version of a focal length or an f/1.8 version. Assuming both lenses are otherwise comparable in optical quality, it may not make sense to spend significantly more money for a lens that is only slightly faster. Also, the faster lens will be considerably bulkier and heavier.

 

But, again, don't pinch pennies too hard. If you really need or just want the faster, more expensive lens, get it the first time instead of settling for something you didn't really want.

 

As for getting an entry level dSLR, I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask about this. I had very specific wants/needs for a dSLR, which pretty much excluded all of the entry level and even some mid-level cameras. None of them was fast enough to suit me: I needed the fastest possible autofocus, frame rate, buffering to handle that frame rate, and I wanted it without sacrificing the viewfinder quality and overall solidity of my F3HP and MD-4. I was, however, willing to compromise a little on the megapixels. So the D2H was perfect for me, especially at the current discounted closeout price.

 

However there are many, many photographers who are perfectly satisfied with the D100, D70 and similar cameras.

 

I stress only that it's important to identify what you expect from a dSLR because they do not hold their resale value the same way many film cameras do and every year you are likely to be plagued by that nagging feeling that technology has left you behind.

 

I choose not to worry about my D2H becoming "obsolete" because the only factor where it lags behind other cameras is in megapixels. If I was truly concerned about maximum resolution, I'd still be shooting large format instead of 35mm. So I've already chosen my path.

[marcofrancardi]

Jeff? Where are you? Hasn't this issue been beaten to death?

Cheers everyone.

[jose_angel]

Just to put some things straight, I want to show my calculations. A -new- eos 20d kit (camera+lens+memory)is near 1500EUR (orientative, less than 1900USD at B&H. A -new- D70 kit is cheaper). In color I shoot mostly Velvia, (around 5-6 EUR + 5-6 EUR developing) = 10-12 EUR. (In B&H Velvia is 5,6USD in 20xpacks). A used good F100 body in B&H is around 460EUR (650USD). You can be lucky and find a lens for it in you car glove compartment, or in your garage`s freezer.

 

With the 1000EUR you save, you I can have up to 100 rolls of Velvias at home, if I live very-very cheap (I would like to pay 10EUR for each Velvia).

 

I never shoot less than 2 rolls per ocassion. Each time I take my coolpix for a trip I made around 200-300 shots. I never use digicams for b&w. Others may differ. Needs, wishes and red dresses are different for each human. Is just a thought.

[goemon]

I have a kind of film fetish--probably got something to do with growing up around

computers and so sloshing chemicals around is exotic. So I did build a film system a few

years ago, and I also

picked up a D100.

 

The lens issue comes up a lot. Initially, it looks like you'll be able to

reuse your lenses, which is great! Then you hear about the crop factor and

you're not sure you'll really be reusing your lenses, and it doesn't sound so great. In

practice, I actually

share lenses between my F100, FM3a and D100 a lot--a 35mm is a nice lens on a film

body and approximately normal on a D100, the 50 turns from a normal to a light

telephoto. So there's a significant amount of cross pollination possible (as long as you

don't buy AI lenses or buy one of the D1 or D2 series bodies).

 

So I would say go for it. But I really like film.

[jose_angel]

I was very curious about b&w film processing at my favourite pro-lab. I have just found their 35mm and roll film b&w pricelist:

 

Developing on D-76 or HC-110= 7,18EUR

On special developers Acutol, TMAX, Microphen (!!??)= 9,75EUR

 

RC prints, 4x5"= 3,00EUR - 8x10"= 6,07EUR (each one!!!)

 

Fiber based paper, 8x10"= 1 7 , 4 3 EUR (each, glooooups)

If you enjoy Se toning, add "only" 50%.

 

It`s time to process b&w at home. I wonder if anybody gives them a roll.

[gaius1]

It's unreasonable to compare the F100 with the D70. Compare the F100 with a DSLR that has (approximately) equivalent shutter lag and autofocus speed, not to mention build quality. That is why I compared it to the D2Hs, a current model, even tho' the D1x is a closer match.

[david_h._hartman]

Sure it makes sense. At todays prices you can get a high

end film SLR that will get the picture or a low end DSLR that may

get the picture. The viewfinders and AF of cameras like the D70

and 20D just dont have what I need. <br>

<br>

I recommend considering a DSLR as you buy lenses for the film SLR.

