🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

Going 35mm film or upping the DSLR?

Pierrel

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Hi,

Im in the thoughts of investing in a cheap ($50) analog 35mm film camera. The one I've been looking at is the Canon AE-1 Program (FD 50mm f/1,8) which seems to be a good first camera. I want to keep the cost of the camera down since i don't know if ill like it, and the fact that every time i press the shutter it costs me money.
Now, what would you say a roll would cost to process and have the images put on a CD? Ive tried looking at i.e. Walmart, Walhgreens etc but can't find any prices for 35mm film developing.
What would you say the average cost per roll of film is when you use 35mm?

The reason i want to go 35mm is the thrill of it, knowing that i have to spend some time with the image before i just fire off the camera. I need to think more than when using my DSLR, which i personally tend to use as expensive a point and shoot.

Im also debating getting a 50mm f/1,8 lens for the Nikon D40 i currently own, this would set me back about $150. The reason i debate this is that i don't know what i would have the most fun with...

What do you guys think, stepping back (or forward) to 35mm film, or staying in the modern world...

Thanks!
 
If you currently own a Nikon DSLR then why not get a Nikon film SLR with 50mm lens? Even if the lens is the 50mm 1.8E you'll still be able to use it on your digital body, just with manual focus/aperture. What's more is you can easily get the E for around $50. I've only used the 50mm 1.8E on the D7000 so you might want to research compatibility issues.

I have a Nikon EM and a Canon AE-1, the AE-1 is no doubt the better camera for the advanced user, but the EM is a cheap starter camera albeit with limited features. I'm not necessarily recommending an EM but I would think it was a good idea to stick with Nikon so you can use the lenses on either the film or digital SLR.
 
I second the suggestion to buy a nikon film slr. The nikon fe or fm series are great little cameras, and only around $50-75 on ebay. If u can afford it the nikon f100 is an amazing modern film camera, they typically sell for around $150-175. The f100 is basically a d700 with a film back.

Im not a fan of the canon ae1, it was a great camera in its day but the shutter is very prone to problems due to age. Old nikon cameras are much more reliable.
 
If you decide to shoot film though, actually do it. Do not get cheap film, shoot at box speed, and send it to Wal Mart. You'll be dissapointed and you'll just keep shooting the D40.

Shoot professional level film, Portra, 400H, 160S, Ektar 100, at half box speed, and take to NCPS or RPL. Than you'll probably quit using the D40 for the most part.

inspiration:
http://josevillablog.com/
kiss the groom
CALIMA Portraits » "All you need is love..." and a really great photographer!

They all shoot 100% film, and take to RPL
 
Cost per roll? Not significant... Never really bothered to figure out the exact cost, but I expect it's 20 cents a frame or less (35mm). Maybe 50 cents a frame for 120 film.

Considering what a comparable digital body would cost, 20 cents a frame is OK to me.
 
Thanks for your input guys!
I didn't know i could use older nikon lenses on the DSLR, that would be a great feature!
I have been looking at some Nikon FE (the old, normal FE) at eBay but they seem to cost a bit more than $50-$75 with the a lens. Maybe you were referring to a body only, or ill just have to keep my eyes open for a little longer. I don't want to put too large amount of money into this if I'm going to run good film and use a good place to develop it. NCPS seem to have fair prices, at around $10 for a roll if i understood correctly. The f100 though is really interesting, if its similar to the professional D700, but a bit expensive :p

The inspiration photos were great, wish id learn to do that one day!

Thanks guys!
 
and take to NCPS or RPL.
I'm starting to think these guys pay you. :lol:

When are you going to start developing your own film (it's not hard)?
LOL they should! It's just easy to recommend them because they're just about the only two places i've used where they don't royally screw things up.

I occasionally develop/print myself, but only with B&W, which I don't shoot much. :/
 
If, like me, you send your rolls to a lab for processing, then slide film works out cheaper than print film (my lab charges around 6,70 €a roll of 24 for print film (with CD) and around 2,40 € for a 36 roll of slide film(no CD)). You'll need to keep an eye out for special offers, of course, since slide film is a little more expensive in the first place, and investing in a scanner will be a must as what labs charge to put slide on to CD is prohibitively expensive.
 
Last edited:
If you decide to shoot film though, actually do it. Do not get cheap film, shoot at box speed, and send it to Wal Mart. You'll be dissapointed and you'll just keep shooting the D40.

Shoot professional level film, Portra, 400H, 160S, Ektar 100, at half box speed, and take to NCPS or RPL. Than you'll probably quit using the D40 for the most part.

inspiration:
http://josevillablog.com/
kiss the groom
CALIMA Portraits » "All you need is love..." and a really great photographer!

They all shoot 100% film, and take to RPL


Have you tried shooting Foma film ? Foma USA
 
There is absolutely NO LOGICAL REASON that digital captures must be fired off will-nilly, as if using a cheap point and shoot. The fact that your images are being captured on a CF memory card in your Nikon D40 means nothing...a bad image captured on a piece of Portra or HP-4 film will be just as bad an image as one captured on a CF card. Your entire premise is ridiculous if you think it through. Digital or film photo...either one can be shot fast, and shot poorly. If you want to shoot slowly and carefully, then DO IT. Slow down. THINK before you press the shutter release. If you think a Canon AE-1 or AE-1 Program will get better results than a Nikon D40 because the Canon shoots film and the D40 shoots to a sensor, you are sadly delusional, and are probably just trying to convince yourself you want to try film.

The cost of film shooting is calculated differently than the cost of digital captures. With film, you have to calculate in the cost of re-do's, missed shots, and re-takes and the ten day period between making a photo and seeing that you screwed it up and need to re-shoot that once-in-a-lifetime moment at the RIGHT exposure...lol...

There is almost no reason for "going to 35mm film" these days. If you want to shoot film, shoot 120 or 220 rollfilm, or larger--something that can actually be justified in a logical and a practical sense. A low-cost 120 rollfilm twin-lens reflex would be a better investment than a Canon AE-1 that has rotted light seals and a shutter ready to crap out in six months.
 
Just after posting above i had a phone call from my film processers, a roll of FP4 was missing i was well pissed
 
Just after posting above i had a phone call from my film processers, a roll of FP4 was missing i was well pissed
That sucks. At least they called you.

I had a roll take 6 months to make it's way back to me once. After about 3 weeks of not seeing it, I called them to ask about it. I gave them the number off the envelop I sent in, and they said they never got it. I just wrote it off as being lost in the mail... 6 months later the negs and a proof sheet showed up in my mailbox. Never heard a word from them about finally finding it...

That was the roll that made me decide to develop my own film from then on. Once it leaves your possession, there's really no telling what can happen to it.
 
and take to NCPS or RPL.
I'm starting to think these guys pay you. :lol:

When are you going to start developing your own film (it's not hard)?

You can make a small darkroom in a closet. That is what my dad did with his old film Pentax. He was my idol back in the day before everything went digital.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top