Any Reason to Keep 35mm Film Cameras?

[vincent_j_m]

I'm in a similar situation. I love shooting with my film gear because of the wide angle capabilities, large viewfinder and cheap price.

 

However due to the nature of my subjects (fast moving kids) a lot of film tends to get wasted or shots missed due to too much thinking and composing. I had no choice but to go digital.

 

I don't see myself going back to film in future. I've shot one roll in the past 6 months. My kids' birthday pics were processed 4 months too late. It simply doesn't work for me any more.

 

Ultimately the choice is yours. I would still love to have a film SLR for sentimental reasons, but practicality gets the better of me every time, I know I'll never use the film SLR again, so it's now up for sale.

[cian_perez]

As liberating as my digital SLR is, I'm still a dedicated film shooter. Whenever I have the opportunity to go out and do my nature and landscape shooting, I'll take my pro film bodies and several rolls of Velvia. However, if I know my primary subject matter will be people, I'll shoot with my 20D. I'm still enamored by the permanence of film, but digital does make sense to me if you're gonna burn through frames like there's no tomorrow. It's simply cost effective. I too have spent my photographic infancy with rolls of slide film perpetually waiting to be processed - digital is clearly a better learning medium. However, photography is a hobby for me, and for me film is MUCH more enjoyable.

[wojtek_kalinowski]

In the last 18 months i shot about 30000 photos with my 10D.Can someone work out how much it would cost me using film.Thank you,i rest my case.W

[scott_eaton]

I love you guys justifying film by assuming you will always have a C-41 and E-6 lab around the corner. Shooting digital might make you a slave to your computer, but unlike you film zleaots living in denial, <b>I own my computer</b> and don't need to drop off my capture cards and wait 3 days to see the images at a local lab who might not be there next week. 'Tmax 100's resolving power'....big deal....who shoots that sterile looking, density range castrated junk anyways. At least be a real photographer and load up some HP5 or something, or shoot MF. Leave it to 35mm shooters to bring up endless dribble about how much LPM resolution 35mm Provia has when if it really mattered they'd be shooting MF.<P>

 

Just last a week a co-worker of mine who still shoots with a Nikon F4 was bitching like crazy that of the 3 rolls of print film and 6 rolls of Velvia he shot in South America only two were processed correctly. The other 7 were trashed. Guess who's now looking to sell his F4 and get a D200?<P>To tell you the honest truth, I'd go back to shooting with my RB and FE2 given my FE2 is about a billion times more ergonomic to use tham my 10D and its' worthless viewfinder, but the fact remains when I use my dSLR <b>I'm</b> under absolute control with my images and don't have drop film in an envelope and pray the $7.50 an hour lab tech doesn't f--- it up. I also don't have to deal with taking a picture of my processed film with a digital camera called a 'film scanner'.

[mark_l3]

"'Tmax 100's resolving power'....big deal....who shoots that sterile looking, density range castrated junk anyways"

 

just because you are incapable of producing anything of quality with tmax doesn't mean someone else can't.

 

 

 

film, digital--who gives a crap, show me what you make with it, that's what counts.

[alice_guy]

Have both digital and film and using both. Clients always specify digital. I've done one job in the last year that used film [medium format]. So, the film cameras are mainly for my personal use and self motivated work. I find it makes a pleasant distinction between work and play. FE2 and hasselblad with HP5 or Tri-x for personal work and the mellow atmosphere of the darkroom is a nice respite from the harsh glare of a computer screen burning client motivated images into my retinas.

 

And also for the pleasnt suprise and luxury of the viewfinders each time I pick up the film cameras.

 

It's relativley cheap to pick up film cameras nowadays too and is porbably only going to get cheaper. Selling film cameras on the other hand is relativley expensive in terms of the losses.

 

As to whether processing will survive or get crazily expensive and awkward it's difficult to tell. Of people I know doing their own b+w there's a fair few of them stock piling chemicals etc. Having said that, how often do you see poeple using Super 8, yet Kodak is still developing new Super 8 emulsions. Yes, you don't have a huge range of choice of places when developing it and certainly no options locally, but it's still there and not because of a mass market for it. It has niche appeal and survives.

[vasilis]

Depends what you have to sell. If I had something seriously expensive siting around and gathering dust then I would sell it. But I have 6 film cameras (4 working) in total that they all would sell for nothing even if I found someone stupid enough to buy them. So as Bob said I just have them around...