That is, plan for the day when you add a DSLR.<br>

<br>

If you shoot a lot consider a D2H at the current close out price

of $1,995.00. Just reread Lex Jenkins post for reasons why

you(I) might want this camera. <br>

<br>

If I may play devils advocate and if you have a Bank of America

VISA you might qualify for a 0%, No Transfer Fee, teaser good

till your Aug. 2005 billing. You may have offers from other banks.

Take a CC teaser, eat rice and beans and pay it off under the

wire. 0% is the kind of CC interest I like to pay. :-)<br>

<br>

For me a DSLR can not replace Tri-X and my wet darkroom. For

publication or the Web a DSLR is ideal. I feel that color

negatives have an edge with their longer dynamic range. I have a

full color and B&W darkroom in a one car garage. I dont

plan to abandon it any time soon. I do worry about what slide

films may be left as digital take a major bite out of the market.

Slides can be made from digital images. Todays 1024x768

digital projectors are fine but dont compare to projected

slides in dynamic range. sRGB, the standard, is a drag. I hate

converting images.<br>

<br>

At B&H I notice that the 1GB SanDisk Extreme III CompactFlash

cards are sold out. The price per megabyte is the same so a D2H,

a 2GB SanDisk Ex III CF, spare EN-EL4 and Mac Extended Warrantee

is my top recommendation. The F100 is a fine camera and may suit

your needs better. Later if you buy a DSLR the F100 will make a

fine backup. <br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[jwenting]

Jose, sure a D70 isn't that much more than an F100 but it's hardly an equivalent camera.

I own an F100 and have tested a D70, considering it as a possible replacement for my F80 (to which it can somewhat compare). It just doesn't match up even to the F80 in many places, especially mechanical and optical construction are inferior.

 

If you want an equivalent digital camera to the F100 you're looking at the D2h or Fuji S3Pro, cameras costing ?2500-?3500 versus the ?1000 or so for the F100.

And that's without the mandatory additional expense in software, flash cards (and readers), spare recharchable batteries and special chargers, portable harddisks (and/or laptops with CD/DVD burners), etc. etc. which can easily double the expense in a DSLR (and most of that will go out the window with the next DSLR as it simply won't work).

 

So we're comparing an initial investment in an F100 of ?1000 with an initial investment in a D2h + required stuff of about ?4000 at least.

 

Those ?3000 will get me 300 rolls of Velvia including processing. At my current speed that is about 4 years of shooting.

After 4 years my F100 will be due for some maintenance costing about ?100, the D2h will be up for replacement by another ?3500 DSLR and assorted accessoiries (at the minimum new batteries and likely new larger flashcards).

So I never get the initial investment back at all as the tradein value of that old D2h (well, old for a DSLR by then) will be next to nothing.

Were I on the other hand in 4 years to decide to sell that F100 and buy another camera I'd still get about 50% of that initial ?1000 back, the same ?500 I'll get back for that D2h and everything that goes with it combined which initially cost me ?4000. Quite a difference.

 

So don't mention cost as a reason to go digital instead of with a real camera!

 

Instead decide if the digital workflow appeals to you and/or whether you have a business need to have genuine advantage of not having to wait for film processing.

For me the answer to both these questions is a negative.

 

So I'd advise you to go for that F100 and spend a bit of that cash you save on a decent slidescanner (which should also outlast any DSLR).

[sl attanapola]

I would consider a mint condition F100 or F5 as these are great cameras and are available very cheaply now!

If you have to buy a digital SLR have you considered a used Fuji S2pro?

In the UK I have seen them sell for around 500 to 600 quid.

[hayward]

I think the bottom line is that if you are really serious, you'll end up with pro gear eventually. You'll also be digital. The question is how to get there in an affordable way. For me, the answer was to acquire good equipment over time -- mostly used -- and to sell it and upgrade as my needs change.

 

Having owned an N80 and now shooting with a D70, I would say you won't notice much difference, although it will feel funny with no MB16 for a while. Personally, I don't think there is enough difference between the N80 and F100 to upgrade -- you could go for a used F5 for a few hundred more.

[jose_angel]

Ok. It is not my intention to compare apples with (bananas?), I put the D70 price in my post as a orientative camera price. Wrong idea, as in my opinion is not in the same level in AF operation and speed of the 20D. I`m not an expert in DSLRs, but it is another debate.

