35 mm camera

hughjohn

Ok , have tried several digi cameras and not really got on with them. Was thinking of returning to film ; can you still buy it , get it developed or even buy a new film camera these days or has the digital taken over the world completely?

DaireQuinlan

hughjohn wrote: »

Ok , have tried several digi cameras and not really got on with them. Was thinking of returning to film ; can you still buy it , get it developed or even buy a new film camera these days or has the digital taken over the world completely?

yes,yes,yes and no respectively.

There are a couple of people still making film cameras, Cosina is one, Nikon may or may not still be making the F6 and the FM10 (although the fm-10 was always made by cosina anyhow), and there are a few others. There are thousands of top notch 35mm bodies available second hand though. If you want something sophisticated and modern get a Nikon F100 or F90x. Want a superb manual body, get an FE-2 or something similar. There's also piles of overpriced crap from the lomographic society if you're that way inclined.

You can still get 35mm developed on most pharmacies, and buy it in some pharmacies or in any camera store. It's gotten kinda pricey to buy retail though, I normally buy in bulk from 7dayshop, or http://www.thephotoshop.ie/ comes highly recommended and is run by a boardsie . Alternatively you can start developing your own, fun and easy. Except for the odd roll I haven't paid to have film developed in about 5 years or so.

amdgilmore

In a way, this is a better time than ever to be shooting with a film camera. True, there's not much in the way of new equipment on the market, but high-quality second hand SLRs are dirt cheap compared to digital cameras. And if you're buying an M42 mount camera you can get great lenses for 50 quid or so.

The only drawback I've found is developing the film. It's just not practical in the long term to rely on lab development. I've had insane prices quoted to me in Dublin camera stores (€13 per roll was the quote I got in one shop - and this was standard c41 colour film btw).

The only cheap option seems to be the long and perilous trek to Coolock to visit the mysterious 'Dave' in Unicare in the NorthSide Shopping Centre.

Whether you stick with film will probably ultimately depend on how willing you are to invest time in learning how to develop the stuff yourself. That's a decision I'm yet to make myself.

pete4130

The Nikon F100 is fantastic. The F90x was replaced by the F100 and almost as fantastic.

Old Canon AE1's are a good bargain with something like a 50mm lens. For point and shoot a Yashica T4/T5 are great but expensived these days. I've gone through a few Canon QL17's and they are fantasticl....just getting old and prone to breaking down.

Get a scanner too. You'll break even after about 10 rolls of film and have better control over your scans.

vic20

How many exposures on the €13/roll? (It's €8.50/24exp. in my neck of the woods.)

amdgilmore wrote: »

In a way, this is a better time than ever to be
The only drawback I've found is developing the film. It's just not practical in the long term to rely on lab development. I've had insane prices quoted to me in Dublin camera stores (€13 per roll was the quote I got in one shop - and this was standard c41 colour film btw).
<snip>

amdgilmore

36. And I think the one hour service came to 15 or 16. And this was CD only too, no prints.

Stupid prices, really. On that occasion I had 6 rolls to develop and there was no way I was going to pay 80 quid for the pleasure.

magicbastarder

4 quid dev only in gunns for b&w. you'll pay about 8 quid for film and dev, and can then scan them yourself, if you invest in a scanner.

Splinters

hughjohn wrote: »

Ok , have tried several digi cameras and not really got on with them. Was thinking of returning to film

Just out of curiosity, what was it about digital photography didnt you like?

vic20

I'm beyond the Pale.
How much is a decent neg. scanner anyway?

magicbastarder wrote: »

4 quid dev only in gunns for b&w. you'll pay about 8 quid for film and dev, and can then scan them yourself, if you invest in a scanner.

hughjohn

Splinters wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what was it about digital photography didnt you like?

Firstly, I found nearly all my photos looked fair enough on the computer screen but when I had them printed in the chemist , they looked a bit watery. Tried a different one next time but the same so put it down to me and/or camera settings.
Then tried a different camera but just didnt like operating that one.

Last week we had a horse entered in the RDS and I got a loan of another camera. It was an important day for us and I was determined to get some good photos . The worst thing was the lengthy delay between taking one shot and getting the next. I missed loads waiting for the stupid camera to catch up. Yhis is what really annoyed me and prompted my OP.

Maybe there is a really fast digi that won't cost the earth, any suggestions?

I should add I am not a pro , probably not even a good amateur but I do have some good shots from film back over the years.

amdgilmore

Any idea what models they were? Sounds a little bit like they were consumer-level point and shoots. I wouldn't ditch digital based on your experiences with those.

