Are film SLRs worth buying?

[tygr1]

Back in the day, Kodak sold an E6 processing kit, which included all chemicals necessary to develop E6 transparency film at your kitchen sink in about 30 minutes. I doubt if they still do, but may be worth a little research.

 

[djacobox372]

Back in the day, Kodak sold an E6 processing kit, which included all chemicals necessary to develop E6 transparency film at your kitchen sink in about 30 minutes. I doubt if they still do, but may be worth a little research.

Yes, you can still buy e6 development kits. That's how I develop my e6 film, but it's not exactly simple--temperature needs to be controlled at 105 degrees.

Chemical costs for at-home e6 development are around $1.50 to $2 a roll (compared to 25 cents a roll for black and white).

 

[djacobox372]

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.

You don't need a darkroom to develop film--only for printing. This is where the scanner comes in handy--you just print digitally.

Developing black and white film yourself is very simple and very cheap, only around 25cents a roll for chemicals and a one time cost of around $50-75 for the containers, changing bag, etc. There are many great tutorials on black and white film development on www.youtube.com you should check them out.

Developing color film is a bit more tricky, more time consuming, and the savings aren't nearly as great.

As for cameras, the nikon f100 can be bought on ebay for as little as $135, which is an absolute steal. The build quality and controls of the F100 are on par with the most expensive nikon DSLR's available. You might also want to consider medium format film, as it's quality actually surpasses the most expensive dslrs available today.

Here's an excellent resource for film and developing equipment: http://www.freestylephoto.biz

 

[white]

Film is for people who like the process. If you don't like the process, or don't have the patience, stick with digital.

 

[sobolik]

If you are going into rugged back country then a film SLR is a good option. You can drop it out of the boat and it will probably still work after you dry it out. And the film will still produce a photo.

If you take hundreds or thousands of photos per year then go digital. If you take a few photos per year in between the learning phases/classes then you can easily live with a film camera. If you are obsessed over producing a quality photo then the post processing software will get that done. You can scan film into a computer.

By all means give the film SLR camera a go. They are cheap and valuable learning tools.

 

[KVRNut]

Yes, a SLR is worth buying. With the current prices for film cameras and glass, I think it's a good investment. Get a good quality SLR, one that allows you to use either aperture or shutter priority or full manual. If you like the lower ISOs, then film is the way to go. Not too many inexpensive digitals go down to ISO 50 and like loong exposures. Film also has more latitude than digital has and that can be handy in some situations. A good film camera will never be outdated either if you understand the camera and enjoy using it.

Using transparency film is pretty easy. I meter for the ambient light, not the reflected light. Seems transparency film likes it better that way, or at least I seem to get better results that way. Seeing different types of light through your finished transparency and how it changes your finished transparency can be a good learning tool too. It can help you decide how to get the most out of a print when you decide to do one. You'll also like the fine grain characteristics of transparency film when doing an enlargement.
If you follow the processing guidelines from the film manufacturer, you shouldn't have any problems with processing your own film. If you go the commercial processing route, yes, it can be expensive if you use a lot of film but that has taught me to take my time composing so I get the most I can out of a roll of film. (I just pretend that each shot costs the same as a large format 8x10 inch picture. LOL) I may get shot for this, but I use commercial processing for my film as I don't have room for a dark room and with someone else in the house who has health problems, those dark room chemicals are best left else where. I'm very lucky in the fact that I have a good lab to go to that understands my wants, style, and that lets me take part in the processing so I can get the results I want. Besides, I'd rather be out making pictures instead of in a dark room. LOL
Instead of mounting the film in slide mounts, I keep the film in one piece as it makes scanning easier. That applies for both 35 and medium formats. Consider a scanner that will allow you to program in color profiles for different films. (Fuji Velvia can be a bear to scan at times and not come out with purple water on your scan.) Another piece of equipment you should consider is a light table along with a lope to examine your transparencies or negatives. I was able to build my light table a lot cheaper than buying one so that can save you some money.

35mm or medium format for transparency film? Use what suits YOU the best. I'm not afraid to set the medium formats aside to use the 35mm camera(s) if thats what frames the picture the best. Yes, 35mm is way smaller than medium format but then I've got some not too shabby poster size enlargements from 35mm.

