Are film SLRs worth buying?

[Chamelion 6]

I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100.

I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.

I have to agree... As much as I love film and miss my old darkroom, I just see film as much too expensive these days. Granted the cameras themselves are cheap, but the reason for that is the cost of film and processing. If you are any kind of prolific at shooting, and that's the real secret to improving, you're going to far exceed the cost of an entry level DSLR within a few months and an intermediate level one by the end of your first year. Add to that film is only going to get more expensive. Kodak no longer supports it's own film, it outsources the processing to third parties... For good or bad, film is a dead end street.


And unless you process your own film you are not going to really get anything more in the learning process than you would with a digital. Other than pure nastalgia, I don't see any advantage.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Things you buy for nostalgia (not efficient functionality):

Carburated cars
CRT monitors
Typewriters
VCRs
Landline phones
Film Cameras
Nintendo

I actually have a carburated car.

Typewriter - check, I do actually have an old pre-war German typewriter - still functioning and still good enough in a crunch to type a letter or two. Might be an antique piece actually - haven't checked the date.

VCRs - not actually but it's actually quite the only choice to record TV programmes these days.

Landline phones are still common in India and pretty much still going strong - check. We have one at home.

Film camera - I actually own a 35mm film camera, just not a film SLR. Rarely used though.

CRT monitor - our television set is still a CRT, so there you go.

Nintendo - this I must admit, I don't own a Nintendo, though I owned an old Nintendo video game - Mario Bros or years ago.

Well, you are in India so that makes some sense but I will say that at the rate you guys are growing and our stagnation you will definitely be in flying cars before we are, lol!

 

[sanpan]

Hi Harishankar,

I do own a Film SLR (Canon EOS 66) but I have rarely used it since I got a digital P&S. You can get instant results and save them on your PC. Film SLRs, though, inexpensive can have added costs. A roll of film, the D&P would cost you about 200-500 Rs for about 30 odd pics. Also you will only know how the pic has come out only after you get the pics.
Used DSLRs can be really cheap. You can also buy a new Canon 1000D for about 20K Rs.
If you are in Mumbai, you can visit jjmehta in Dadar for good deals (jjmehta .com , Digital Camera , Digital SLR , Video Camera , Apple iPod , Sandisk Pendrive available all over India).

 

[j-dogg]

okay, I'm going to don my flame-retardant protective gear and give you my .02

pick up a film SLR, don't listen to these kids here shooting digital who've never got behind the wheel of 35mm I bet you half of the digital nutswingers here would be clueless if you gave them a full manual Nikon F from 1959 or a Canon rangefinder from the 50's. tell me I'm wrong.

It's a global market, you're from India you should know this by now, most of the 35mm gear I have I purchased locally from pawn shops and flea markets, Craigslist ad's, but my entire Kodachrome project used Kodachrome film from eBay. There's lots of 35mm equipment available on that site you could have it shipped there. I don't know where you would get it developed, but I'm sure you could mail it out.

Film image quality shot through a decent SLR is only surpassed by the most expensive digital SLR's, I'm talking about your Canon 5D's, Nikon D700's and above, you could build a full professional 35mm outfit with good lenses for half of the cost of digital and if you get the right lenses and decide to go the digital route, you've already got some nice glass to shoot with. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and two 35mm's, an EOS 650 and an Elan 7e and they all use the same lenses with the exception of crop format lenses for the XTi. Everything else works.

Developing costs aren't as expensive as everyone says, you would have to shoot hundreds of rolls to break even with the cost of operating a high-end DSLR. And NOTHING has the look of film, not even any of this horse**** in CS5 it just doesn't look the same.

It's too bad you didn't get into this earlier you could have shot Kodachrome.

Film is NOT dying off as some would say, it's actually coming back, go out and find a decent 35mm, Nikon FG is what I started on (any of the Nikon's from the 80's are good learners) get a couple lenses and post up in the film forum when you got something. If you go Nikon, the 50mm 1.8 Series E is one of the best manual lenses ever made, also grab a 105 f2.5, best portrait lens ever. Kodachrome may be going away but new films are coming out, Kodak released Ektar 100 not too long ago and it's pretty decent.

Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:

Before I get flamed for this post, I'm not some old man who has shot film his whole life, I'm 25 and started on a DSLR and picked up the 35mm format soon after. BOTH formats have their advantages no doubt but film is still a great format to shoot and it's coming back.

 

[JClishe]

CRT monitor - our television set is still a CRT, so there you go.

It's amazing how far we've come in such a relatively short time related to TV quality. The difference between Blu-Ray and standard definition is astounding. Just the other night my wife and I were watching a show in SD and we commented that we couldn't believe that this is all that we used to have just a short time ago and were fine with it, and "loved" the step up to DVD.

 

[yepp]

Comment to jdogg:

I definitely see where you're coming from. Its expensive to beat the quality of an SLR when it comes to digital, but it makes more sense to buy the cheapest dslr he can and LEARN from that since you can review your photo's just about instantly and adjust your shot accordingly if you don't like it. I think the DSLR is a much better learning device than the slr due to the ease of use. Now as for quality, after he's learned, (assuming he's totally new to SLR's/DSLR) then it's probably better to get an SLR if he wants top quality for the $. I have nothing against slr's, matter of fact i think they are pretty cool, but i would have a hard time learning on that vs the DSLR.

Cheap DSLR= less quality pics/greater learning curve
SLR=slower learning curve/awesome quality pics

 

[nonamexx]

I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100.

I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.

I have to agree... As much as I love film and miss my old darkroom, I just see film as much too expensive these days. Granted the cameras themselves are cheap, but the reason for that is the cost of film and processing. If you are any kind of prolific at shooting, and that's the real secret to improving, you're going to far exceed the cost of an entry level DSLR within a few months and an intermediate level one by the end of your first year. Add to that film is only going to get more expensive. Kodak no longer supports it's own film, it outsources the processing to third parties... For good or bad, film is a dead end street.


And unless you process your own film you are not going to really get anything more in the learning process than you would with a digital. Other than pure nastalgia, I don't see any advantage.

I am considering whether a film scanner would be a good idea, but even those seem to require the film to be developed first?? Not quite sure of this, but seems so.

I don't have the facilities for a dark room nor have the time to pursue that, so will consider all these aspects first.

As for film cost, I'm definitely going to check the prices out and consider my own frequency of shooting (which is actually quite low by many standards).

The one thing that pulls me towards film is that it's a challenge and I love challenges. So used to digital products that I have no excitement for a digital SLR and especially so at the prices they go for.

 

[j-dogg]

Comment to jdogg:

I definitely see where you're coming from. Its expensive to beat the quality of an SLR when it comes to digital, but it makes more sense to buy the cheapest dslr he can and LEARN from that since you can review your photo's just about instantly and adjust your shot accordingly if you don't like it. I think the DSLR is a much better learning device than the slr due to the ease of use. Now as for quality, after he's learned, (assuming he's totally new to SLR's/DSLR) then it's probably better to get an SLR if he wants top quality for the $. I have nothing against slr's, matter of fact i think they are pretty cool, but i would have a hard time learning on that vs the DSLR.

Cheap DSLR= less quality pics/greater learning curve
SLR=slower learning curve/awesome quality pics

^^Pretty much summed up my post.

 

[ann]

It is very cheap to process your own film (black and white) and easy, you don't need a darkroom etc. Just a few reels, a tank and chemistry. Color is a different animal and altho it can be processed at home; temperature control is not always easy.

There are pro and cons , but sometimes it comes down to loving the process. Most people on this site lean toward digital which is fine. Most who do film and there are a lot , love the process, the love and being able to reach out and touch , hold an organic experience.

Oh, yes, I do both, teach both, so.............and more and more young people are moving in the film directions. Whether you want to believe that or not, it is happening. Will film ever be king of the hill again, don't think so, but don't be so quick to jump to a conclusion. After all, people are still doing processes that are older than silver gelatin printing.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Personally, I would not even be into photography if I did not have a digital slr. I first got one just to be able to get decent pictures at gatherings, when traveling, etc rather than pursue it as an art, hobby, whatever. That came later. I love the convenience of being able to shoot 100 frames and not worry about it costing anything more, as well as seeing instant results and adjusting accordingly.

