Posted by Jeff Boucher on February 1, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I'm curious - is ANYONE still interested in 35mm film camera bodies?
It seems like as the longtime users migrate to digital, the 'newbies' come straight out of the gates into digital....
Cheers
JB
Posted by Toni Lankerd on February 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
For what it's worth....I'm still interested in using film and have kept two of my film bodies, one specifically for infrared, the other for B&W. As a matter of fact, I just shot a whole roll of Ilford HP5 a few days ago!
Posted by Mike Moats on February 1, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Hey Jeff, When I got into digital over three years ago I could see that the 35mm camera was on its way out, so I unloaded mine on ebay before the value started to drop. I've done eight introduction to macro workshops in the last three month and 90% are digital, and the 10% film people walk out at the end of the class muttering, I'm going digital. I think most nature photographers that are into film are the medium and large format shooters.
Posted by David Weber on February 1, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I'm still using film, though if I had a thousand extra dollars to spend (and had my wife's blessing of course) I'd go digital.
Posted by John W. Wall on February 1, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I'm with Dave, except a thousand bucks isn't enough by half.
Posted by Robert Helms on February 1, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Jeff, I still have one 35mm film body, but most likely it will be my last. I also own one digital body, and one large format camera. Any film I shoot will more than likely only be on 4x5.
I'd say it's a safe bet that film based on the 35mm format is on it's way out. The medium and large format film cameras are still strong, and I'm certain it will be this way for many more years. I do know that I have no intentions of giving up shooting my 4x5.
I use mainly digital but just bought an extremely cheap second hand eos 1v for b&w, infra-red and star trails - I love it. It's not 35mm but I also still absolutely love using my ancient Rolleiflex.
Posted by Bill Fach on February 1, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I bought my first DSLR in August and have shot less than a roll of film since. It's kind of sad that my trusty Minolta M7 has been relegated to the retirement home. I have never enjoyed a camera, including my new DSLR, as much as the M7. I expected to use it for WA comps I couldn't get with the digital but the opportunities just never seemed to come up. Now that the novelty of the digital is wearing down I think I will be more intentional about using the M7 for WA stuff. But for flora, macro, wildlife, and general landscapes the crop factor, immediacy, and ability to experiment and get instant feedback is just too good with digital. The king is dead, long live the king. >=))>
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I sort of miss film and have actually been browsing for an old 6X9 folder. I've have a few old classic film cameras before and ended up selling them, but they were really fun. I've held onto my 4X5 equipment but haven't used it since going digital with the 5D last year.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 1, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I'll add some random thoughts. First, at one time my 645 was my favorite system. For the past three years I haven't touched it. I don't think it would even bring bids on eBay despite being in good shape, but I'll try in late May. I really don't see much if any interest in medium format film. No place in my city, the largest in the Dakotas, even stocks 120 any more.
I do plan on shooting 4x5 film for the forseeable future. Large format gear seems to be holding steady on eBay, maybe even slightly increasing for lenses and field cameras.
I don't see 35mm bodies doing much with a couple of exceptions. The exceptions are the really solid manual bodies, such as the Nikons FM3HP, FM2n etc. And then there are the Leicas. I'll mention another angle here. At the turn of the 19th/20th century the Industrial Revolution was in full swing. No longer did master craftsmen make such things as furniture, decorative glass, and so on, but it was mass produced by unskilled labor in huge throbbing factories. There was a backlash to this called the "Arts & Crafts Movement." This produced great small companies dedicated to craftsmanship such as Stickley furniture and Roseville pottery. Everyone is familiar with those names and others. How does this tie in to photography? For the past several years I've been getting progressively more expensive and complicated photo gear such as the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens, SB-800 flash, and most recently a Nikon D80 body. While all this stuff does give me some capablilities I didn't have before, it's also a bit of a distraction to me when I'm taking photos. Sometimes it's a big pain in the ass.
