Are film SLRs worth buying?

[Chamelion 6]

First, I went back looking for his statement that he's already got a digital camera, and couldn't find it. What I did find is what I thought I was reading all along: That he wants to shoot with an SLR. So, I should have clarified: Shooting WITH AN SLR, per his opening statement that defined his goal, as well as the many statements he made after that, reitterating that same goal.

His statement regarding owning a digital camera...

I think you're not realizing that I already own a P&S bridge digital camera which I use for my regular use.

I asked for advice on Film SLR because I wanted the SLR experience without blowing tons of money on a DSLR.

Discussion over. I'm not a newbie to photography and I understand the basics quite well.

My comment on the muscle car was intended as an analogy... Some people like old stuff, some think it's a waste of time. Whatever the reason, he likes the idea of shooting film and I believe that weighs in far more than the cost... There are two threads by the OP and some of the cameras entertained, especially the medium format cameras, rival the cost of entry level DSLRs. Not that it really matters I suppose... Its not like he has to justify what he spends his money on.

Where we disconect here is my understanding of the original question was "What's the most cost effective way to get into a SLR / DSLR?" In my opinion, no matter how you dress it up, film isn't cheaper... Not if you look at ALL the options. Unless you plan to shoot 7 or 8 rolls of film and move on.

Which isn't to say digital is better... I just don't think cost was ever really the primary concern. Just my opinion...

Do you realize that film and development is cheaper where I live? How many times have I got to repeat this over and over again in this thread?

I don't think you even understand the economics of the issue.

Don't you understand the basic point I'm making that I would rather spend more money spread over a period of 3 years than blow a lot of money in a DSLR at one go?

I can get a decent film SLR + good lens at 1/10th the price of the starting DSLR with a good lens. So even if I spend a lot on film and development, it's going to take a long time for me to reach the price of the starting DSLR.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

I am NOT a film fanatic. I think Buckster has got this correctly. I want an entry into SLR photography that is initially cheap. The recurring expenses don't worry me so much because I don't intend shooting rolls and rolls of film every single day. If I click 50 snaps a month on average that's a lot for me, even with a digital.

Wow... We're really hung up on labels.

I understand your economics perfectly. But you're no hearing what I'm saying about them.

Do I realize that film is cheaper than what? What is the comparison? Even when film was mass produced by hundreds of companies and cost half of what it does now, it was NEVER cheap. Spreading out a recurring expense over any amount of time does not decrease it. With a film camera every roll increases your cost. With a digital every shot decreases your cost. By only shooting 50 shots a month you might be managing that expense so that it is acceptable to you, but to MY way of thinkling you're simply limiting the potential.

As for the term investment... It simply refers to value per dollars spent. If you spend 600 on a camera and only shoot 100 shots that's not as good of an investment as a camera for the same price that you shot 10,000 shots on. Same price, more use = better investment. Its not about making money, it's about how efficent your purchase turns out to be.

And you admit you like "exotic" hobbies. Personally, I just feel from several of your posts that a big part of the appeal is the fact that not many people around you shoot film. That adds value to shooting film over digital. Which is fine.

So to sum up my opinion here...
Film is NEVER a cheaper option than digital. Never.
Film may sometimes be a BETTER option than digital, depending on what you're looking for.
Stating a preference for a given medium over another implies nothing about a person other than the preference.

Feel free to disagree with any or all of these premises. Its simply opinion.

As for people getting so passionate over this debate. I own 25 to 30 film cameras, I shot film from about 1975 to about 1997 or so. I own 1 digital camera and have been shooting digital from August of 2010. For me digital offers less cost and more control than film. Given that and the fact that the kinds of stuff I shoot the difference in quality is negligable, I prefer a digital format. But that's just me.

 

[ghache]

if you wanna shoot film for fun, why not? just get a old slr camera, buy some film, get a scanner and blow your face off.

i bought a nikon FE in mint condition for about 100 shipped with a 50mm lens. got a epson v500 for around 100$ and 150 roll of film for 40$, there is always deals outthere. However, i wouldnt invest 800$ on a film camera and start shooting expensive roll of film.

 

[enzodm]

Do I realize that film is cheaper than what? What is the comparison?

