Old Film guy needs advice

[480sparky]

Well if you have Canon already theres good choices aplenty, no matter what budget you have:

- 5D is still a great camera, even if High ISO is really not that good nowadays, but at low ISOs its still excellent and already has the famous Canon colors. Even more than a decade after its introduction, the 5D still has a cult following.
- 5D2 offers a nice boost in Megapixel (22 instead of 12). Not much else though. Last generation that offers viewing screens for better manual focus.
- 6D is excellent and would offer video, too. This would most likely be my personal pick if I would start with Canon now.
- 5D3 would offer good AF, too. The AF of the the previously mentioned cameras is not that great for sports.
- At the upper end of the really good cameras, the 1D X would be expensive, but is also a great camera; possibly find a good deal from someone to switches to the Mk 2?

The newest generation, well the 5D4 gets very mixed reviews. In many respects it hasnt progressed, still doesnt support new card types, the only video format is riddiculous and requires insane amounts of card space, etc. Uuuh, I think one should rather skip that generation and let Canon retry on the next.

Havent bothered to inform myself much about the 1D X Mk 2, sorry. Its super expensive anyway.

Used film stuff is über-cheap these days.

OMG no it really isnt.

Sure the cameras are cheap.

The lenses too, if its a dead system, so nobody keeps using them on digital. Doesnt apply for Canon EOS though, these lenses keep the high price since you can still use them on digital. And many people love adapting lenses, which also causes the prices for good lenses to stay quite high even for "dead" systems.

However, film development for sure is really expensive and hard to get nowadays. If you only want to shoot a douzen pictures or so, sure, no big deal. If its more, however, digital gets quickly cheaper.

Seriously theres some swiss guy on the internet who shoots a custom digital 10x8 large format sensor that costs 100k+ CHF to make and he has computed that thats cheaper in the long run than if he would still shoot film.

At very least you should know what you're doing if you really want to keep shooting film.

OK..... so what is an "entry level" camera? What kind of price range?

IMHO entry level cameras are for people who (a) are clueless and have to test the waters first or (b) are not interested in photography and will basically run their camera in green mode, mainly.

Their image quality is OK, but they skip on advanced features and dont have many external controls, which depending upon the situation might lead to extensive menu surfing. And they have APS-C sensors - so everything has a 1.5 crop factor, or in case of Canon (who uses slightly smaller APS-C sensors than everybody else) even 1.6x crop factor.

So your 50mm on a Canon entry level is a 80mm equivalent.

The problem with this is - the good lenses, both with Canon and with Nikon, are all available for full frame. Sure you can run them on APS-C cameras, too, but you'll always have the crop factor. So you cant get them for wide angle. And neither Canon nor Nikon have really good wide angle APS-C lenses - decent ones, sure, but not the really awesome ones - so in that area you'll be kinda crippled.

If you need features like video, you'll have to get a modern camera, such as such an entry level camera, though.

If you want a really small and lightweight camera, entry level is also better.

If you actually want the crop factor for getting more range, namely for wildlife, APS-C is a great option too. Wildlife shooters love their APS-C cameras. Theres even pro level APS-C cameras just for that.

But if you only want to take pictures, IMHO its better to get the "pro" or "semi-pro" level cameras, and full frame.

For a DSLR, a Nikon D3400 would be a nice starter body.

OUCH. The D3400 is a true stinker that even inferior to its direct predecessor D3300. Avoid at all cost.

I strongly suggest Fuji, either a X-Pro 2 or a X-T2.

I dont know about the "strongly" part but yes Fuji IMHO is the best mirrorless system; excellent lenses, quickly progressing in features, excellent long time support (they even still have firmware upgrades for the first X camera, the X-Pro 1), they recently really good repair ratings over at lensrentals (Zeiss prime lenses are even better though lolz), the new generation of cameras (X-Pro 2, X-T2, X100f, possibly also the X-T20 ?) has really good autofocus now.