Leica screwmount rangefinders. A year ago I saw a very unique photo exhibit at the Field Museum in Chicago. It was a series of photos taken by SS officers of Hungarian Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz. There are no other known photos like these. Shot in simple black & white you see not the "stick figures" photo'd by U.S. troops after the liberation of the camps (such as by my own dad, a member of the 101st Airborn Div. in 1945,) but rather you see families just like yours and mine. While the SS photographers carefully avoided taking photos of anything gory or overtly incriminating, what they did photo was even more chilling IMO. You can clearly see the sheer terror on the peoples' faces, alternating with the air of total despair and certain doom. Most all of the people in the photos were dead an hour later. These photos haunted me for weeks, such was their power. I ended up buying the book despite the $90 cost. It's possibly the best photo book I have. I have lent it to others from time to time, and a couple of times received a semi-angry email from the borrower saying, "Why didn't you warn me about just how upsetting these photos are? I read the book just before bedtime and couldn't sleep!" Such is their power, no doubt totally unintended by the two National Socialist photographers who made the images. I researched what the likely camera gear was that was used and it seems most probable it was a Leica IIIc and lenses 35mm and 50mm. My point is this. I have thousands and thousands of dollars of modern, sometimes complicated equipment, but can it make photos more powerful than what the Leica made 60+ years ago? Probably not. Partly in reaction to the distraction of modern gear and partly to the simple power of b&w photos made with the antique Leica, I've been toying with the idea of buying a pre-war Leica IIIc with two screw mount lenses. They are fairly cheap and just might spark my creativity even more than the $900 D80 and $1,500 80-400mm VR.
http://tinyurl.com/2ekw75
Kent in SD
Posted by Jeff Boucher on February 2, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Thank you for the responses! This is interesting stuff. A few mentioned keeping one body for IR B&W, and yet there are some nice software to replicate the IR effect.
I've had n F5 for sale for a while, and over time the price has dropped $300, and still no takers. That's when it really 'rang my door bell' - as Arnold once said "Game over...."....
Cheers
JB
Posted by Tom Nevesely on February 2, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I still sometimes use my Canon Elan 7E film camera. Nowadays I mainly use it with my 24mm TS-E which isn't wide enough on a 1.6x crop digital body. I imagine that as soon as I get a full frame digital that I will no longer use my film body. There is no point selling it so I'll keep it around for if I get the urge to shoot some film.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 2, 2007 at 12:30 AM
When I switched to digital three years ago I gave my film bodies to my step-daughter, who has broken into wedding photography. She just switched to digital herself, and now the film bodies are "backups." I expect "backup" is code for "gathering dust."
I still have my ancient Asahi Pentax Spotmatic; the first model with TTL metering in stopped down mode. I also have M42 thread mounts ranging from 24mm to 200mm f:4. Fortunately the M42's work well on my digital body with an adapter. I don't use the film camera much any more but I've had it for so long I couldn't part with it. It's an old friend
I would, however, like to get your thoughts on "the 'newbies' come straight out of the gates into digital.... ". Am I seeing it incorrectly when I observe that a lot of newbies who do not have a history in film are not getting a good grounding in the craft of photography? Am I wrong in my opinion that the bells and whistles on modern digital equipment are being treated as a substitute for old fahioned disipline? I mean we have ESP or Multi Pattern auto exposure. We have auto focus and image stabilizing. We have "Scene Modes" that supposedly do it all for you, automatically selecting the "right" shutter speed for sports or the "right" aperture for portraits etc. etc. etc. Is any of this teaching our newbies what a light meter is actually telling them? Would any of them learn what the dynamic range (in f stops) of their camera is and could they condense the Zone System to be useable on a CCD? Would they know what to do with a spot meter reading if it was pointed at anything other than 18% grey? Would they know what 18% grey is anyway? Would any of them learn the value of using a tripod or that there is no "right" shutter speed or no "right" aperture if their camera does all the thinking for them?
I recently encountered a middle aged gentleman on one of my nature hikes who had jumped into the world of digital SLR and had all the bells and whistles. I was using, by comparison, a very plain digital pro body with P,A,S,M and nothing more than a good viewfinder, my tripod and a few pieces of good glass. The people who made my camera figured that even a pop-up was secondary to solid, quality build and a good knowledge of the craft. The man asked to see my kit and ended up assuming that it was a very cheap, amature excuse for a camera. I could do no more than bid him a good day, good luck and secret sympathy for his terribly uneducated attitude. I hope he someday learns enough to actually become a photographer but, unfortunately, if he continues to suppose that the camera makes the photographer he will never realize his need of an education.
