Help me make a decision here

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>Hi guys I hope someone can help me make a decision here. I originally started photography with film sometime in 2004. After awhile a bought myself a dslr(400d), however around the same time I also discovered medium format as well as slide film and was simply blown away by the results. I proceeded to sell my dslr and purchased quite a large collection of film cameras, including Nikon F3's, EOS 1V, Olympus OM, a couple of Mamiya TLR's as well as a Voigtlander Bessa R3A and a 40mm summicron to go with it as well as a lot of other lenses and accesories.<br>

All was going well until the start of this year when the price of processing slide film has soared where I live (Malaysia). From around 4USD a roll to over 10 USD for developing. I simply cannot afford to shoot slide film annymore, and since I dont like shooting c-41,which admittedly cost only 1 USD to develop, I am thinking of the following plan<br>

Sell off all the 35mm stuff and buy either a 2nd hand 400d or 1000d. This will be my 'everyday' camera. I plan to keep the TLR's that I have for more 'serious' stuff where quality is a priority, I can afford to get a couple of rolls developed every now and then. <br>

The thing is I dont actually NEED to sell off all the 35mm gear, I have enough to afford a 400d, its just that I think over the next few years they will just be worth less and less as the demand for film dies down, and there are better thing I can do with the money tied down in these cameras.<br>

Would there be compelling reason to keep these cameras? I'm not a camera collector,all my equipment I buy to use,not display.</p>

[vanner]

<p>Keep a 35mm film camera.</p>

[lim_guo_chai]

.

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>@Les Sarile<br>

Very impressive latitude there,but unfortunately no, negative film just isnt for me. I like to be able to hold up slides and see the photo instantly.</p>

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>@Steven Vanner<br>

Any particular reason why?</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I wouldn't sell anything. They're always fun to use occasionally. I still have 3 35mm cams, 4 medium format cams, but mainly use my 5D in DSLR these days. Pulling out the medium format cams mostly, but occassionally the 35mm cams.</p>

<p>But I do question Les's comparison. No, I don't doubt the results. The comparison to the G10, a very small sensor....the 20D, a second generation DSLR......and the T1i, a crop sensor camera...is really not a fair accessment of "35mm" digital. If you're going to compare the best color negative film against digital, you should compare the best in digital. I'd like to see a full frame RAW image "exposed to the right" and post processed by someone who knows how to tweak the best from a RAW file in Lightroom or ACR. That would be a very fair accessment of the differences.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Honestly, for $1 developing, I'd start to like C41 if I were you. You like film. Get the $1 developing. How much are 4x6 prints? Or a simple scan to CD?</p>

<p>I shoot mostly B&W, but the current batch of C41 films from Kodak are great! Portra and Ektar are really nice. I'm sure Fuji has equally nice products. </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Les -<br>

The problem with your tests is that you never show what can be done with a RAW file and software. I use an M8, and have recovered images that are 2 stops over exposed. I've shot all kinds of film over 45 years in photography. Your tests only show your bias towards film, and are not indicative of the entire digital process. Color negative film does have a greater dynamic range than a digital camera, and a digital camera has more dynamic range than transparency film - it's as simple as that.</p>

<p>You choose your tools as appropriate for the work you're doing. Having shot transparency film for years as I made Ilfochromes, I find the extra dynamic range of a digital camera easy to work with without the hassle of trying to find a lab for film development (the last professional lab in my city shut down in January). </p>

<p>Your crayon boxes are cute - but, really don't represent what can be done with a digital camera shooting RAW and handling the files correctly.</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_hobson1]

<p>"they will just be worth less and less as the demand for film dies down", so will digital. Soon as you walk out the front door. ;-)<br>

Not to step on toes........... I shoot both film and digital. I like them both. I feel neither is better than the other, the results are just different. Sometimes digital fits the bill, sometimes film does it. I'd keep both. Oh wait, I did!<br>

Did you ever consider processing your own film at home?</p>

 

[randall_pukalo]

<p>C-41 doesnt scan as well as slide, it is much grainier, and the colors just are not there, especially for scenics and sunsets. You cant look at it with the naked eye like you can slide, and you cant project it. Other than its wider lattitude, it doesnt hold much over digital for me, and doesnt come close to slide, except in terrible lighting conditions. So, what I am saying is, Dont try to push C-41 on him, its just not right for many people.<br>

ps _ I still shoot it, mainly for people pics, because it is cheap to process, has high iso speeds, and I can use it in my film cameras. But I always ask myself why, when I see the scanned results (from my Minolta 5400 I tope end film scanner) compared to my Minolta 7D or Panasonic FX150 digitals...<br>

