is it still worth buying an slr camera?

[Don Simon]

There are so many options when it comes to buying film SLRs. What I would say is that selmerdave is absolutely right in recommending that you look for used cameras rather than buying new. Film cameras, not only old mechanical ones but even the most modern ones, are less reliant on complex electronics than digital cameras so there is less risk in buying used. And as said the prices are incredibly low. You could get a modern fully featured multi-mode SLR, or a classic mechanical one; it all depends on what you're looking for in a camera.

Some things to consider when choosing an SLR system are the availability of lenses (new or used), the cost of the lenses, and whether or not you want to be able to use the lenses on a digital SLR in future since this is possible with some old lens mounts but not others.

 

[lasershot]

So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...

 

[selmerdave]

The Spotmatic is excellent for the price. Check the thread just below with some examples from a member using a Spotmatic. On one hand, the bodies are cheap, very solid, and the lenses are very cheap as well and many are excellent. On the other hand, there are fewer lenses available with modern coatings for M42 (spotmatic) mount. I would suggest going one generation newer, with something like a K1000, KX, or MX, which are basically Spotmatics with K-mount lens mounts. You'll pay a little more for the lenses as they are compatible with new Pentax's, but they are excellent glass and still quite affordable. In that age group (70's-early 80's) there is some likelihood of needing some service, but I wouldn't let that scare you as once the service is performed you're good to go for a while. There are plenty of other options from other makers such as the Olympus OM line or Nikon F, FE or FM lines.

Dave

 

[Steph]

So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...

The Spotmatic is a good camera and you can buy a lot of M42 lenses for not very much. When buying, keep in mind that they are around 30 year old: after so long the lighthmeter may have failed or won't be very accurate any more (but you can use a separate handheld meter) and the light seals may need replacing. Some M42 lenses are very good (Pentax 50mm f1.4 SMC, Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4, Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5 are highly regarded for example).

 

[Steph]

How long does it take to get film developed...

Here in the UK most mail order labs have a turn around of 3 to 5 days. If you send your films on a Monday you get them developped by the end of the same week. Once you found a good lab I think it is worth the wait.

As for buying films I think it is really easy with the Internet. You can find many unusual films on the Internet that you would not have found at your local camera shop before.

 

[cigrainger]

I get film developed in 24 hours.

The Spotmatic is a WONDERFUL camera, but I would suggest a K1000, KX, or ME Super. The reason I say that is because if you decide you do want a digital camera, the K-mount lenses are all compatible with the digital SLR body without an adaptor.

I have all of the above, and that's not such a bad idea either. You can always buy a £20 adaptor to use the M42 mount lenses on the digital SLR.

If you shoot color you want to make sure the light meter works or get a handheld light meter. While you have some room with black and white and even color print films, IMO the best color films are slide films and they really don't have much room for exposing improperly. The built in meter on the Spotmatic is actually really awesome, especially considering it's 40 years old.

 

[Alpha]

So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...

Pentax Super Program is the way to go if you can find one. I've shot with pentax's entire "photo student" lineup, the k1000, me, me super, etc etc, as well as the Nikon FE's and the Canon AE1. The super program wins hands down.

 

[dinodan]

Pentax Super Program is the way to go if you can find one. I've shot with pentax's entire "photo student" lineup, the k1000, me, me super, etc etc, as well as the Nikon FE's and the Canon AE1. The super program wins hands down.

I've never used one, but I've read lots of good things about the Super Program. Here's what might be a pretty good deal (though one would need more info)...

http://bham.craigslist.org/pho/304587785.html

 

[CDG]

Professional photographers don't use fim much anymore. That said, the reports of the death of film are greatly exaggerated. If you're into black and white, I'd still pick film. If you're into nostalgia, pick film. If you're worried that film won't be available in another 20 years, I wouldn't sweat it. They said the same about cinema film 20 years ago when VHS and digital standards began to emerge and that hasn't happened yet...

Digital can be cheaper, true, but bear in mind that it costs less than 50 cents per shot to shoot and print 35mm film. I doubt if you can print digital any cheaper with your inkjet and photographic paper. And while you don't have to print everything you do digitally, you also tend to take more pictures in the first place. It's probably still cheaper to go digital, but reports of it being "way" cheaper don't really apply to the amateur/weekend warrior.

Otherwise buy digital and be happy. There's nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing either in my view. I admit though to being a film addict - chemical magic still holds its spell over me, as to clunky, funky old cameras. I consider film to be tradition, although I am something of a fiddler on the roof in that regard.

 

[selmerdave]

Professional photographers don't use fim much anymore.

One little side note on this. I am a musician by profession, and as is often the case a portion of my income comes from playing weddings and private parties. As a result, I get to do a casual survey of pro photography in that industry anyway, and it's been interesting to see the digital-film thing from that perspective. It is fair to say that the vast majority of photography in those situations is digital, but I have noticed that as the parties go up in price so does the likelihood of film photography. At the rediculous well-into-six-and-sometimes-seven-figure parties, the photographers are out there with their hassleblads, and quite often Leica's and very extensive film SLR setups along with a few specialty cameras (panorama etc.). A basic five-figure wedding is almost always digital. Not scientific at all of course, but interesting (to me) to observe.

Dave

 

[Weaving Wax]

One little side note on this. I am a musician by profession, and as is often the case a portion of my income comes from playing weddings and private parties. As a result, I get to do a casual survey of pro photography in that industry anyway, and it's been interesting to see the digital-film thing from that perspective. It is fair to say that the vast majority of photography in those situations is digital, but I have noticed that as the parties go up in price so does the likelihood of film photography. At the rediculous well-into-six-and-sometimes-seven-figure parties, the photographers are out there with their hassleblads, and quite often Leica's and very extensive film SLR setups along with a few specialty cameras (panorama etc.). A basic five-figure wedding is almost always digital. Not scientific at all of course, but interesting (to me) to observe.

Dave

That is interesting!

 

[CDG]

Indeed it is interesting. I'm definately not the expert, but it's good to see film isn't necesarily limited to amateurs anyway...

 

[jeffbuckley]

Time to get sentimental and nostalgic. I miss those SLRs and films I used to roll and develop in the dark room when I was in college studying basic photography. Now, everything is in digital. Fast-paced world indeed.



_______________________
Rob
Project Cars & Race Cars by skunk2 Racing

 

[fmw]

My opinion is that getting a medium format SLR is definitely worth doing. Buying a 35mm SLR, however, is not in my opinion. That's the opinion of someone who has used 35mm SLR's for decades, has used them professionally and has owned over 50 of them. Current digital SLR's simply provide better image quality than 35mm film. That isn't a popular opinion on this forum but it is my opinion nevertheless.

Medium format digital is far too expensive for a casual photographer so medium format film represents an excellent way to get into film and enjoy even better image quality than a DSLR. I still have a 35mm SLR system and see no prospect that I will ever use it again. My medium format SLR, however, gets plenty of use - as much as my DSLR's.

 

[fmw]

The film slr is not dead, for christ's sake. Yes, I'd probably prefer an M6, but why the hell not a film SLR? Jesus you people spend countless hours sitting in front of the computer PP'ing and you think it's inconvenient to develop film? gimme a break.

Max, you know better than that. If you have someone else do the processing then film and digital are the same amount of work. If you do the work yourself, it isn't even a horse race. A properly composed and exposed digital image should only take a couple of minutes in Photoshop. I spend about 30 seconds on each of my digital product photos. I've never spend countless hours doing anything related to processing an image. You're overstating things, don't you think?