Don't be dissuaded or put off by the digital only crowd. To say that film is dead and that everybody should be only using digital is like telling Michealangelo that he should have been only using Roman concrete instead of marble. Photography is an art form whether you are a hobbiest or make your living with a camera, it's still an art form. It doesn't matter if you use tin plate, wet plate, digital, film or any of the formats, it's still photography and there's plenty of room for everybody. It's been a personal pleasure of this film user to help a fair number of digital users get more out of their cameras by applying film techniques and to have some of those users come back to me with their newly aquired film cameras to learn another aspect of this art form we call photography. It's been even more fun to see those photographers grow and develop their own styles of photography in both film and digital. Those same photographers have told me that digital is a great learning tool to develop confidence before moving on to film. I've also been lucky enough to have other photographers show me their large format equipment and how to use it. That has spurred me on to get into the large formats, in both wet plate and film, and grow some more. At age 53, you'd think that I'd be getting into something lighter and easier but I'm going the opposite way and I'm going to have fun doing it. LOL

I hope you get the SLR and have as much fun using transparency films as I have had over the years. Get out there, grow, and have fun doing it!

 

[Higgs Boson]

Good info in the above post!

 

[nonamexx]

Yes, a SLR is worth buying. With the current prices for film cameras and glass, I think it's a good investment. Get a good quality SLR, one that allows you to use either aperture or shutter priority or full manual. If you like the lower ISOs, then film is the way to go. Not too many inexpensive digitals go down to ISO 50 and like loong exposures. Film also has more latitude than digital has and that can be handy in some situations. A good film camera will never be outdated either if you understand the camera and enjoy using it.

Using transparency film is pretty easy. I meter for the ambient light, not the reflected light. Seems transparency film likes it better that way, or at least I seem to get better results that way. Seeing different types of light through your finished transparency and how it changes your finished transparency can be a good learning tool too. It can help you decide how to get the most out of a print when you decide to do one. You'll also like the fine grain characteristics of transparency film when doing an enlargement.
If you follow the processing guidelines from the film manufacturer, you shouldn't have any problems with processing your own film. If you go the commercial processing route, yes, it can be expensive if you use a lot of film but that has taught me to take my time composing so I get the most I can out of a roll of film. (I just pretend that each shot costs the same as a large format 8x10 inch picture. LOL) I may get shot for this, but I use commercial processing for my film as I don't have room for a dark room and with someone else in the house who has health problems, those dark room chemicals are best left else where. I'm very lucky in the fact that I have a good lab to go to that understands my wants, style, and that lets me take part in the processing so I can get the results I want. Besides, I'd rather be out making pictures instead of in a dark room. LOL
Instead of mounting the film in slide mounts, I keep the film in one piece as it makes scanning easier. That applies for both 35 and medium formats. Consider a scanner that will allow you to program in color profiles for different films. (Fuji Velvia can be a bear to scan at times and not come out with purple water on your scan.) Another piece of equipment you should consider is a light table along with a lope to examine your transparencies or negatives. I was able to build my light table a lot cheaper than buying one so that can save you some money.

35mm or medium format for transparency film? Use what suits YOU the best. I'm not afraid to set the medium formats aside to use the 35mm camera(s) if thats what frames the picture the best. Yes, 35mm is way smaller than medium format but then I've got some not too shabby poster size enlargements from 35mm.

Don't be dissuaded or put off by the digital only crowd. To say that film is dead and that everybody should be only using digital is like telling Michealangelo that he should have been only using Roman concrete instead of marble. Photography is an art form whether you are a hobbiest or make your living with a camera, it's still an art form. It doesn't matter if you use tin plate, wet plate, digital, film or any of the formats, it's still photography and there's plenty of room for everybody. It's been a personal pleasure of this film user to help a fair number of digital users get more out of their cameras by applying film techniques and to have some of those users come back to me with their newly aquired film cameras to learn another aspect of this art form we call photography. It's been even more fun to see those photographers grow and develop their own styles of photography in both film and digital. Those same photographers have told me that digital is a great learning tool to develop confidence before moving on to film. I've also been lucky enough to have other photographers show me their large format equipment and how to use it. That has spurred me on to get into the large formats, in both wet plate and film, and grow some more. At age 53, you'd think that I'd be getting into something lighter and easier but I'm going the opposite way and I'm going to have fun doing it. LOL

I hope you get the SLR and have as much fun using transparency films as I have had over the years. Get out there, grow, and have fun doing it!

