hammerstone

<p>I'd say a Minolta over an Olympus OM10 as well. I shoot mainly Pentax these days but I am a big fan of Minolta as well. Not to say anything against Olympus! </p> <p>Out of all the major camera manufacturers I come across Minolta equipment most frequently and it's always at an insanely low price. For instance, this summer I bought a Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 lens for $3.00 at a garage sale. You'll be able to find a larger selection of Minolta lenses for better prices than you will Olympus, and that's where you should be spending most of the money anyway. Get one of the XG bodies for cheap, and keep an eye out for an XD or SRT body (or both!) just in case something <em>does</em> happen to your first one. </p> <p>As far as what people are saying about the build quality of the XG-series bodies, I can only say that in my experience I've never had a problem so far. I have my mom's XG-A that was bought in the early '80s as well as an X-700, both of which work perfectly today. If you have the opportunity to buy locally than that is the best bet, you can make sure for yourself that all functions are working well, and if the camera was taken care of you shouldn't have any problems. </p>

<p>(Lab scan)</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not against a modification to make a camera compatible with silver oxide batteries myself, however I hate to go through the hassle of it myself. Thankfully the Pentaxes I use have the bridge circuit and work just fine unmodified. When I used my Minolta SRT-MCII for a photography class though, I got myself a Wein Cell zinc-oxide battery. It's 1.33 volts which is close enough to the original mercury battery voltage to be imperceptible to the camera. I had it tested (with my battery in) at my local camera store to be sure and they told me it was working perfectly. <br> The downside is that the batteries only last a few months, but it got me through that semester with no problems. If you're just a bit squeamish about modifying a camera or don't want the hassle of the other alternatives, I'd suggest giving the Wein cell a shot.</p>

<p>Yeah, I think Leica just released a brand new film camera too, didn't they? Cosina still makes a few as well, like the Fuji GS670 and the Nikon FM-10. People are still making large format cameras as well, and there's a new pro-level super 8 camera coming from Denmark called the Logmar. (and I guess there's Lomography as well, if you're into that sort of thing)</p> <p>Good choice on the Hasselblad, I wish I had the money to throw around on something like that! I'm looking at one of the older Fuji rangefinders myself, but I still can't afford it. I'm glad we were able to persuade you into going back to film. May it reward you well! </p>

<p>I'm not worried about film being around for a while. I think Ferrania did a good step in that direction, and it's definitely a salient point that they're geared more toward smaller runs. Admittedly yes, their emulsions are 20 years out of date now but who says that's a bad thing? It's like finding a time capsule in some ways. I'm not a huge fan of the ultra-modern films like Ektar and Portra anyway. Will Kodak still be around in a few decades? Sure hope so, not that I want to have any illusions there. Yeah, they need to meet certain minimum requirements for demand to make it profitable to create a master roll of something. If they go under, I'd expect that <em>someone</em> is going to be interested in their machinery, emulsions, etc, either an existing company or a new one. <br> I have no idea what the state of R&D is for film, but that's all in Kodak's lap. Personally I think they've gone about it the wrong way trying to compete with digital by releasing ever-increasingly finer-grained films. Will there be a Vision 4 series? Who knows...I had a dream about it a few weeks back, not that that can be trusted. We could very be at the peak of film technology right now; that doesn't worry me either--digging into the past and resurrecting old emulsions isn't such a horrible idea. I'd love to be able to shoot Verichrome Pan, Tech Pan, medium format Gold 100, or how about Eastman EXR 200T? <br> A big thing to remember is that the film market hit bottom several years ago and has been on the rise since then. Also, film cameras are dirt cheap. My main camera is a Pentax Spotmatic SPII with an SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 lens and I bought that setup at a garage sale for $5.00. Try to get <em>that</em> level of quality with a digital camera dollar for dollar! Even a pretty good medium format camera can be had for $300 or less these days, and for that kind of money, really, what would you have to lose? <br> I laugh in the face of "film is dead." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at worst, but the thing to remember is that if the demand is still there, it'll still be around. Look at black & white film: it makes up 5-10% of the market, but there are more (smaller) companies making black & white than there are color, and they're just chugging along. I'll say it again: <em>I'm not worried</em>. It's a niche market now, but the demand is there, and it's sustainable. Other people have said it already, but look at things like wet plate, tintype, daguerrotype: all "dead" formats, yet still there are people out there using those processes. <br> Film <em>processing</em> is cheaper now than it's ever been as well! Ask anyone who was shooting film 30 years ago and I'm willing to bet that they'd say they were paying the same prices back then, and that's without being adjusted for inflation. <br> <br />I've been shooting film for the last 5 years, and in that 5 years I shot roughly 60 rolls of film, on average a roll a month. For a lot of that time I was buying dirt-cheap consumer film (which I happen to love, btw) between $2-3.00 per roll. When I started I could get processing and scanning for $6.00 at Walgreens, now I'm paying around $8.50 (at a real store down in Colorado Springs). I was estimating an average of $12.00 per roll from the price of the film through getting it scanned, so in 5 years shooting film has cost me a little over $700. <em>Not expensive</em>. Compare that to getting a cup of coffee at Starbuck's a few times a week, hmmmm?</p>

<p>"I wish Kodak would fire off another master roll or two of Gold 100."<br> Man, me too! Maybe we can get a special order together someday... It's kind of sad that one can't get Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia in medium format anymore, maybe we can convince them to bring that back too. As it is, I prefer the look of consumer negative films to Portra, Ektar, or Pro400H. <br> In fact, I've thought of a more eloquent reason why I still shoot color negative film:<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17881839<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17881835<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17881830<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/17881837</p>

<p>Why do I still shoot color negative film?<br> <br />Why not, it's still being made! Great latitude, colors, and the many ways it can be manipulated while still looking natural. I have absolutely no temptation to switch to digital. I'm also fortunate to have a pretty good lab only a few miles from where I go to class (I'm getting a roll of Cinestill 800T back today), and there are plenty of 1-hour photo drugstores around that could process it too. I'll probably shoot more E-6 when Ferrania sends me some in the Spring, but that has to be sent to a lab about a hundred miles North of me and usually takes a week to get it back. So I guess convenience plays a role, I suppose. I'm just getting processing and scanning, so there's that, too. I don't know anywhere in my area where I could get a good optical print made, in fact if I did I would probably go back to getting prints...</p>

<p>Petri 2.8 Color-corrected Super. How do you turn off the self-timer!</p> <div></div>