As a film guy, you'll probably appreciate a 'full frame' digital SLR more than the 'crop' size sensors.

Word. And they are really cheap now with Canon. A 5D is what now, $300 ?

The only reason I dont have one is because I'm extremely happy with Nikon and really want as much High ISO performance i can possibly get.

They're more of an electronic toy for me since the pictures seem too contrasty & unnatural.

Err, I'm not aware of "too contrasty". I see many unnatural colors from some "modern" lenses, though. But theres only flame wars to be had in that direction. People dont like to be told their expensive, shiny, new lenses look worse than cheaper, older lenses.

Translation: I like spending other people's money.

 

[Derrel]

What happened to the Old Film Guy?

His account was just opened yesterday, and he's already made six posts, so he's doin' about right. We've had a lot of recent new sign-ups who pop in, ask a question, and then their threads get pretty high post totals once their original post question turns out to be a lightning rod!

 

[loonatic45414]

I recognize there are gurus here, I could use some input.

Let's say I did want to move up to a full frame camera and keep using the range of lenses I have?

Micro 4/3rds has been extremely amazing as far as versatility. Does anything full frame compare?

I'm not looking for a dSLR, I need a flange distance of not more than 27mm for use with Leica lenses - I'm assuming that would require a mirrorless setup.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Mirrorless Central – My reviews of all Mirrorless Cameras – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

[table1349]

Do yourself a favor and go to a brick and mortar photo shop, a real one not some big box store and give them a try. You didn't list a location in your profile so it's hard to give an exact recommendation . See what you like, what you don't like, what fits your hands, what controls suit you best and check out the available systems. Your not buying a camera you are buying into a system. I've been shooting going on 48 years now and switched from Film to Digital when back when a full frame body ran in the 5-7 thousand dollar range. I started with APS-c and had no issues. Now I shoot both APS-c and FF and can switch from one to the other without even having to think.

One thing the younger generation forgets,(I think it's because they stare at their electronic screens too much) is that the difference between an FF and an APS-c is about 2 paces back. Legs were the first zoom.

Granted FF has some advantages sensor wise as far as noise etc. but it all depends on what you are looking for and how serious you are about your photography.

As for brand, make up your own mind on what you like. Frankly too many people get all wrapped up in the specs with little to no practical value.

Oh as to the smell of dektol etc. Your brain will thank you for going digital.

 

[Gary A.]

@ loonatic45414- I evolved from FF (1D's) to MFT (Oly) to APS-C (Fuji). I am very happy with Fuji delivering a great compromise between the small footprint of MFT with the IQ of FF.

Granted, we all see differently and shoot differently... but being an old film guy myself, we share similar roots ... I think you would appreciate the handling and IQ of Fuji.

 

[loonatic45414]

Thanks. Looks like a Sony Alpha A7II would make a great camera. I'll have to check prices in about a year & see where they're at, though. I love the shot with the Leica Noctilux lens. Damn good lens.

I recommend the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm/f3.5. Here's a b/w film shot with it.

 

[480sparky]

.......

Used film stuff is über-cheap these days.

OMG no it really isnt.

Sure the cameras are cheap.

The lenses too, if its a dead system, so nobody keeps using them on digital. Doesnt apply for Canon EOS though, these lenses keep the high price since you can still use them on digital. And many people love adapting lenses, which also causes the prices for good lenses to stay quite high even for "dead" systems.

However, film development for sure is really expensive and hard to get nowadays. If you only want to shoot a douzen pictures or so, sure, no big deal. If its more, however, digital gets quickly cheaper...............

Well, lets see how much cheaper digital gets.

Film camera and a handful of lenses : $100.
Digital camera and kit lens: $750.