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

It would be nice if the people arguing the advantages of film over digital knew enough to make the right arguments.

 

Someone mentioned dead pixels. Tell you what, I'll shoot on a DSLR with a couple of dead pixels and you shoot film and scan. My pre set up action or program will have mapped out those pixels while you are still running the scan preview and then you get a good hour scanning, correcting and cloning out the dust.

 

There are arguments for film over digital, I personally didn't see that digital outresolved 35mm film until my 1Ds, I'd had the D60 and 10D before and now have a 5D. It hasn't been until the 5D that I've seen files with enough DR to match an NPH print (not neg, print). That said I sold my Mamiya 645 when I saw what the 10D could do. Yes it resolves less, but the difference in grain on large prints (8X10"+), even using Velvia 100 meant that MF was no longer worth the bother.

 

There are plenty arguments in favour of film, I know them all from my digital odessey, from how careful I have to be with certain things, etc. Argue the true issues not the silly little details that arn't accurate anyway.

[nodrog]

I have long been a computer geek. However, I am sticking with film cameras,for now, only because the cost for a top of the line Nikon digital is twice as much as the new F6.

[rolandwong]

Hi Steve,

 

It's not a stupid question, I too was in the same dilemma not long ago. Like most of them had mentioned, film is unlikely to go away. Hence, you can keep it without any worries.

 

I kept mine because that's the very first camera that I bought myself =) For sentimental reason. Had been traveling around with it, and it had serve me very well. Though it's sitting in the dry cabinet, with lots of accessories that I could not use on my DSLR. I still take it out occasionally to shoot. I have my dad's manual camera too.

 

I just like the feeling of film, the look of my slides, and waiting for the lab to process it. Also the way it force me to think and see before I shoot. Cause I can't really remember how long I have not been thinking hard before I shoot. I'm still a newbie, and had a long way to go. I just enjoy having both. =)

 

Just keep it.

 

Cheers.

[dave_redmann]

<I>'Tmax 100's resolving power'....big deal....who shoots that sterile looking, density range castrated junk anyways. At least be a real photographer and load up some HP5 or something, or shoot MF.</I><P>

 

Well, Scott, first, I'll readily grant you that TMX is not an all-purpose film. But for some types of photography (in my case, mostly architectural), I think it is the best answer, especially if you don't have an LF setup (which, alas, I don't, and can't justify the expense of).<P>

 

Besides TMX, I still stock some Tri-X, which I've generally preferred to HP5+. And I do, sometimes, shoot MF. It all just depends on the subject, the desired print size, etc.<P>

 

I admit that six months doesn't go by without digital overtaking film in some significant respect, or at some price point. I admit that the day is likely to come when I won't shoot any film. But today, with the available equipment and techniques, especially for those, e.g., whose wives might be inclined to balk at big expenditures on photography, film is IMO the tool of choice for <I>some</I> pictures.

[dg1]

I like using both digital and 35mm cameras for different reasons.

 

Just bought a brand new Pentax MZ-S, to keep my *ist DS DSLR company. Totally insane of course, spending serious cash on a film camera. Counter intuitive, yes, so what? I know digital is king, and the DS kicks ass on the filmer in many ways. But like a cagy old street fighter, I think 35mm still has a few dirty tricks up its sleeve.

 

For me the important differences offered between 35mm SLRs and DSLRs are more differences in process and hardware ergonomics. Sure, it's not about the camera, certainly not about camera bodies, any will do ultimately, but process and hardware do have an influence on how one reacts and acts towards a photo op.

 

 

Image quality judgements are subjective and arbitrary in personal work. If you're working for someone and need to meet their criteria that's a different story. Where a lot of disagreement comes up, like here, is when the needs of a "pro" conflict with the expressive possibilities a medium offers to amateurs or artist types.

 

I like the differences in process. The MZ-S, besides it being the nicest camera I've ever owned in a hardware sense, puts my head in a different place when I'm using it. I feel tuned in to the subject outside of the camera more. I have to think proactively, imagine the outcome before I press the shutter. Then it's over, it's a new moment.

 

Nothing that can't be done with a DSLR, but it's a question of emphasis.

 

I guess if I had to choose between them, I'd keep the DSLR, for it's many advantages and the convenience. Same if I was doing professional work. But as it stands, the camera I've been picking up first is the MZ-S. I'm not aware of any digital camera that is as great a joy to use, and to me that's very important.

