going old school with film cameras

lexie

lexie

Messages
952
Name
keith
Edit My Images
Yes
i've found myself looking the the local classifieds at old 35mm slr's lately and was wondering who uses film in the digital age we find ourselves in?
i've seen things like a canon eos 500 with lens, box and maual supplied for £30. eos 5 body for £55. a couple of minotla's with af lenses £40 each (which is tempting because i can use the lens from either on my sony).

now i don't know much about film cameras but i'm sure a lot of people on here will, so i'm after as much info as i can get. other than the initial cheapness of the purchase of the camera are there any hidden costs? obviously film and devloping costs, but what about maintainance and repair? what are the benefits of shooting film over digital?

if i go for something like a canon or nikon i can obviously get a dslr of the same brand at a later date and use the lenses, but what is the deal regarding af on the film models? when did it come in and are there many af lenses from the period before digital? i'm not opposed to manual focusing and have just bought an old helios and adaptor for my a390 to try my hand at it for the first time.

at the price these cameras are going for it is looking a very attractive proposition at the minute, especially the eos 500 for 30 quid.

any advice or info will be gratefully recieved
keith
 
have a look in the 'Film and Conventional' forum on TP

you are much more likely to get this question noticed and answered over there !


be warned though ... if you 'get into film' it isn't any cheaper than digital !
 
Last edited:
After going digital I didn't bother with film for a while and when I returned I found that digital had improved me a bit and that my film shot keep rate was a little higher than it used to be :) You may find the same.

I have a Canon DSLR so I bought a Canon 35mm so that I could use the same lenses. The things are so cheap these days that I doubt that fixing faulty ones will be an issue, you'll just buy another.

I've been buying cheap film from the Pound Shop, and out of date film too... for the faded washed out and aged look! :)

Another option could be to get the lab to load your shots onto a CD?

PS. I bought an Eos 100 for my niece and it was so nice that I wished I'd bought it for myself, might be worth a look?
 
Last edited:
lexie said:
thanks for the info. the price of these things is crazy, what did they sell for new???
Click to expand...

It depends. I bought a brand new Nikon F4 in 1996 for £2K body only! You can buy 'em now for next to nothing and they're top pro kit that will probably still outlast your latest digital camera. It's successor the Nikon F5 would have been around the same price and that's an even better buy now.

You're a bit late to the party though - people have been snapping these cameras up since people starting ditching them with gay abandon in favour of digital. Prices are definitely firming up of late, but there are still bargains to be had.
 
That 500 is overpriced, I just picked up a mint 500N body with 4 rolls of film for £9.99 + postage from ebay.

The benefits are that film is still a higher resolution image than digital images, its fun, its even more fun with totally manual camera's (theres something about clicking dials instead of pushing buttons).
The downside is waiting for the images to get back from processing, relying on machines to process for you, no raw file to play with etc.
 
I was under the impression digital caught up with film resolution at 14mp?
 
A decent DSLR these days is going to give you 'better' quality than the vast majority of films. Advantage of film is it looks like film, some people like that.

If you do buy one, you may as well do it properly and get a manual one. I have and EOS 3 and a Pentax MX, the EOS 3 feels like I may as well be using my 1D.. the Pentax feels.... good. ;) I picked up the body, a nice 28mm f/2.5 and a stupidly good 50 f/1.4 for next to nothing.
 
The23rdman said:
I was under the impression digital caught up with film resolution at 14mp?
Click to expand...

Nope, even a 21MP full frame still isn't as good as a decent film IMHO, heck they're still trying to cover medium format and have got to 40mp without hitting the IQ of film yet.


The main thing with film at the moment, is its so cheap, near £1000 camera's can be picked up for under a couple of hundred, film itself is relatively cheap, if you processed and printed yourself it would be even cheaper all round and I might add very satisfying to do.

For me these days with my limitations digital is my preferred medium, but I've just started to play with film again for fun, I just cant process these days.