Film & developing for a year: Let's say $1000.
Digital? OK, we'll need a memory card. Maybe two. Eh, better get four. And a computer. And a monitor. And some cables. And a card reader. And an external hard drive. And some back-up software. Oh, and a mouse. And a keyboard. And a monthly subscription to PhotoScam. Don't forget the cost of electricity to run all this. At this point, I'm sure you're WAY over $1,000.

Then what happens 2 years from now? Oh, gotta upgrade that old, 'worn-out' digital camera since the shutter clicks are over 100,000. Another $1,000. Film? Just keep clicking away.

Five years from now, another $1500 for the latest n greatest 50mp DSLR. By then, you'll need to upgrade your computer because your new DSLR has such humongous files that you're filling up the hard drive. All the while, you're forking over dough for you monthly subscription to PhotoScam. Film body?...... still purrin' along.

 

[Derrel]

I payed $2,499 for a Fuji S2 pro camera over a decade ago. I used it to shoot an estimated $79,000 worth of images, based on the then-current cost of Ektachrome 100 slide film and processing. Tens of THOUSANDS of images, with almost free film for my son's early years...hundreds of images, for less than the price of a coffee. A single week at something like a balloon festival, somthing where 2,000 shots would be made? 100 times cheaper than ANY film.

Film is EXPENSIVE, per shot, per roll, and per development cycle for every sheet or roll.

I have a camera I payed $5,000 for, 12 years ago. I've used it sparingly, only 69,000 images...putting my cost for full-color positives at .072 cents per frame. That means $2.60 per roll of 36 color slide film--an IMPOSSIBLE-to-ACHIEVE price today, and excluding developing and mounting of the slides...

Slide film, $10.59 per 36-shot roll from B&H Photo, with NO developing is 29 cents per frame. A 36-shot Fuji slide devloping mailer from B&H is also $10.59. So...that's 58 cents PER FRAME CLICKED with 35mm ISO 100 slide film.

Monthly subscriptions? Upgrading every 2 years? All nice strawmen concepts, but not really of any consequence.

A $599 or $699 or $899 24-MP Nikon APS-C camera body will easily shoot the equivalent of $90,000 worth of slide film images before it conks out. With better image quality, and higher ISO values, and variable ISO values, and variable white balance otptimizaton, and INSTANT "proofing" of the frames.

An $899 camera divided by 69,000 frames: .01302 CENTS per frame...making slide film what? 28 times MORE costly per click, and 58 times more with "development", more or less.Slide storage pages vs a $139 4-terabyte hard disk? Same economies for digital. $129 for a copy of Lightroom to develop 7 years' worth of images?

The idea that film is "cheaper" than digitial is only true if one exposes one frame a day for 100 years.

 

[480sparky]

I payed $2,499 for a Fuji S2 pro camera over a decade ago. I used it to shoot an estimated $79,000 worth of images, based on the then-current cost of Ektachrome 100 slide film and processing. Tens of THOUSANDS of images, with almost free film for my son's early years...hundreds of images, for less than the price of a coffee. A single week at something like a balloon festival, somthing where 2,000 shots would be made? 100 times cheaper than ANY film.

Film is EXPENSIVE, per shot, per roll, and per development cycle for every sheet or roll.

I have a camera I payed $5,000 for, 12 years ago. I've used it sparingly, only 69,000 images...putting my cost for full-color positives at .072 cents per frame. That means $2.60 per roll of 36 color slide film--an IMPOSSIBLE-to-ACHIEVE price today, and excluding developing and mounting of the slides...

Slide film, $10.59 per 36-shot roll from B&H Photo, with NO developing is 29 cents per frame. A 36-shot Fuji slide devloping mailer from B&H is also $10.59. So...that's 58 cents PER FRAME CLICKED with 35mm ISO 100 slide film.

Monthly subscriptions? Upgrading every 2 years? All nice strawmen concepts, but not really of any consequence.

A $599 or $699 or $899 24-MP Nikon APS-C camera body will easily shoot the equivalent of $90,000 worth of slide film images before it conks out. With better image quality, and higher ISO values, and variable ISO values, and variable white balance otptimizaton, and INSTANT "proofing" of the frames.

