I still have my Nikon F3 and FE2, both great camera's. I used the F3 when I was active duty in the Air Force as a part time Combat Photographer (sounds more glamorous than it is, and the part time bit is a story for another day) Film just got to expensive and digital has improved very well. I think I still have a roll that needs to be developed when I shot it 10 years ago.
Is anyone still using film?
- Thread starter vferdman
- Start date
While I think film does make better pix, you really can't beat the instant feedback of digital and the ability to shoot and shoot and shoot, and to delete and delete and delete.
Film user here. I only shoot B&W and develop it myself. Leica M6 & Hasselblad 500 C/M.
Now for weddings, I only shoot digital. But there's something to be said for film. I've considered reintroducing it to clients as a niche/high-end offering.
Now for weddings, I only shoot digital. But there's something to be said for film. I've considered reintroducing it to clients as a niche/high-end offering.
I'm mainly digital now, but shoot the odd roll of film. I still have the cheap Nikons (EM and FG) that I bought in the early/mid 80s. They work like a charm, but I did have to replace the light seals (not hard to do, just messy).
I bought an Olympus OM-10 for something like $65 and it came with a 50 f/1.8 I can use on my OM-D with an adapter. I think I may buy a full manual OM film camera and the stuff to develop my own black and white film. It would be fun to do and I'm sure I could get some good shots along side of my digital cameras.
You could buy an adaptor when that camera was current which made it fully manual. Plugs into that hole in the front. I'm not sure how easy they would be to find these days, but it would be a lot cheaper than a whole new camera.
An OM-1n cost about $50-$100 on the used market. I don't mind spending the money to add to the collection.
Edit: And ouch...the manual adapter is going for about $40-$50 on ebay.
- Thread starter
- #49
I have many film cameras and lenses. Mostly Nikon, but a few Pentax. I also have a film development tank that can do two rolls at a time and I bought some BW chemicals about 7 years ago and never broke the seal on them until last month and they were perfectly good. I used Kodak stuff (HC-110 developer is a good thing). Also, 7 years ago I loaded two rolls of film into the tank and they stayed there undeveloped until last month. They developed just fine. I taught my now 16 year old son the process of BW film development and handed him my F3 (the absolute BEST manual focus Pro 35mm film camera, IMO) and a choice of lenses and he shot a few rolls pretty quickly. So far we are up on our (re)learning curve of film shooting. No instant feedback is a *****. Still, the kid is shooting film alongside digital and he also does a lot of movies. I scan the negatives with my Nikon SL2000 film scanner (SCSI interface, anyone?) and that creates this mixed analog/digital work flow that is very interesting and gives lots of possibilities. I also shot a lot of color film back in the day and just had it developed at a drugstore without prints (only costs a few buck per roll). Then scan that and that is also very nice. Just more labor intensive and more expensive than digital.
I used to be totally a Nikon guy in the film days. They had the best system. However, after trying Pentax optics I became a convert. This was after I bought a Pentax DSLR and a few old Pentax MF lenses (Pentax DSLR can mount and meter with almost any lens that has ever been made for Pentax including thread mounts with an adapter). I bought a 50mm/1.8 and 28mm/2.8 and I must say, Nikon lenses have nothing on Pentax in terms of image beauty, bokeh, etc. Nikons are all razor sharp lenses and are extremely good in many cases. Pentax 50mm, however blows away almost any Nikon 50mm I have and I have a few of them.
So, really there is no need for you to buy the same brand of film camera as your DSLR. The film equipment is so inexpensive that you can outfit yourself with a nice (pro level) SLR, and say 85mm, 50mm, 28mm for under what a good stainless razor costs. This will give you incredible possibilities. You do need a film scanner. Scanning negatives with a flat bed is just a waste of time and effort. Not sure how expensive the film scanners are on the used market.
I just like the size of the range finders and legacy glass is easy to find. That and it nicely adapts to my OM-D. If I really was worried about it, I'd get a Canon EF mount SLR so I could use all my L glass that I normally use on my 5D MKII, but I'm not. I want to see what I can do with an old manual camera and I don't mind using legacy primes.