I still think all students should learn the processing/printing side and get hands on experience, in fact I would recommend it to all togs
 
i feel it's not about which is better to use - use both

love my Nikon D5000 and the technology

but some evenings just pick up my Canon A1 and go for a walk - a different feeling [for me]

buy C41 process films...develop and processed onto CD by Boots [or Club35 for quality]

old Canon FD lens are "heaps" cheaper then Nikon - have a look at a Canon T90 body
 
As everyone has said the EOS100 is a fantastic camera and while not the top of the EOS tree by any means is possibly still the best in terms quality for value. Or bang for buck as those quaint americans would say.

I would agree though that a fully manual metal box with real dials and switches is a great idea. You might as well get the whole experience and something totally different in feel to the modern digi setup.
 
I loved my EOS 100, but sadly the shutter has died so it now just sits on a shelf. However, in the last few weeks I've picked up 5 film bodies, some for curiosity [like a Zenit E], others for more serious use [like an EOS 1N HS and a Nikon f90x].

IIRC the theoretical comparative resolution of 35mm film is around 25Mp, so you need to be around there to outresolve film.
 
If you do decide to give it a go I'd recommend going full manual Canon. Because they changed their lens mount when they went autofocus the manual lenses are peanuts. e.g. £20 ought to get you an excellent 50mm f/1.8. Get a nice body too and appreciate the brightness of a large pentaprism viewfinder coupled with a fast lens. It's lovely!
 
Jayst84 said:
If you do buy one, you may as well do it properly and get a manual one. I have and EOS 3 and a Pentax MX, the EOS 3 feels like I may as well be using my 1D.. the Pentax feels.... good. ;) I picked up the body, a nice 28mm f/2.5 and a stupidly good 50 f/1.4 for next to nothing.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to have an AF film camera like the EOS 3 for compatibility with your EF lenses, but I know what you mean when you say it doesn't feel hugely different from shooting with your digital Canon DLR.

A pre AF film camera with shutter speeds and apertures on the dials is the real deal if you want the full on experience. The Pentax MX is one of the best cameras Canon ever made and I think it still has the distinction along with the ME of being the smallest SLR made. The MX was never aimed at the pro market but a lot of pros snapped it up for the build quiality and fully mechanical shutter speeeds - the battery only powers the meter which is an inspired simple LED display in red amber and green. For anyone looking for a great film camera I'd highly recommend the MX if you can find a decent one at good price - they do tend to be sought after.
 
The original post says that the poster has an a390 (which I'm guessing is a Sony). If I'm right, I would suggest that he goes for a Minolta so he can use his existing lenses/flashes with it rather vthan starting up again in a fresh system. Mifsuds seem to have a few Minolta AF bodies in stock but they do look rather expensive compared to Canon and Nikon bodies.
 
CT said:
For anyone looking for a great film camera I'd highly recommend the MX if you can find a decent one at good price - they do tend to be sought after.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend them too. Had an MX for years before changing over to Nikon. They are fully mechanical and there were even a number of focussing screens available for it. At that time, I was looking at an ME-Super as well, but I didn't particularly like the push-button shutter speed selections. I'd much rather have a good old fashioned dial which the MX offers.

Speaking of manual cameras, I'd also recommend the Olympus OM-1n (another mechanical camera) or the OM-2n which is auto and manual. They are both extremely reliable bodies and there are plenty of lenses available for them. Zuiko lenses are optically superb.

The same goes for the Nikon FM - fully mechanical and a joy to use. The later FM2n tend to fetch higher prices particularly if they're in top condition, but the original FM can be picked up for reasonable money and you'll have a camera to last you.
 
iancandler said:
Nope, even a 21MP full frame still isn't as good as a decent film IMHO, heck they're still trying to cover medium format and have got to 40mp without hitting the IQ of film yet.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by IQ. The figure I've come across is of a fine-grained Kodachrome slide being equivalent to a 20mp digital image, which would make the 5D mk II slightly better than film. (source here)

There are other considerations - dynamic range for instance, it's well-known that film over-exposes more gracefully than digital - no sudden clipping of highlights. And I've no doubt that a Kodachrome slide would look fantastic projected on a big screen - probably better than a digital image on a LCD projector.

BUT, if you want the final image on a computer, I think there's no contest between film and a high-res DSLR. You'd have to be scanning your slides on a very expensive scanner - and even then, you'd struggle to achieve the pristine sharpness that a DSLR and top-notch lens is capable of.

A.
 
There's other hidden costs...