An $899 camera divided by 69,000 frames: .01302 CENTS per frame...making slide film what? 28 times MORE costly per click, and 58 times more with "development", more or less.Slide storage pages vs a $139 4-terabyte hard disk? Same economies for digital. $129 for a copy of Lightroom to develop 7 years' worth of images?

The idea that film is "cheaper" than digitial is only true if one exposes one frame a day for 100 years.

Um....... nice try.

But I doubt these numbers apply to the OP.

 

[loonatic45414]

I agree. It's off topic and the stuff of flame wars...

Look at it this way. In the old days, they thought no one would paint anymore because it was much easier & less time consuming using a camera.

Now the same is said about digital and film. Art is art. We choose to express ourselves in many different ways. There's been a resurgence in old techniques in photography considered dead since film was invented and taken to commercial levels.

Check out daguerreotype, albumin printing, salt printing, tintype, wet plate, it's all coming back. I'm a film guy & I can't justify the time, expense, not to mention the health hazards of arsenic, mercury, lead and bromine compounds used in these techniques.

So let's just get along, okay?

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

I agree. It's off topic and the stuff of flame wars...

Look at it this way. In the old days, they thought no one would paint anymore because it was much easier & less time consuming using a camera.

Now the same is said about digital and film. Art is art. We choose to express ourselves in many different ways. There's been a resurgence in old techniques in photography considered dead since film was invented and taken to commercial levels.

Check out daguerreotype, albumin printing, salt printing, tintype, wet plate, it's all coming back. I'm a film guy & I can't justify the time, expense, not to mention the health hazards of arsenic, mercury, lead and bromine compounds used in these techniques.

So let's just get along, okay?

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Dude, this is getting along. We have lively discussion here as there is a cumulative thousands of years of photography experience here both film and digital.

If you were looking for the Kumbaya photo forum, this ain't it.

 

[greybeard]

Digital vs Film is really apples and oranges. As far as transparencies go, I much prefer digital. But, I really enjoyed black and white film processing and printing.

 

[loonatic45414]

I like film because I'm not out to shoot 2000 clicks at a balloon festival, walking and clicking left & right at everything that moves or doesn't move. I'm in my own world, metering, contemplating zone placement, looking for that angle that tells a story. Back in the darkroom, I prefer to unplug & something about spending time with the development tank away from the bustle gives me a fresh look, days or sometimes weeks later where I can regroup my perspective and perhaps go a different direction than originally planned.

Back to the OP-- if you're still around-- I gather you're not a professional where you can justify $3000 in a camera and a couple of quality lenses. I gather you're a weekend artist & want the convenience of digital.

Depending on your budget, you can expect to spend $300 to $1500 for something entry level, quality being the driving factor. But to place you into a well-informed choice, perhaps you could further narrow down your budget, let us know what type of shooting you prefer (portrait, landscape, artistic, snapshot, action), and whether you intend to make use of the lenses you have now or just abandon the old gear & go modern.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[dasmith232]

Cost per frame - what a concept.

So, let's go with the idea that film-photography is expensive. Even better, let's go with the idea that large-format film-photography is expensive. And yes, it is. When shooting 4x5 LF, it's about $1.50 per sheet (for B/W) and $4 for processing. (Color slide is about $16/frame.) The last few trips that I've done for LF have been short day-hikes with my wife into some beautiful scenery. On the last hike, I shot (only!) 4 frames. That's about $22 for film and processing.

But we were out for several hours - let's call it 4 hours. That's only $5.50 per hour for entertainment. And not just absorbing the mindless drivel and empty calories from popcorn at the movies, but good, quality time. (Nothing against movies - I do those too.)

But, I'm missing the point, right? Probably. My priority just happens to be elsewhere. Sometimes, there's more to it than cost/frame.