Current 35mm films in a 8008 ?

[rick_king4]

I'm planing no getting my 8008 out next week for a trip, I haven't shot 35mm in

about 7 years. Is everything about the same with the 35 films as far as working

with the camera. Or is there any problems? I'm planing on something like 200 -

400 speed film.

 

Thanks

[johnw63]

The difference is you can't find anywhere the selction you used to. All you'll find, is 200, 400,

and 800. Other than that...you're camera won't know the difference. Why did you think

something would change as far as working with the camera ?

[joseph_wisniewski]

Inspect all your lenses for fungus. Shoot a roll of slide film, make sure you've shot a few pictures with each of your lenses, and have it developed before your trip. Sitting for 7 years can do all sorts of bad things to a camera and lenses.

[pnance]

Hope you didn't leave batteries in the camera. :)

[mawz]

John: Huh? There's tons of 35mm film still around. Not much stuff has been discontinued, and of that, only the really slow fine-grain B&W emulsions like Tech Pan and APX 25 are missed.

 

Velvia 50 is due back in a month or two, Kodak just launched a full set of new Portra's, Fuji gave use the new 160S, 160C, 400H and 800Z colour neg films as well as Velvia 100 (NOT 100F) and Provia 400X.

 

It's the golden age of film right now. The cameras are dirt cheap and the emulsions are the best they've ever been.

[stank]

Clean all the electrical contacts including the battery holder, battery compartment, lens mount and lenses. Exercise the shutter (get all the demons out).

[Peter_in_PA]

Adam writes "It's the golden age of film right now. The cameras are dirt cheap and the

emulsions are the best they've ever been."

 

Except that processing costs an arm and a leg and is going to get more expensive.

 

Nothing wrong with film. It's beautiful, but "the golden age"? Just a touch of hyperbole...

[ShunCheung]

Yeah, your primary concern is not whether film is available. That may be a problem in the future but not right now. The big question is whether your N8008 is still working fine after sitting idly for 7 years. I would definitely test it first before relying on it.

 

I wouldn't call this the "Golden Age for Film" though. Film SLRs are certainly cheap, but at least I also know that if I shoot film, I am accepting inferior quality in today's standards.

[frankie_frank1]

The best 35mm film/slide is around 6MP equivalent. That is what I read an article from Kodak 5~6 years ago.

[mawz]

Peter: I'm paying $3CDN/roll right now for C-41 for process and a low-res CD, less than $1/roll for B&W (I do my own B&W). Slide's a little pricey, but hasn't gone up in years at my local store.

 

Not exactly expensive to me, as long as you shop around a bit.

[mawz]

Shun: Lower quality? certainly not. The emulsions are the best they've ever been. And digital printing has made top quality prints available to everyone who doesn't have access to a master printer (No, I'm not talking minilabs and RA-4 from digital, but top-quality scans output via a photo printer). Sure it's a little work, but the output quality is as good as 10-12MP digital for similar amounts of effort.

 

Frankie: 6MP? Maybe for ISO400+ film, but certainly not for todays fine-grained slow films like Provia 100F or Astia, which match and surpass 12MP images if a little care is taken (Tripod and a remote release). Film is more variable in resolution than digital, so you don't get a fixed level of detail from a certain type.

[rick_king4]

It does work fine, I have been using bulk film, but I haven't purchased color film in years. That was the thing that worryed my was things like film speed ratings. I always remove batterys :-) Thanks for the info.

 

Rick

[willscarlett]

I read somewhere...I forget where, I think it was a Fuji article, but it said that with the proper

lens and film, you can get the equivlent of a 25 MP picture.

 

Also, up on Wikipedia, under Kodachrome, they say that scanning Kodachrome at 4000 DPI

procduces around 21 MP from a 35mm frame. Imagine if you had a better scanner or medium

format to work with.

[johnw63]

Adam,

 

In my neck of the woods, the ONLY 35mm film I can find is 200, 400, or 800 speed print film. No one in the three city 100,000 population sells anything else. I was at the Grand Canyon, a few weeks ago and found the gorcery store THERE had a much better selection. I bought a roll of Elitechrome, as that was the only slides they had, and a box of 100 speed print, because I hadn't seen that in a year.

 

Now, where is a good place to send the slides to be developed ? Send out to Kodak is about 9 bucks per roll.

[Peter_in_PA]

Adam writes "Peter: I'm paying $3CDN/roll right now for C-41 for process"

 

Great, enuoy it while it lasts, and I hope it lasts a long time, but I hope nobody is

suggesting that commercial C-41 print film is better than current digital. Realy good E-6

is one thing, but print negative film from a commercial (non-custom) lab? No.

 

In my former employment we did some testing, and found that resolution was just as good

with our D1 as with well-scanned E6 slide film. Color is another matter. If you argue to me

that a well shot, well drum-scanned slide from Velvia is better than any digital available, I

will agree with you. Resolution might not be discernibly different in final output, but color

is another matter...

[albert_smith]

<I>...but I hope nobody is suggesting that commercial C-41 print film is better than current digital.</I><P>

 

I agree that in terms of image quality, digital is fine compared to straight C-41 from a basic lab.<P>

 

What is not equal is when you strive for selective focus with moderate focal lengths. Here the full frame 35mm film and sub-85mm lenses allow images that digital, at least Nikon digital can't offer.<P>

 

I shoot digital on less-than full frame and do all of the mental "this (digital) lens gives this (film) focal length's angle of view" calculations, but angle of view is not the whole thing. A 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor at full aperture shot with film gives an image that can't readily be replicated on digital... unless you are shooting with a full frame Canon. Until Nikon gives us a full frame capture (if ever), I'll still be loading up my film cameras and exploiting moderate focal length selective focus.<P>

[mawz]

John: B&H will gladly sell you whatever you need, and likely a fair bit cheaper than what your local stores are charging.

 

A D1 matching 35mm for resolution? Must be some low-quality scans, 2.74MP is simply not nearly enough to match even fast 35mm for resolution. My Minolta Scan Dual III (2820di dedicated scanner) gives me results similar to 6-8MP cameras, and its output doesn't compare to a really good scanner, or even a Coolscan V. My Epson 4490 flatbed would give results similar to a D1 with 35mm film, but as a 35mm scanner, it's bloody horrid (Does an adequate job on 120 though). Velvia will handily outresolve a D1.

[Peter_in_PA]

Adam,

 

Perspective... Keep in mind those tests were when the D1 was current... so comparing a

cheap old coolscan to a D1... Yep, same quality! Drum scanning, which we used to have to

do even for 35mm, was required for print stuff of any size.

 

Whether or not Velvia out-resolves a decent scan is debatable for some. I agree with you, I

think the Velvia will surely look better, especially with a great scan. However, our original

poster on this topic is unlikely to be shooting Velvia and doing high-end scans, don't you

agree? I mean, we're talking about an individual whose 8008 has been in the closet for 7

years. I bet he'd LOVE a D40 or D50 more! (Often our conversations here go off on bunny

trails which forget the original intent of the post, which I admit is fun and informative... I

hope it remains helpful for those who originally post the questions.)

 

Regardless, Rick, I hope everything works and I hope you take great photos, and even

more, I hope you have a FABULOUS trip!

[User_502260]

A high quality prime lens with the best 100 speed color print film should be able to capture about 100MP of information. The problem is that to capture that information you need to scan at 8,500 DPI. At that point small defects in the film base may show up.

[mawz]

Peter: Can't disagree with your last post. Had a D50 for a while, it's a killer little body for the casual shooter or the serious shooter on a budget, as long as they use AF.