With almost 30 years of photography, with teaching it, etc. but letting go of my darkroom equipment as I didn't have the time, space or money to continue, I make the jump to digital a few years ago, and finally my DSLR about 2 years ago and never looked back.
Sure I miss the nostalgia, but I'd rather concentrate on getting the image, not the risk of having missed the shot, of the film being bad, of the processing being off, of possibility of damage to the negative, of age and time damaging the images/negatives, etc.
I took my time, and got my DSLR when I saw the results were close to being up to par to film in terms of colour and such, and I've been very pleased with the results for the most part.
I need to get a better camera, but in no rush as I don't do as much as I'd like anyways.
Sure I miss the nostalgia, but I'd rather concentrate on getting the image, not the risk of having missed the shot, of the film being bad, of the processing being off, of possibility of damage to the negative, of age and time damaging the images/negatives, etc.
I took my time, and got my DSLR when I saw the results were close to being up to par to film in terms of colour and such, and I've been very pleased with the results for the most part.
I need to get a better camera, but in no rush as I don't do as much as I'd like anyways.
- Thread starter
- #52
I like rangefinders too, but the good ones are so darned expensive! I did feed the rangefinder habit with inexpensive fixed lens ones like Canon Canonet, Yashica Electro, etc. They are really cool and very compact and quiet. They also are fantastic shooters. Some use outdated battery chemistry for battery power and are a little off on current replacement batteries, but not enough off to screw things up. Lovely optics on then, usually. Canonet QL17 has a 40mm/1.7 lens that is a jewel. I am currently shooting a roll of BW in my Konica Hexar AF, which is an auto-focus range finder with a fixed 40mm/2.0 lens and lens shutter with battery power film transport. What a camera! Used to be my favorite and pretty much made me forget all my other fixed lens RF's.
Have fun with old gear! It's a lot more pleasant to play with than today's wizbang stuff.
Attachments
I have Pentax, Leica Rangefinder, Mamiya medium format and I found what you say about Pentax lenses to be right.
In the past I've compared Pentax or Takumar (Pentax's old lens name) vs other and the quality of Pentax lenses have always been impressive.
My digital stuff includes Canon and Pentax....mostly Pentax. I've bought new Pentax digital lenses and the same holds true. The quality is excellent.
My latest Pentax lens acquisitions include the Pentax 12-24 , the 70 mm F 2.4 Limited and the 40 mm F 2.8 Limited.
The 12-24 is phenomenal and was rated best in class (wide angle zooms) by Popular Photography. The two primes....the 70mm and 40mm Pancake are exquisitely built...the picture quality of the 70mm is absolutely wonderful. I can't assess the 40mm as it's under the tree.
I also have some 50 mm Pentax lenses...an F 1.4 'normal' and a F 2.8 Macro. I agree with you. Both these are top notch.
Still using film? You bet. Canon A series. Wet darkroom.
Nah, I gave up film a long time ago...yes, it's nostalgic but it's also too costly.
I was visiting my storage unit today. I've been a bit worried about the heat it gets to inside, so I took the opportunity to hunt through some boxes and brought this home with me. I might have to bang a roll through it when I get time, just for old times sake. I've been feeling a bit nostalgic lately.
Greetings. I too enjoy shooting film - black and white medium format (both 645 and 6x7). I have tried many emulsions over the years and have recently decided to standardize on Ilford HP5+. I have two 5 roll boxes of Kodak TMY (400TMAX) that have been stored in my freezer. Their expiration date is November 2013. If any of you could use this film, let me know and I will send it to you (US address) - no charge. Happy New Year.
I love all of the Ilford films and chemicals.
Papers too.
Papers too.
I shoot film from time to time. I work as a commercial photographer and 99% of my work is digital. Every now and again I get a request to shoot film and when I do it tends to be medium format or 4x5. I love shooting film for a change. However I love shooting digital.
Bought in bulk, say 20 rolls at a time, my cost is about $2.00 per roll. I've bought lots of film for less.
I once figured out my costs for processing chemicals and it came out to somewhere between $0.30 and $1.00 per roll of film depending on what I used and how I used it. 8X10 paper costs me $0.25 per sheet.
No, I won't be converting to digital because of cost as long as I can still shoot black and white.
Similar threads