The general quality of D&P plummeted after digital took over the compact camera market. Many of my negatives from the last few years of film shooting came back irretrievably scratched, prints had dust projections on them and many had a strange colour cast. The scratches on the negatives would sometimes make themselves known on 7.5x5 prints, and made those images unscannable.

Slides faired no better - I had some come back apparently over-developed, where black areas turned red (film base colour).

The value of my film kit was falling, so I sold my EOS 3 and my D30 together for enough to buy a 20D, leaving me free of other people's failings (and then just having to deal with my own) in my photos.

A quick look at costs - a 36exp roll is £5, and D&P for 7.5x5 prints is about £8. That makes each click of the shutter cost about 33p, plus batteries (which is a significant cost with some bodies - my EOS 5 could destroy a 2CR5 in 2-3 rolls in cold conditions, and they weren't cheap).

The price of 13-15 rolls of film shot and developed will buy you a used EOS 20D. It's worth saving for.
 
You're missing the point though I-S - the OP already HAS a digital camera, and wants to know what they may gain from "the film experience" - On a purely financial and logical basis, there's little if anything to be gained by shooting film, though I do question your pricing. I shoot mainly Black and white film, at around £2 a roll, I process it myself at a cost in chemicals of around 50p a film, and scan the negatives, printing only the shots I wish to (same price as it would be with a digital camera) My EOS-3 has done nearly 30 films on its current 2CR5 battery and is still showing 2/3 full - £4 - or a conservative 10p a roll. Thats nearer 7p a click :shrug:

But it's not about costs really, or logic, or any perceived "image quality benefit", at least for me. I shoot on digital when the job suits it, I shoot on film when I feel like it, I enjoy both equally. I've learned more about the "craft and technique" of photography by having a digital camera and being able to take a shot over and over and over until I get exactly the image I want. The closed feedback loop, where I can see the processed images within a second if shooting tethered to the laptop and into lightroom is amazing - a fantastic learning tool - and for reference, knowing exactly the ISO,f-stop,shutter speed and focal length of the camera when the image was taken is perfect. I love digital for that aspect. It's also perfect for high-volume shooting - be it a 300 person "grip and grin" type job, or 1200 assorted different types of pipe fitting that all need shooting on a white background for a company intranet/product reference manual/catalogue application. Long exposures, either with 10-stop ND's / Welding glass / IR filters are far easier and more likely to result in a useable picture when you're learning how to work with them.

But occasionally I enjoy shooting film as well - film camera bodies have come down in price so far now that I can use kit that was far beyond my means when it was new - and it's not all obsolete technology - the EOS-3 for example has a far and away better metering system and AF than anything digital that I can afford. On the other side of the coin I've got a late 50's 120 film folding camera thats smaller than my DSLR and around the same weight as a Canon G11 - it's all metal, no metering, and has a clockwork shutter. The pleasure I get from developing a roll of 12 shots from that camera that are correctly exposed, by using nothing more than knowing the ISO of the film and glancing at the floor to check my shadow and doing a little "sunny 16" calculation is hard to measure.

And that's as good a reason as any to shoot film. Because you enjoy it. Same goes for Digital. If it's not fun, why bother :shrug:
 
Fair enough.

Yes, I'd missed that the OP already had digital... Since he's shooting sony then I would suggest an old minolta film body to use existing lenses (unless they're digital-only lenses of course).

Costs may vary. My EOS 3 was never so parsimonious as yours, (getting a record 21 rolls from a battery), but I tended to shoot a lot of wildlife with long stabilised lenses. However, don't be fooled by the battery meter... Those lithium packs will show full until the last 10%, then plummet to empty. Yes, it's possible to shoot cheaper film/processing as you say.

I certainly miss the capability of my EOS 3 as a camera. My 5D is nothing like so good in metering or AF.

I've thought about getting a rangefinder to play with, but I'm still put off by film... if I could afford an RD1, I would...

I totally agree about if it's not fun, why bother. That's what put me off film, and the struggle I had with crop-factor cameras (didn't find it rewarding like the 5D is).
 
I couldn't justify keeping even the Fd 300mm f/2.8L on T90. The costs were that high of shooting and professionally scanning film!