[friskybongo]

Keep your 35mm for now.

 

What will you do with the money you get from the sale? You'll be shocked at how little you'll get. I know because I sold all my Canon 35mm cameras + lenses and it wasn't even enough to but a Canon Digital Rebel. If you sell to folks like KEH or B&H, they'll mark it up 100% from the lowball price they give you; they win you lose. At least you'll have equipment for emergency backup purposes.

[rob_landry]

SW,

 

You can try to sell some of your 35mm SLRs on Ebay; just put a reasonable reserve price to see what you can get. You never know.

Keep at least one of your 35s and start shooting some film here and there, shoot it along side of your D70. I do this with my D50 and it's nice to have a film back-up of a keeper. I did this the other day for a landscape shot. I shot the scene with the digital first and then shot it with the F100 and Velvia. Upon getting home, I immediately played with the D50 shot and got the image to where I was pleased. A week later, upon getting the film developed, I found that the film shot was much more to my liking (color, contrast etc.), so I scanned it, matched the slide and got a better result. The Minolta 5400 also delivered more resolution and the foliage and bark on the trees had much better detail; the D50 was mushier in those areas.

[edgreene]

SW: <i>(I have a Nikon D70, but it doesn't have mirror lockup. I am planning to get the D200.)</i><p>Ah, another reason to keep my Robocameras!<br>I recently bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ20. Hell of a camera: Leica lensed, f/2.8 throughout the huge zoom range of 36mm-432mm and optical stabilized to boot. Full set of controls, spot metering and all the good things I got used to with first Pentax, then my Canon EOS "Robocameras". The FZ20 has a deliciously simple macro function that nails close up macro shots while maintaining a serious depth of field. I bought and use the FZ20 primarily for my ebay/Yahoo auction product.<p>For one who cut his teeth dipping, dunking and souping negs, digital seems like child's play; and it is. Tens of millions of "learners" (<i>that is what so many digital shooters infer they are doing: "Learning"</i>) still don't have a clue about what they are doing photographically, their histograms being the Holy Grail to which they cling.<p>With a 4X digital zoom, my FZ20 shoots the 35mm equivalent of 1728mm image stabilized! I am amazed at its daylight images though the built in flash or even adding a Vivitar 285HV doesn't help much. Not compared to my EOS bodies with TTL EOS flash that is.<p>The reasons I stick with film are manifold: I am the Captain of my ship. I can shoot infrared, super wide angle, in total darkness and other mundane things many who shoot digital can't or don't try. Why and how would I say that with such firmness?<br>Nearly everything out of a digital shooters mouth on electronic forums pertains to dSLRs. <p>We all know DSLRs make up less than 1% of all digital imaging machines ever sold. It is the owners of dSLRs who disingenuously contend they (dSLR owners) have the right to represent digital, the genre. Wrong. dSLR owners no more �represent� digital the genre than do we owners of film SLRs represent film photography.<p>Out of their own mouths dSLR owners call themselves �learners� or say the are �learning�.<br>Those tens of millions of "learners" (<i>that is what so many digital shooters infer they are doing: "Learning"</i>) still don't have a clue about what they are doing photographically, their histograms being their version of the Holy Grail.<p>With a 4X digital zoom, my FZ20 shoots the 35mm equivalent of 1728mm image stabilized! I am amazed at its daylight images though the built in flash or even adding a Vivitar 285HV doesn't help. Not compared to my EOS bodies with TTL EOS flash.<p>The reasons I stick with film are manifold: I am the Captain of my ship. I can shoot infrared, super wide angle, in total darkness and other mundane things many who shoot digital don�t know. Why and how would I say that with such firmness?<br>Nearly everything out of a digital shooters mouth (<I>in Internet forums at least</I>) pertains to <b>dSLRs</b>. We all know and understand DSLRs make up less than 1% of all digital imaging machines ever made. It is the owners of dSLRs who disingenuously propose <I><b>they alone have to bear Digital�s banner when in effect, they (dSLR owners) barely represent digital (the genre</I></b>) at all. Digital SLR owners have one or two very fine high-end machines out of less than a functioning dozen or so.<br> Given that the Canon EOS Rebel seems to be the benchmark (waterline) for digital SLRs, I offer this invidious comparison: not one of my film cameras, not one, cannot outperform the Rebel D. Surely it pales in comparison with my Pentax LX, Pentax K-1000, or my Canon F1 (old) with its four (4) finders! Like the Nikon which was previously noted, my F1 and K-1000 can make images <I><b>without a battery</b></I>. <p>Conversationally, even dSLR owners admit the shortcomings of their breed, their owners frequently disparaging the 1.6 or 1.5 lens �Crop factor�. Worse for dSLR owners, even they admit the �full frame� dSLR has trouble matching (<I>without digital interpolation</I>) the ordinary output of my �full frame� film cameras, including my ancient Pentax WR (water resistant) 105 zoom.<br><I>Whole new breeds of �small sensor� compatible digital lenses are being cranked off the various maker�s boards to make the small sensor dSLR even fully functional.