 

Perhaps a 20D can do the work for Robert as it does for me. Other cheaper digi cameras doesn`t. I use also regularly a Mamiya rangefinder (with a shorter shutter lag than SLRs) and other formats almost exclusively for b&w film. The slower shutter lag of film SLRs also works for me. A reasonable shutter lag is allowed by me in the benefit of my needs. In the other hand, the AF speed of my Mamiya RF is zero, but it also works for me. Nothing about light meters.

 

About the question Robert write, I understand that he is refering about START buying a used system ($$$$), starting with a F100, not only a camera+lens kit. Does is make sense to build a 35mm "Film Based" System? I maintein "probably no".

 

"If you like to enlarge your own negatives on silver, or if you have an special artistic dedication to b&w, my answer could be different, but I probably advice you to buy a bigger format, even for color negative scanning".

 

"Andrew has also a good point here. If money is not an issue, why not?"

 

My excuses to those who suffer reading my clumsy english.

[ShunCheung]

It may make sense to start with a film body and use it for a few years. Beyond that, you probably need to be a very dedicated film user to continue using film, e.g. do your own B&W processing, etc.

 

Until I bought my D100 almost 3 years ago, I had been shooting slide film for 30 years. One of the best labs in the US has been A&I and their slide mailers had been $5.50 for a long time. Now it is $6.79. As fewer and fewer people use film, film and processing cost will gradually get more expensive and less convenient.

 

Concerning lenses, be careful to get focal lengths and zooms that make sense for both film and small-sensor digital, e.g. the 17-35mm zoom. If you get something like the 105mm "portrait lens," it may become not very useful when you eventually switch it digital.

[lex_jenkins]

One thing about digital: once you've gotten over the hard part - buying it - the rest is easy. I've taken a couple thousand shots in the past couple of weeks. Granted, most of that is testing, learning, getting accustomed to the thing and just plain goofing around. But even at my most productive I've never come anywhere close to shooting that much film.

 

I'm going to start taking personal credit for the "Currently sold out" status of the D2H and SanDisk Extreme III 1GB CF almost everywhere. I think I've frothed about this camera so much it's turned into an infection.

 

Thom Hogan has an article proposing 2005 New Year Resolutions that Nikon should adopt. One of them is "Don't Panic!" (I'm reminded of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.) Thom wonders whether Nikon's sudden discounting of the D2H is a sign of panic that might actually undermine customer confidence.

 

I wrote to him and admitted that, yeh, it might be a sign of panic on Nikon's part. But it didn't stop me from buying.

 

So, for similar reasons, I'd say regarding whether now is a good time to buy film equipment: Don't Panic.

[vivek iyer]

Just recently, I bought a Bessa L with a 39mm screw mount. It is for a specific need that no SLR or DSLR can fulfill.

 

So, it is entirely up to you to decide. As noted, film camera gear is cheap and it is the perfect time to build one, if you need it.

 

Digital has its advantages and limitations. If you can make out the difference and want to exploit the features offered by film, you should get your system.

 

One major advantage of a film SLR that you should realise is the lack of "crop factor" There is one lousy wide angle zoom from Nikon for its DSLRs. They really do not have a DSLR system, yet.

 

If you buying flash, it may be a good idea to buy the SB-800 and not the old ones. SB-800 is backward comaptible with most SLRs.

[jose_angel]

Here it is a sample of my professional work with digital:<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Vivek, Nikon has several very good DX zooms to cover the wide angle. The 18-70 DX is not great but gives you very good value for the money. Both the 17-55 and 12-24 are excellent. You can say a $900+ 12-24mm/f4 is expensive and on the slow side, but it is certainly not lousy.

[dan_fromm2]

Robert, why do you care what other people think?

 

You'll be spending your money for your purposes. You can evaluate how to achieve your goals given your budget better than anyone else can.

 

For the record, I'm completely non-digital. NOT anti-digital. Digital cameras are useful tools.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[rdeanda]

This is great feedback from everyone. Now I hear that a D70s is on the horizon. This is madness sometimes.

 

I want something with more ruggedness and speed and don't want to spend thousands for a body.

 

The irony is that I got my friends involved in digital photography. They own D70, 300D and 20D.

 

I guess that what I really want is a Digital F100. However, I hate the idea of investing in DX lenses that will surely be obsolete in 3 years.