Any thoughts?
Respectfully
Bob
Posted by Kelly Rowe on February 2, 2007 at 7:40 AM
I started in the photographic world with digital cameras; initially a high end pro-sumer and later an EOS 1D Mk II N and 20D. About 6 months ago I bought a little used EOS 3 to experiment with. I've run some Fuji Velvia and Ilford B&W throught it.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on February 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM
A few mentioned keeping one body for IR B&W, and yet there are some nice software to replicate the IR effect.
That is true, Jeff, but it's simply not the same. IMO, the digital IR effect comes nowhere near the result one achieves with IR film. Digital simply cannot replicate film in this respect.
I dont know about others but I simply enjoy working with and developing b/w film occasionally - experimenting with IR is a great excuse to do so. It makes a nice change and you can get a very different feel to digital on 35mm. I'm sure software can replicate to a certain extent but it's just not as enjoyable a process for me (I spend all day at my screen anyway). I'm looking for a pinhole camera next ...
Posted by Cliff Beittel on February 2, 2007 at 10:16 AM
"That's when it really 'rang my door bell' - as Arnold once said "Game over...."
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if Canon would make their digital bodies as functional as the old film bodies? The EOS-1n, with its midline 5 sensors that easily passed a moving subject from one sensor to the next, was better for action shooting than anything made since. Much of the time now Canon users, despite having 43 focusing points (or whatever the number is) shoot action with only the central sensor selected; when the subject is moving quickly and unpredictably, you are far more likely to lose focus than with the 1n. Similarly, I find the EOS-3's eye-controlled focusing incredibly useful. I actually have to laugh when people talk about focusing in one-shot AF, then recomposing to place the subject offcenter. With the 3, you leave the camera on Servo, look at the eye, and shoot. It would be nice when spending $7,000 not lose such useful features.
Posted by Jeff Boucher on February 2, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Boy, you got that right Cliff! :) I still have an F3 and this F5. Not sure I would sell the F3, there is something about it when you feel it in your hands making a photo.... hard to explain.
As for the newbie comments from Bob. Probably for the majority of them they don't need to know a lot of our old corner stone rules and guides. The technology is scary good. And I'll also quickly follow that with they still need to have ' an eye' to create a truely great photo. But when they can throw a lot of technology at it right out of the gates, in many cases, the exposures and focus are at least close to dead bang, or good enough. Since I photograph a lot of moving objects, when autofocus first came out I was darn near giddy.. :), then Nikons Matrix metering made me breathe a little easier around tough shots where I may not have had time to do a lot of metering, whether it was quickly changing light or a moving target. I have to say there was a lot of satisfaction going thru all the old gyrations to create a great exposure in a tough situation, and getting the film back verified my efforts. But the bank account breathes easier with the technology to back that up on the really hard stuff.... :)
Cheers
Jeff
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 2, 2007 at 12:54 PM
There have been a few odd comments on the F3. I loved that little camera but just wasn't using it. In excellent condition it sold for a mere triffling on eBay when I was trying to get money together to go digital. "Wouldn't it be great if..." they made a digital version with basically all manual controls like the F3. The bells and whistles stuff doesn't do much for me.
Posted by Jeff Boucher on February 3, 2007 at 7:56 PM
That would be sweet Roger. Super light, dependable, accurate,rugged........(sigh)
Posted by Jack Graham on February 4, 2007 at 11:29 PM
For you film guys.... I have 2 D 100's....
I am considering donating them to young people wanting to learn photography. I can only give, for what I've received over the yards.
I switched from my 35mm stuff some 4 years ago and have saved the money in film processing since as I was shooting approx 500 rolls of slide a year. I would say ( in UK pounds) that I am cost neutral at this stage. That said the issue with digital is that, whilst a top spec film 35mm body was £1200(ish), the digital top end body is often £3000+; that cost is prohibitive.