</I><br>Those observations are what I read from dSLR owners themselves.<p>Remember too: 99.9996% of digital camera owners own �dinky� (<I>really small sensor</I>) point and shoot bodies. Yes, like mine, some boast four, five, six even eight megapixels, but most are seriously crippled by their lack of functionality, their lenses or their zoom capability. Nearly all but the high-end �Prosumer� digitals like my FZ20, can only �make pitchers�, which their owners are deliriously happy about. They walk them to their docking station, punch a button or two and the �pitchers� come out the other end. Or they trot their cards down to Walmart-etc., plunk the card in the machines and wait. <p>Only a few of the point and shoot owners covet a dSLR. Only a few of them shive one git about the �digital workflow� involved (<I>they�re not going to do it anyway</I>), which is what I abhor about digital: frame after frame of �post processing�, slaving over a monitor for hours.<br>It is also disingenuous for dSLR owners to claim they and their digital versions of my EOS �Robocameras� do equally as well as film cameras. If that were the truth, electronic digital forums would not be crammed with people with imaging and post processing problems.<p>For all but the high end dSLRs, Sepia, B&W, low/available light, infrared are photographic genres only dreamed of and attempted in Photoshop.<br>Only the -1% of digital owners (high end dSLRs) dare venture into ISO 3200 and above. Of course, we all understand there are film shooters who frequently shoot B&W film at ISO 25,600 just to see what kind of �grain� we will end up with (usually golf ball sized).<p>My FZ20 is as capable as my film SLRs for 90% of the work this old head is likely to encounter. It travels light, is dependable, has charisma (<I>at 22oz. Big with its filter and lens hood adapter/lens hood attached</I>) it commands respect. Looking and feeling like an SLR, it usually gets the job done.<br> But its limitations and the lack of it being able to function 100% indoors with built-in or hot shoe flash, makes it a back up body and candid machine while my EOS Robocameras do their usual sterling work.<p>My FZ20 no more represents digital than does any dSLR. Hundreds of millions of digital cameras have been made, only a few ten thousands being dSLRs. <br>What has happened in the real world, that is the world outside of Internet forums, is digital is satisfying a new client base, just like film had to do.<br><I>The learning curve for Polaroid was never fully conquered by most who tried</I>.<br> <b>Then there are the assiduously technical people who use 16 X 20 Polaroids as their portrait film!</b><bR> Billions of folks shoot film only (<I>because they don�t have electricity</I>). On this and many other forums, they too are not represented here, no more than are the tens of millions of point and shoot digital owners so represented.<br>This is and has been an electronic argument about SLRs all along, carried on by owners of SLRs, digital and film.<br>We film SLR owners no more represent film than does an owner of a dSLR represent digital.<p>Film is still used world wide while digital is just getting there.<p>My last assignment saw me and the cameras at a Thanksgiving family affair. I shot film and digital. I took the film to the lab the next morning, while I schlepped the SD card home that night. Uploading the shots, I noted there were 261 shots to �post process�. I batched process the lot, resizing all.<br>I finally understood why �post processing� was such an ordinary, generic word in digital discussions here and in other digital forums: the FZ20 makes jpeg (fine) files that range from 1.6 to 2.3 megabytes in size! <br>Worse for me: I knew the family well. For days they pestered me about the images. I had already delivered the photos and CD from the lab that Saturday. Nevertheless, they wanted to know when I would finish with the digital images. The family sent two members to my <I><b>house</I></I> to see what was taking so long. I had advised them to bring along a card. When they got to the house, we looked for a few minutes, the two of them picking out this and that shot. I had inserted their card in my reader and had, while they talked, downloaded their files onto their card. I took it out, handed it to them, saying: ��here, I�m sure you guys know exactly which shots you want�. <br>�You�re not going to do them�?<br>�Nah, I thought since I have so many other things to do, you�d get your photos back quicker if you do them�. They paid the balance of the contract and left.<p>Is that typical? I do not know. But in some 37 years in the craft, I had never had a client show up at my front door. I decided they would be the last.<p>Finally, film is for <I><b>the making of <u>prints</u> and <u>slides</u></b></I>. There is no fair or scientifically reliable way to compare the two genres. One solution might be to make digital files (any-from any source) into prints and compare the prints side-by-side. <br>Certainly it is invidious in the extremis to process film to digital for electronic exhibition in that there are more processing steps before one can see the by then degraded images.<br>Only then might the argument be settled. I doubt it in that dSLR owners will always claim imaging equality for small format digital, when they know in their heart of hearts it ain�t so.<br>Medium format digital: yeah!<br> Small format digital: for the very few high Megapixel dSLRs? Good but not good enough (for the entire genre); not yet.