Although I agree with your post in general, I understand also the position of Hari. I had the need to back on that kind of basic economics until I finished my studies. I know now that from a rational point of view is not good economics, but on the other side I also know that when I was student, I did not have options. So I had my first stereo cassette player very cheap, knowing the risk of breaking it earlier, my first film SLR was a used Zenit (russian, up to 1/500, with fragile shutter tents - they broke after one year or so, I bought another one that is still functioning). I was shooting slides because less expensive than prints; I looked at them with a small handheld plastic screen.
You may invest if you have something to invest. And if you foresee better times, you may also waste a small amount of money to have now an approximation of what you want, instead of waiting and saving until possible. You loose something, but not so much.
This is not good economics, but hey! We are living just now the results of good thought economics, isn't it?

 

[nonamexx]

Wow... We're really hung up on labels.

Who?

I understand your economics perfectly. But you're no hearing what I'm saying about them.

And you have conveniently ignored my cash-flow analysis which means I have more money in the bank at all times, even though I spend more on film along the way.

Do I realize that film is cheaper than what? What is the comparison? Even when film was mass produced by hundreds of companies and cost half of what it does now, it was NEVER cheap. Spreading out a recurring expense over any amount of time does not decrease it. With a film camera every roll increases your cost. With a digital every shot decreases your cost. By only shooting 50 shots a month you might be managing that expense so that it is acceptable to you, but to MY way of thinkling you're simply limiting the potential.

I was comparing film costs in other countries to that in my country.

As for the term investment... It simply refers to value per dollars spent. If you spend 600 on a camera and only shoot 100 shots that's not as good of an investment as a camera for the same price that you shot 10,000 shots on. Same price, more use = better investment. Its not about making money, it's about how efficent your purchase turns out to be.

That is not an investment. Any investment has a return in monetary terms and you mixed up the jargon.

And you admit you like "exotic" hobbies. Personally, I just feel from several of your posts that a big part of the appeal is the fact that not many people around you shoot film. That adds value to shooting film over digital. Which is fine.

So you have sought to turn this into a psychological analysis of my character?

So to sum up my opinion here...
Film is NEVER a cheaper option than digital. Never.
Film may sometimes be a BETTER option than digital, depending on what you're looking for.

Love how you clothe your opinions as absolute fact.

I see digital SLR as a huge dead cost until I shoot enough pictures to add the so-called "value" you speak of. And given the rate of inflation money today is more valuable than money in the future.

Stating a preference for a given medium over another implies nothing about a person other than the preference.

So? I prefer neither. Just the cheapest possible option for initial cost.

Feel free to disagree with any or all of these premises. Its simply opinion.

What is the point then of analyzing my character and motives?

As for people getting so passionate over this debate. I own 25 to 30 film cameras, I shot film from about 1975 to about 1997 or so. I own 1 digital camera and have been shooting digital from August of 2010. For me digital offers less cost and more control than film. Given that and the fact that the kinds of stuff I shoot the difference in quality is negligable, I prefer a digital format. But that's just me.

It was never about format. I wanted a cheap entry into the SLR world and considered film.

You keep saying that digital is somehow cheaper than film but you've not bothered to show me why money in my bank earning interest is worse than money blown on an expensive toy with no tangible "return".

You can keep talking about cost per shot and you're probably right on that score, but I still think I would rather keep my money in a mutual fund or bank deposit earning some interest rather than throw a ton away on an expensive camera and deplete my bank balance.

 

[Buckster]

As an analogy, it's kind of like credit. Not everyone can walk into the nearest car dealer and pull out a wad of $20k to buy a car with no interest, which would be the most economical way to do it. Instead, they pay $200 per month over time. Even though they end up paying much more than the $20k - it's the only way they can afford to do it AND be driving immediately, so to them it's an acceptable tradeoff.

Some folks in the thread obviously pay for everything in cash because it's not economically logical to pay interest on things like cars or houses or anything else. In fact, they probably bought all the clothing they would ever need in their lives long ago in bulk at a discount rate because that's economically better than buying them one or two at a time at full price, and that's what buying decisions are ALL about; What's the most economically efficient decision in the long term?

Makes total sense.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Do I realize that film is cheaper than what? What is the comparison?

Although I agree with your post in general, I understand also the position of Hari. I had the need to back on that kind of basic economics until I finished my studies. I know now that from a rational point of view is not good economics, but on the other side I also know that when I was student, I did not have options. So I had my first stereo cassette player very cheap, knowing the risk of breaking it earlier, my first film SLR was a used Zenit (russian, up to 1/500, with fragile shutter tents - they broke after one year or so, I bought another one that is still functioning). I was shooting slides because less expensive than prints; I looked at them with a small handheld plastic screen.
You may invest if you have something to invest. And if you foresee better times, you may also waste a small amount of money to have now an approximation of what you want, instead of waiting and saving until possible. You loose something, but not so much.
This is not good economics, but hey! We are living just now the results of good thought economics, isn't it?