Thanks a dozen for the excellent info and your experiences.

I just have one question: what film SLR would you recommend? Currently there seems to be very few out there in the market that are actively made. Is it a matter of purchasing second hand or is it possible to get a brand new one?

 

[o hey tyler]

It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.

 

[nonamexx]

It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.

Well, at the moment new dSLRs are quite expensive and I can get a good quality, higher-end used film SLR camera at around 1/10th the price of a decent starting dSLR or 1/5th of a used dSLR. Even with all the supply costs of film and development, I estimate that it would take more than a year for me to reach the price of the most (brand new) basic dSLR camera. Calculating with the more middle range dSLRs, it would probably take more than 2 years (considering heavy shooting) for me to reach that level of expenditure.

So basically I look at cost-effectiveness from a cash-flow point of view. It's easier for me to spend the amount I would spend on a new dSLR over a period of a year or two considering I don't shoot a lot and on a film SLR I could get the SLR experience without much initial investment.

I am one of those who is very wary about spending heavily on essentially what is a hobby and I make no pretensions - I am a very amatuer, very basic hobbyist wanting the SLR experience. If film is slightly more involved, I don't mind that either - I could pay for development of film and getting the pics scanned on a CD and still not go too much high. The only factor I wanted to consider seriously is the availability of film and the necessity/convenience factor of visiting the local colour lab every time I want the pics on my computer.

I know the cash-flow equation may be different in different countries, but I am going to work this out from the most economical point of view and decide.

I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)

I understand all the points in favour of dSLRs and I appreciate them but the cost factor is something that I cannot get around or even justify to myself.

I definitely understand that not seeing the result instantly in film can be a limiting factor.

 

[white]

I just picked up an OM1 with 50 f/1.8 on ebay for 60 bucks.

/awesome

 

[BKMOOD]

I own twenty-three 35mm film cameras: Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxes, Olympus, a couple medium format cameras. I plan to buy more 35mm film cameras. I love them. I primarily shoot black and white, as it is easy to develop myself.

I love my DSLR as well. Its made me lots of money. However, it is so automated, a trained monkey could get a good picture with it. The technology takes the man out of the process. It's never really much of a challenge.

Film is a challenge. Did I get the shot? Did I not get the shot? I am nervous with anticipation in the dark loading film, mixing chemicals, waiting to see what I got. Film makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning, ripping open a box to see what I got.

I get no feeling of excitement or anticipation at all with my DSLR. I can't muster much respect for its achievements. Actually, it bores me.

My DSLR feeds my wallet. My 35mm camera feeds my creative soul.

 

[enzodm]

I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)

image stabilization is something you'll not have even with an analog dSLR, so should not be considered in the equation. And lenses in general are something different from bodies - prices may be very high for high quality lenses, if they can still be used. The cost of a basic 50mm prime on analog SLR is more or less equivalent to the cost of a kit lens on dSLR, and often accounts for most of the camera cost. So, economical advantage is mainly on bodies.
On the other side, there are cheap, old manual lenses that can still used on modern dSLR, at the price of manually focusing. Some of them are optically good, so may be an option for taking good pictures also with a cheap dSLR. This to say that there are different ways of saving money, with partial results (and different level of nostalgia, like manual focus ).
I understand your economical point: however I started with film, but for learning I feel better with digital, where you can look at results immediately and correct errors. I could maybe go back to film after having reached some extra experience - at that point, black&white on film would be more interesting, although might be expensive if done on a trial-and-error basis, as prints are another cost to be considered.
Again, it is true that a basic SLR is so cheap that there is not much to loose in starting with it.