Film is a continuing investment in terms of both time and money, so unless you're very serious about photography I'm not sure what benefits you'd reap from a film camera over a decent digital... and film is also a very unforgiving format. If you screw up an important shot (and you will, because everybody does), you might not even know until you get the roll developed. A good digital will give you instant feedback and faster shooting.


So, digital options:

You might want to move up a level and check out something like the Canon Powershot G series. Recent ones are quite expensive, but you might get an older model cheaper.

Another option would be one of the new mirrorless cameras. They're comparable to DSLRs in performance and image quality, but are much more compact and designed to be easier to use. Olympus and the Sony Nex range are the most popular brands at the moment. But be aware that it's an inter-changeable lens format, so you may find yourself dishing out extra for a zoom lens or wide-angle lens depending on your needs.

A final option, would be to pick up a second hand entry-level DSLR. You could pick up something like a Canon 450D for somewhere in the region of 300-450 (depending on its condition and what lens is attached to it).


If I were in your position, I'd probably go for a mirrorless. They're compact, high-quality and very versatile.

If you give an idea of how much you're willing to spend then I'm sure somebody could recommend a specific camera in that range.

magicbastarder

i find film much more rewarding than digital; partly because you know you don't have the delete option.
there's more reward in getting 36 decent shots out of a roll, having taken 36 shots, than getting 36 decent shots on digital, having taken 100.

amdgilmore

magicbastarder wrote: »

i find film much more rewarding than digital; partly because you know you don't have the delete option.
there's more reward in getting 36 decent shots out of a roll, having taken 36 shots, than getting 36 decent shots on digital, having taken 100.

I agree... but y'know that's just us. People who might have two or three cameras and a flickr account, and use our film cameras for street photography and the like. I don't think we're representing the majority here.

Splinters

amdgilmore wrote: »

Any idea what models they were? Sounds a little bit like they were consumer-level point and shoots. I wouldn't ditch digital based on your experiences with those.

Id have to agree there. It sounds as you might just have had the wrong digital camera for your needs. Also if you were happy with the image on your screen and not when you got it printed at the chemist its probably not the fault of the camera itself. Perhaps you accidently saved them in a lower resolution, perhaps the printer in the chemist wasnt the best. Theres any number of explanations, but I certainly wouldnt be so quick to write off digital cameras as a result.

Also, and please dont take this the wrong way, if you had an important event (entering your horse in the RDS event) and it was important to you to get great shots why did you not just hire a photographer. Photography is something people spend years trying to master, even assuming you had got a lend of a great camera this really doesnt mean you're going to get anything resembling a good image unless you have a very solid understanding of at least the basics.

A prime example, a friend recently asked if he could borrow my camera to take pics of his apartment which he was selling. I offered to take the shots for him but he took the whole "how hard could it be approach", so I gave him the camera and left him too it. Not suprisingly he ended up with a load of unusuable shots because he used automatic for everything. He couldnt understand why everything was blurred so much (low light, long shutter speed) so I ended up taking the shots for him.

cnocbui

hughjohn wrote: »

Firstly, I found nearly all my photos looked fair enough on the computer screen but when I had them printed in the chemist , they looked a bit watery. Tried a different one next time but the same so put it down to me and/or camera settings.

Get a printer and print your own. It is a good idea to calibrate your computer screen so what you are seeing has some chance of being relevant elsewhere, such as with the photo printers.

I have been shooting film all my life and only got a decent digital camera a few months ago. I am not tempted to go back.

hughjohn

Splinters wrote: »

Id have to agree there. It sounds as you might just have had the wrong digital camera for your needs. Also if you were happy with the image on your screen and not when you got it printed at the chemist its probably not the fault of the camera itself. Perhaps you accidently saved them in a lower resolution, perhaps the printer in the chemist wasnt the best. Theres any number of explanations, but I certainly wouldnt be so quick to write off digital cameras as a result.

Also, and please dont take this the wrong way, if you had an important event (entering your horse in the RDS event) and it was important to you to get great shots why did you not just hire a photographer. Photography is something people spend years trying to master, even assuming you had got a lend of a great camera this really doesnt mean you're going to get anything resembling a good image unless you have a very solid understanding of at least the basics.

A prime example, a friend recently asked if he could borrow my camera to take pics of his apartment which he was selling. I offered to take the shots for him but he took the whole "how hard could it be approach", so I gave him the camera and left him too it. Not suprisingly he ended up with a load of unusuable shots because he used automatic for everything. He couldnt understand why everything was blurred so much (low light, long shutter speed) so I ended up taking the shots for him.

Genuinely a helpful post thanks.Yes mostly I have used point n shoots and it is these that I'm now fed up with.
I did have a pro shooting for me at the RDS so all 's not lost, just had hoped mine would've been better than they were. I now accept that I didnt take enough time to learn about the camra that was loaned to me.