True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras. New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them. So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.

In this situation cost isn't the only factor. There are other choices and options.

 

[nonamexx]

True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras. New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them. So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.

In this situation cost isn't the only factor. There are other choices and options.

You're forgetting that I live in India, and I don't have all the options that you have for purchasing a used DSLR. I might end up paying higher in shipping and taxes if I had to choose international sites.

And the prices of used DSLRs are anyway higher than used film SLRs so it becomes even more of a hunt for used DSLRs at the price I can get for a used film SLR locally.

Do you think I would throw up a chance to buy a used DSLR at sub-$100 if it is easily available here?

Let me throw you a challenge: I can get a used film SLR today for around $67. Can you match that price for a used DSLR? I mean something that is available to me without paying a ton extra for shipping and taxes.

 

[nonamexx]

Just to make my point even clearer.

I THINK film is a compromise in my situation and it's less than ideal since I am not interested in film processing etc. etc., but what I'm actually saying is that digital SLR initial cost is too high for me right now and the cost of film and development is low enough that I can easily afford it at my current rate of shooting.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Wow... We're really hung up on labels.

Who?

You... You keep insisting you're not a filmophile and I'm not saying you are.

And you have conveniently ignored my cash-flow analysis which means I have more money in the bank at all times, even though I spend more on film along the way.

I didn't ignore it, I disagreed with it. I still do.

I was comparing film costs in other countries to that in my country.

Ok... But I never considered the cost compared to this country or any other. What ever it costs, the point is it adds to the cost of the over all system. That means it is always going to be a path to diminishing returns. Period.

That is not an investment. Any investment has a return in monetary terms and you mixed up the jargon.

English is not that precise. Your definition is one of many for that term and the way I used the word is common usage here.

So you have sought to turn this into a psychological analysis of my character?

No... Just sorting out the pros and cons of purchasing a digital camera versus a film camera. And the reason a person might choose one over the other.

Love how you clothe your opinions as absolute fact.

Even though I clearly say it's opinion? ok.....

I see digital SLR as a huge dead cost until I shoot enough pictures to add the so-called "value" you speak of. And given the rate of inflation money today is more valuable than money in the future.

I spent 20 some odd years as a liscened investment professional. We're talking about buying a camera, not stocks or mutual funds... Inflation rates change and there are many types of risk... that's a different topic.

So? I prefer neither. Just the cheapest possible option for initial cost.

That's fine... But I think there are cheaper options. They simply don't appeal to you.

What is the point then of analyzing my character and motives?

I've no analyzed your character and I've only discussed your motives regarding this purchase. You said you like exotic hobbies, I didn't presume that. You said a digital camera doesn't appeal to you as much as film, I didn't presume that either. Anytime you ask about opinions on a purchase, motivation play a role.

It was never about format. I wanted a cheap entry into the SLR world and considered film.

You keep saying that digital is somehow cheaper than film but you've not bothered to show me why money in my bank earning interest is worse than money blown on an expensive toy with no tangible "return".

You can keep talking about cost per shot and you're probably right on that score, but I still think I would rather keep my money in a mutual fund or bank deposit earning some interest rather than throw a ton away on an expensive camera and deplete my bank balance.

If money in the bank is a concern then my suggestion is don't buy anything, you have a camera. But that wasn't the premise of the original question. The question was the cheapest way to get into a SLR or DSLR. 50 shots or less per month, the cheapest way is to look into a used DSLR, not a new top of the line DSLR but a used older technology, but adequite, DSLR. Dollar for dollar it is the biggest bang for the buck with no recurring expense. And if you shop around it's not going to deplete your account any more than the film camera, in fact, probably less.

Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason... :mrgreen:

 

[Josh66]

New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.

See the links I posted on the previous page.

A very good 35mm SLR can be had for $3-500, a pretty good one can be had for $1-300, and if all you need is something that works - you can get that for $8.

Find me a link for any DSLR for less than $20...

For what a used 350D costs, you can buy a used (obviously) 1 series body.

Used 4 or 5 generation old entry level digital bodies go for the same price as the top-of-the-line pro 35mm bodies from 10-15 years ago.