And call me lazy if you will, but I honestly don't think I have made a single print since I've had my dslr (over a year). I just share my pictures with friends and family through facebook or email them the pictures.

 

[John Mc]

I started Digital,But ive Learned Way more with Film.I like the fact that i cant see my images,it makes me pay more attention to the lighting,the scene,the focus,cropping the images in the frame ect.

 

[Rapala46]

If you are interested in the challenge and don't mind the expenses of film processing, film, etc then go ahead and get a film SLR. If you're trying to learn it might be more economical to get a digital (even an advanced P&S). I started out with a film SLR and definitely learned a lot. I taught myself to really compose each photograph exactly how I wanted it because I didn't want to waste my film. The problem was that I would get my film back and a lot of times the picture didn't come out exactly how I wanted it. However, I eventually moved up to a D-SLR and my learning curve went through the roof. With my D-SLR I was able to compose my shot, take the picture and then review it. If I didn't like the way it turned out, I could adjust the framing, settings, etc and re-take the photo. Additionally, I was able to mess around with every function of my camera and literally instantly see the effects of each change in settings. This helped me to understand the capabilities of my equipment as well as understand all the different composition possibilities.

Good luck with whatever route you take.

 

[Higgs Boson]

okay, I'm going to don my flame-retardant protective gear and give you my .02

pick up a film SLR, don't listen to these kids here shooting digital who've never got behind the wheel of 35mm I bet you half of the digital nutswingers here would be clueless if you gave them a full manual Nikon F from 1959 or a Canon rangefinder from the 50's. tell me I'm wrong.

It's a global market, you're from India you should know this by now, most of the 35mm gear I have I purchased locally from pawn shops and flea markets, Craigslist ad's, but my entire Kodachrome project used Kodachrome film from eBay. There's lots of 35mm equipment available on that site you could have it shipped there. I don't know where you would get it developed, but I'm sure you could mail it out.

Film image quality shot through a decent SLR is only surpassed by the most expensive digital SLR's, I'm talking about your Canon 5D's, Nikon D700's and above, you could build a full professional 35mm outfit with good lenses for half of the cost of digital and if you get the right lenses and decide to go the digital route, you've already got some nice glass to shoot with. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and two 35mm's, an EOS 650 and an Elan 7e and they all use the same lenses with the exception of crop format lenses for the XTi. Everything else works.

Developing costs aren't as expensive as everyone says, you would have to shoot hundreds of rolls to break even with the cost of operating a high-end DSLR. And NOTHING has the look of film, not even any of this horse**** in CS5 it just doesn't look the same.

It's too bad you didn't get into this earlier you could have shot Kodachrome.

Film is NOT dying off as some would say, it's actually coming back, go out and find a decent 35mm, Nikon FG is what I started on (any of the Nikon's from the 80's are good learners) get a couple lenses and post up in the film forum when you got something. If you go Nikon, the 50mm 1.8 Series E is one of the best manual lenses ever made, also grab a 105 f2.5, best portrait lens ever. Kodachrome may be going away but new films are coming out, Kodak released Ektar 100 not too long ago and it's pretty decent.

Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:

Before I get flamed for this post, I'm not some old man who has shot film his whole life, I'm 25 and started on a DSLR and picked up the 35mm format soon after. BOTH formats have their advantages no doubt but film is still a great format to shoot and it's coming back.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and your age is on display in your post. I won't say much, but at 25 (and most likely one of the youngest people in this thread - younger than me for sure) I think you're stretching a bit by referring to anyone as kids..... Just because you may have had the opportunity to use a camera from the 50's while others have not does not mean much.

Let me sum up your post:
I like digital and film but I'll be different and tell you film but they both have their advantages.

When someone asks for helping picking ONE, it's helpful not to tell them both (as evidenced in your quote of another above saying "both" sums up your intention). They know that. Otherwise, the decision wouldn't require the input of others.

Just my 2.

 

[Canon AE-1]

Get yourself a Canon A-1 off ebay for 50 bucks.
Google the manual and read it all.
Buy some 400 speed film.
Go out and shoot some things.
Have fun.

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

I just bought a mint condition Nikon N80 with 28-80 lens for $90 off of eBay about a month ago to shoot black and white film. I love it. It's definitely worth it to me.