 

<div></div>

[edgreene]

FZ20 bare<div></div>

[hash]

I must be stupid or something but I didnt get your point, Ed.

 

So should we keep or sell the 35mm?

[dg1]

Wow Ed, that's out. Un-analyzable. Wha' happened?

[andrew_sacco]

I read this thread with interest. Ed, you make no sense to me, I must be tired.

 

I can tell you that I am heavily invested in film cameras (Nikon) and love the wet darkroom experience. But as I type this I'm looking in amazement at a photograph (Nikon D70)of my son (8x10") BW out of a $90 HP Photosmart with the photo gray cartridge and I have a few conclusions:

 

1. You can't possible look at this quickly, or even with some detailed examination, and tell it's digital

2. My darkroom "experience" is now on my computer screen, and you can get some of the same creative juices flowing, but without getting poisoned. A new generation will never experience the smell of the chemicals or the dim red light, and although I DO miss it, I'm not sure the world is a worse place for that lost art.

3. Why would you waste what little time you have when you can do this so easily?

4. The quality is mind boggling, and advancements are coming at a mind boggling pace.

 

And finally, after recently looking over a Walker Evans book I have, I do realize that much of the technobabble and histograms, pixels, MP's, sensor talk stuff is crap. Look at the collection of Walker Evans images, and their simplicity, tonality, EXCELLENT composition and framing is what it's all about. You can still produce great art whether it's digital or silver emulsions, but it's how you get there that is the least important part. If you enjoy film, enjoy it. I do suspect there are more true photography lovers out there using film and more techno geek digit heads who now think they're photographers, who would never give a second look at Evans, Weston, Brassai, Horst, Clerque..etc.

 

I've switched to digital, sadly, but without regret since now it's a new frontier.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Sell your 35mm cameras and put the money into a medium format film system. You'll love the results for landscapes and B&W portraits! But shoot digital for snapshots and such.

 

Robert

[johninjapan2000]

In my case, I have sold two of my three Nikon SLRs (F90, FM2/T) and the FE-2 is up for sale. However, for fun, I have added some classic rangefinders: Canonet QL17 GIII, Olympus RC (I think). I also have a couple of Minolta TLRs (Autocord). They are just fun.

 

Keep whatever is fun, or cute, or if you just enjoy having it as a conversation piece, or to keep as an occasional loaner to a friend curious about film photography.

 

But sell the serious stuff. In the 35mm world (a world inherently devoted to *ONLY* as much quality as is consistent with great convenience, in my opinion), digital is conqueror and king when real work needs to be done. :-)

 

As to "resolution": this has always been 35mm film's achilles heel, so it is curious that it is constantly being brought up (I've done it, too). Kind of like a "lady-of-the-evening" who is fascinated by virginity. :-)

 

It is a completely trivial matter to stitch two (or, with a bit more trouble, two sets of two) digital frames together. My D50 is, in practical fact, at least a 12 MP machine and, with little additional trouble, a 24 MP machine. This beats the hell out of MF film. (Yes, you can stitch film, but I don't think it is trivial, financially or

physically; digital truly is easy in this respect and this fact should be considered).

 

Of course, someone else's needs will be different.

 

Cheers