I don't know about you, but I would take a 1 series body over a Rebel any day. (Also, used 1D MkII's are fairly cheap too - $4-500. I would consider that over a new Rebel for almost the same amount of money...)

 

[Chamelion 6]

True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras. New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them. So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.

In this situation cost isn't the only factor. There are other choices and options.

You're forgetting that I live in India, and I don't have all the options that you have for purchasing a used DSLR. I might end up paying higher in shipping and taxes if I had to choose international sites.

And the prices of used DSLRs are anyway higher than used film SLRs so it becomes even more of a hunt for used DSLRs at the price I can get for a used film SLR locally.

Do you think I would throw up a chance to buy a used DSLR at sub-$100 if it is easily available here?

Let me throw you a challenge: I can get a used film SLR today for around $67. Can you match that price for a used DSLR? I mean something that is available to me without paying a ton extra for shipping and taxes.

I get your point. But it's a balance. A $67 dollar camera only works with film and processing. There is a break even point. What is the cheapest used digital you can find at the moment? How much film is it going to take to hit that break even point? Include shipping in that figure and that opens up more options.

And don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with choosing film, I just don't believe it's cheap. That's the point we disagree on. And I'm not there, so I'll even conceed that if you only ever plan to shoot 2 or 3 rolls a year it might be the better option in the long run. My problem is with the term "cheap."

 

[nonamexx]

Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason... :mrgreen:

Did you note my point about local availability and cost factor of shipping and taxes?

 

[nonamexx]

I get your point. But it's a balance. A $67 dollar camera only works with film and processing. There is a break even point. What is the cheapest used digital you can find at the moment? How much film is it going to take to hit that break even point? Include shipping in that figure and that opens up more options.

And don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with choosing film, I just don't believe it's cheap. That's the point we disagree on. And I'm not there, so I'll even conceed that if you only ever plan to shoot 2 or 3 rolls a year it might be the better option in the long run. My problem is with the term "cheap."

The cheapest used DSLR I could find that is locally available is at least 5 times more expensive than the cheapest used film SLR.

Of course my research is not yet complete but it feels hard to find a decent DSLR camera at the price range I've narrowed down.

 

[Chamelion 6]

New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.

See the links I posted on the previous page.

A very good 35mm SLR can be had for $3-500, a pretty good one can be had for $1-300, and if all you need is something that works - you can get that for $8.

Find me a link for any DSLR for less than $20...

For what a used 350D costs, you can buy a used (obviously) 1 series body.

Used 4 or 5 generation old entry level digital bodies go for the same price as the top-of-the-line pro 35mm bodies from 10-15 years ago.

I don't know about you, but I would take a 1 series body over a Rebel any day. (Also, used 1D MkII's are fairly cheap too - $4-500. I would consider that over a new Rebel for almost the same amount of money...)

At the moment I'm a student and on a very fixed income. In fact, I have no income other than loans and financial aid so I understand budget cnstraints.

I shoot with a T1i and the kit lens plus the EF-s 55 to 250 and a Sigma 10-22 f3.5. It's a crop body Rebel and the lenses are not first rate glass by any means. If I had the recurring cost of film, I'd not be shooting at all, as it is I shoot often and without restraint. Are there compromises in quality between my gear and and a mess of white lenses on a full sized sensor? Absolutely. But cost was the overiding consideration.

That flexibility came because I didn't give in to the temptation to keep investing into film and limiting my potential. It all came to one question, which is MOST cost effective? All else aside.

Coming from a film background I had concerns about quality. They were unfounded. The camera and lens both produce excellent images, far beyond what I expected. I made the right choice, for me. But yes, I had to suck it up for a month or so to get there.

So is cost really the only concern here?

 

[Chamelion 6]

Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason... :mrgreen:

Did you note my point about local availability and cost factor of shipping and taxes?

I'd not seen that post when I wrote this.

But again, I'm more than willing to conceed that the film camera might be the better of the two options, I just don't see it as the cheaper option.

See my previous post.

We all come from different situations and perspectives, so when someone asks a question like this we each bring some different view to the table. My view of this question is very much rooted in my situation and having wrestled with this same issue a few months ago. Even though I already own working SLRs I decided film wasn't my best option because of my limited budget into the forseable future. I recognized that if I went with film I'd forever be haunted by budget restrictions and the whold reason for picking up the camera again was to have a diversion from the stresses of money and school. I can now shoot as much or as often as I want and cost isn't an issue. But I had to budget for the bigger picture rather than the immediate.