Slide however, scans as well as digital, and always wows me with results...</p>

[machts gut]

<p>"Very impressive latitude there,but unfortunately no, negative film just isnt for me. I like to be able to hold up slides and see the photo instantly."</p>

<p>How do you plan to do this with the files of a DSLR?</p>

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>@Jim<br>

Yes I have considered processing my own film,but its next to impossible to get the chemicals in my country, plus controlling the temperature will be very tricky for me. <br>

I also didn't mention that there is only ONE lab that does e-6 processing in the entire country,and I dont know how much longer it will be around.<br>

@Stefan<br>

Of course I dont. But it will be much easier than scanning negative film and going through all the conversion. Besides I only want a DSLR for those photos where quality isnt of the utmost importance. I've owned a DSLR before and know what I am getting into.</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>Hey Everyone. I see this is getting into a emulsion vs pixel debate again. Steve you mentioned about shooting raw and mentioned what software can do or something to that effect. How about you post your raw images without any post production mumbo jumbo and see if they are as good or better then les's crayon box tests. Some of Us emulsion heads, especially me, do not do any post production, it is almost a given you digiheads need software and to me that is not true representation straight from the camera, just my opinion of course.</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>Sorry about my last post there. I sounded very harsh in my words. Please excuse my tone. I wasn't trying to come across as arrogant. Please forgive me. Thank you.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>"...as he claims that somehow RAW can magically provide latitude that isn't there..."</p>

<p>ah, but it is there if you originally "expose to the right" on the histogram. It's reminiscent of the Zone System for B&W photography. You expose to get the range of values, and then develop accordingly (exposure would be the expose to the right concept, and development would be the RAW converter techniques). Of course, due to film layering system of the 3 primary colors, you can't change developing times to achieve this with slides. Hence, the RAW files large edge on slide film. As far as the negative color, you still can't change developing times, but admittedly it starts out with an advantage....albiet an edge that is constantly being narrowed every generation of imaging chip and post processing software. If you haven't used Lightroom in the past year, you have no idea it's capabilites...and EASE OF USE...in processing an image. anyhow.......But your film lab tech still has to do things to make the print correct. The "home" lab tech always had that conrol with B&W. Digital actually puts that control for color work in his hands. For the people that have always done their own processing and printing....digital is something they are happy to embrace in color. If you sent your stuff out for the film lab tech to do his post production mumbo jumbo for color work, you really have no experience in the issue. I personally couldn't afford the equipment to process and control color developing and printing, but did B&W all the time at home. It took me major effort to find a lab that would print color work the way i wanted it.....and they charged me an arm and a leg for it too. Digital has freed me from that constraint and expense, and the results are phenominal.</p>

<p>Andrew Rodney says it much better, and in much moor detail than I ever could. Read the article.....I think you will be impressed. And after the intitial learning curve....it's incredibly fast and easy to accomplish.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html">http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html</a></p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is I dont actually NEED to sell off all the 35mm gear, I have enough to afford a 400d, its just that I think over the next few years they will just be worth less and less as the demand for film dies down, and there are better thing I can do with the money tied down in these cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually think your 400D would drop faster in value than your film SLRs. It is an entry level camera, as opposed to some of the SLRs you list + it is digital, so its life expectancy will be significantly shorter than a film SLR.</p>

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>Henrik<br>

Yes I know that DSLR's depreciate way faster,but at least I will be using it, compared with my 35mm stuff that will be sitting there untouched.</p>

[lim_guo_chai]

<p>When reading over my original post, perhaps I worded it too long. The gist of the question comes down to<br>

"Should I sell off my 35mm gear that I have sitting around doing nothing? Would there be any practical reason to keep it around?"</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I'd say sell off some if you're really not going to use them but keep at least one that's in good working order for rescreational use. Because even at those prices, you might still want to do an occcasional roll of slide film, or because you can shoot a roll of some good print film like Portra and get a very good look for skin tones, or because there's just no properly satisfying digital substitute for a good old fashioned B&W film. How much money can you actually get these days for an OM, for example? And is that really worth giving up on 35mm completely?</p>

<p>Anyway, prices for older 35mm equipment are so low, demand having already fallen, that I can't see that you'd lose much by holding on to some.</p>