 

[j-dogg]

It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.

now lets hear it from someone who actually DOES shoot both formats and knows what they cost.

Canon 7d body = roughly 1500 dollars depending on where you shop. I've seen them cheaper.

Canon EOS 3, the 35mm equivalent to the 7d (more accurately the 5d) used copies trade for about 300 with the power booster.

A roll of professional grade film, something nice, how about FujiFilm Pro 400h, good stuff, I pay about 9 dollars a roll, with my student discount 7.50 after tax.

Now you will need some glass, so how about 3 lenses, the 28-135 IS, Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 (astonishing lens) and a 70-300 IS. All the focal points covered for under a grand, around 800 dollars for all those lenses.

Subtotal.....

Canon 7d, lenses = 2300 dollars. Make it 2370 with cleaning accessories and a nice memory card

Canon EOS 3, lenses = 1100 dollars.

Now, film.

Roll of nice film, about 9 bucks, let's make it 10 because I suck at math and 10 is a nice round number.

10 bucks a roll, and to professionally develop and print for me is like 20 bucks and I get a CD. Net cost is 30 dollars each roll, you would have to shoot +40 rolls of film just to break even on a 7d. And that's expensive film, not even cheap stuff that looks almost as good. And when it's all said and done, and you save up for your 7d, you got an awesome 35mm companion to your bag that uses all your nice lenses.

You don't even need something super nice like an EOS 3 I have an Elan 7e that costs more than half as much as an EOS 3, and those Nikon FG's I mentioned earlier can be had for 50 bucks, which is dirt cheap and produces just as good an image.

Bottom line, I shoot both formats and have been behind the wheel of everything from my FujiFilm point and shoot to my bud's 1ds Mark III + 70-200 f2.8L IS, if I could only shoot one camera the rest of my life it would be a Nikon F. Enthusiasts, artists and curious people like yourself are what keeps film alive, and it is a growing format again. Both formats have their highlights and downfalls. Digital is a great learning tool but 200 years from now where will your digital images be?

I swear to God threads like this need to be stickied somewhere.

 

[o hey tyler]

It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.

Well, at the moment new dSLRs are quite expensive and I can get a good quality, higher-end used film SLR camera at around 1/10th the price of a decent starting dSLR or 1/5th of a used dSLR. Even with all the supply costs of film and development, I estimate that it would take more than a year for me to reach the price of the most (brand new) basic dSLR camera. Calculating with the more middle range dSLRs, it would probably take more than 2 years (considering heavy shooting) for me to reach that level of expenditure.

So basically I look at cost-effectiveness from a cash-flow point of view. It's easier for me to spend the amount I would spend on a new dSLR over a period of a year or two considering I don't shoot a lot and on a film SLR I could get the SLR experience without much initial investment.

I am one of those who is very wary about spending heavily on essentially what is a hobby and I make no pretensions - I am a very amatuer, very basic hobbyist wanting the SLR experience. If film is slightly more involved, I don't mind that either - I could pay for development of film and getting the pics scanned on a CD and still not go too much high. The only factor I wanted to consider seriously is the availability of film and the necessity/convenience factor of visiting the local colour lab every time I want the pics on my computer.

I know the cash-flow equation may be different in different countries, but I am going to work this out from the most economical point of view and decide.

I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)

I understand all the points in favour of dSLRs and I appreciate them but the cost factor is something that I cannot get around or even justify to myself.

I definitely understand that not seeing the result instantly in film can be a limiting factor.

I'm not talking a ~500USD Canon Rebel XS (That's what a 23,000rs 1000D). I'm speaking of a ~200USD camera body with a 90USD lens. Around half the price (13,105.00rs) Worth saving up for as the lens pushes you to think and explore depth of field. You can also do test shots at f/1.8 to f/22 and everywhere inbetween to learn depth of field and how to achieve sharp focus even with a small focal plane. The 10D is a Semi-Professional level DSLR. It's an old one, but it will give you more immediate control. You could also find an old 300D for around the same price if you had preference towards a rebel.

Just trying to think what would save you money in the long run, while not breaking the bank. This would be the cheapest but most cost effective setup for a beginner.