Cost of maintenance of film cameras? Just buy a new one when the old one fails. That is cheap. The real expenses are hidden in film and development.
 
There is a reason why film cameras are cheap - nobody wants them. Sad, but true. Digital beats film every which way.

If you want to try 'the film experience' my advice would be don't spend too much money on it becuase it is grossly overrated by deluded folks with rose-tinted specs. The novelty will quickly wear off and you won't be able to sell anything for more than tuppence.

Film is good for very specialist stuff like large format photography (5x4in and larger) but for anything smaller, forget it.
 
I-S said:
Costs may vary. My EOS 3 was never so parsimonious as yours, (getting a record 21 rolls from a battery), but I tended to shoot a lot of wildlife with long stabilised lenses. However, don't be fooled by the battery meter... Those lithium packs will show full until the last 10%, then plummet to empty. Yes, it's possible to shoot cheaper film/processing as you say.

That's probably where it is... I mostly shoot with a 17-40L or a 28-105, no IS to be seen :)


I certainly miss the capability of my EOS 3 as a camera. My 5D is nothing like so good in metering or AF.

It's quite worrying really, AFAIK the only digital Canon's that do come close to the EOS-3 are the 1D's (and maybe the 7D - haven't used one of those though) And even then, I'd still miss the Eye-Controlled Focusing :lol:
Click to expand...
 
HoppyUK said:
There is a reason why film cameras are cheap - nobody wants them.
Click to expand...

That depends where you go. Certain shops sell mint condition Nikon bodies for more than what they cost just a few years ago and they do sell quickly. It'll depend how desirable that camera is, and I have to disagree with you saying nobody wants them.

I can't argue about digital photography as I have never attempted it, but film processing for me is purely for the fun as it is a hobby rather than a means of earning a living. If you had to make money from photography then I can see how digital would be an advantage in this case.

At the end of the day, those who are trying film for the first time will either like it or they don't, but those who have always used film, as in my case, it's certainly not a novelty which will wear off.
 
HoppyUK said:
There is a reason why film cameras are cheap - nobody wants them. Sad, but true. .
Click to expand...

Oh do behave Hoppy, I'm sure you're not really that ill-informed. :)

Cheap film cameras are either mass produced low end consumer models, or better cameras which have very obviously and visibly had a hard life - let the buyer beware! Top end film cameras in mnt condition are fetching very high prices and will be a better investment than your latest digital SLR, increasing in value as cameras in that condition become rarer and more sought after, while your latest 1 Series DSLR dies and becomes a paperweight or is so overtaken by the latest digital gizmo that it will be virtually worthless -and in an alarmingly short space of time.

Admittedly this is partly driven by the rather sad collector market, but a large proportion of buyers will use them - appreciating them for what they are - the very pinnacle of engineering in film cameras.

I could have bought another 7D for what I've just paid for a mint Canon F1N, but I know which is going to hold it's value better - even in the very short term, and the pleasure it gives me just picking it up is immeasurable. :cool:
 
Last edited:
CT said:
Oh do behave Hoppy, I'm sure you're not really that ill-informed. :)

Cheap film cameras are either mass produced low end consumer models, or better cameras which have very obviously and visibly had a hard life - let the buyer beware! Top end film cameras in mnt condition are fetching very high prices and will be a better investment than your latest digital SLR, increasing in value as cameras in that condition become rarer and more sought after, while your latest 1 Series DSLR dies and becomes a paperweight or is so overtaken by the latest digital gizmo that it will be virtually worthless -and in an alarmingly short space of time.

Admittedly this is partly driven by the rather sad collector market, but a large proportion of buyers will use them - appreciating them for what they are - the very pinnacle of engineering in film cameras.

I could have bought another 7D for what I've just paid for a mint Canon F1N, but I know which is going to hold it's value better - even in the very short term, and the pleasure it gives me just picking it up is immeasurable. :cool:
Click to expand...

Exactly ;)

I gave away all my film gear, but I've kept a couple for sentimental reasons. And I'll freely admit I'd love to have a few more - Nikon F, Spotmatic, OM1/2, AE-1, ME Super etc. But they would never see a roll of film.

They are just much more difficult to use than digital, and at the end of the day the results are not so good :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top