Now a bit OT and moving to MF
Orginally I sold the 6x17 (Linhof) but I found myself missing the quaility and mechanical (yes it will work regardless of what I have just done) robustness - especially as I have tendency to dissappear away from the beaten track. I also found that I was getting sloppy in my composure/technicals so I bought a replacement for it, a Fotoman 6x17, and am very glad I did. No more cold worries and if I break anything (shutter) it doesn't mean that I have to send the whole unit off to be fixed. Horses for courses.
I anticipate that you will see a stabilisation of the market quite soon. Full Frame (35mm) sensors are reaching their resolution limits. Canon's next beast is rumoured to be 20.67MP effective and this, if it is true, is only a 23% increase. Unless they are going to change the mount or the lens technology again, I can not see this getting much more on 35mm size
Although a different beast (and crutially a different shape) the scanned resolution of a 6x17 @ 3200dpi = approx 161MP and the market is just to small for cheap mass production for anything that would attempt to even try and approach this. That said I look forward to the Xpan digital (two 8MP sensors side by side).
T
Posted by Brent Murphy on February 16, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I still shoot a Nikon F4 and it's still the same great camera that it was when I first bought it. I would switch to digital in a heartbeat if I could afford it. But since having our second child 8 months ago, my shooting time has dropped to about nil. So, at this point, I own a camera, and spend very little on film and processing, so upgrading to digital isn't a priority. Once I start actively shooting again, and have some money in the bank, I'll upgrade, but for now I'll still deal with the great images I get from my F4 and Velvia.
Discussion
23 repliesIt seems like as the longtime users migrate to digital, the 'newbies' come straight out of the gates into digital....
Cheers
JB
I'd say it's a safe bet that film based on the 35mm format is on it's way out. The medium and large format film cameras are still strong, and I'm certain it will be this way for many more years. I do know that I have no intentions of giving up shooting my 4x5.
I do plan on shooting 4x5 film for the forseeable future. Large format gear seems to be holding steady on eBay, maybe even slightly increasing for lenses and field cameras.
I don't see 35mm bodies doing much with a couple of exceptions. The exceptions are the really solid manual bodies, such as the Nikons FM3HP, FM2n etc. And then there are the Leicas. I'll mention another angle here. At the turn of the 19th/20th century the Industrial Revolution was in full swing. No longer did master craftsmen make such things as furniture, decorative glass, and so on, but it was mass produced by unskilled labor in huge throbbing factories. There was a backlash to this called the "Arts & Crafts Movement." This produced great small companies dedicated to craftsmanship such as Stickley furniture and Roseville pottery. Everyone is familiar with those names and others. How does this tie in to photography? For the past several years I've been getting progressively more expensive and complicated photo gear such as the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens, SB-800 flash, and most recently a Nikon D80 body. While all this stuff does give me some capablilities I didn't have before, it's also a bit of a distraction to me when I'm taking photos. Sometimes it's a big pain in the ass.
Leica screwmount rangefinders. A year ago I saw a very unique photo exhibit at the Field Museum in Chicago. It was a series of photos taken by SS officers of Hungarian Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz. There are no other known photos like these. Shot in simple black & white you see not the "stick figures" photo'd by U.S. troops after the liberation of the camps (such as by my own dad, a member of the 101st Airborn Div. in 1945,) but rather you see families just like yours and mine. While the SS photographers carefully avoided taking photos of anything gory or overtly incriminating, what they did photo was even more chilling IMO. You can clearly see the sheer terror on the peoples' faces, alternating with the air of total despair and certain doom. Most all of the people in the photos were dead an hour later. These photos haunted me for weeks, such was their power. I ended up buying the book despite the $90 cost. It's possibly the best photo book I have. I have lent it to others from time to time, and a couple of times received a semi-angry email from the borrower saying, "Why didn't you warn me about just how upsetting these photos are? I read the book just before bedtime and couldn't sleep!" Such is their power, no doubt totally unintended by the two National Socialist photographers who made the images. I researched what the likely camera gear was that was used and it seems most probable it was a Leica IIIc and lenses 35mm and 50mm. My point is this. I have thousands and thousands of dollars of modern, sometimes complicated equipment, but can it make photos more powerful than what the Leica made 60+ years ago? Probably not. Partly in reaction to the distraction of modern gear and partly to the simple power of b&w photos made with the antique Leica, I've been toying with the idea of buying a pre-war Leica IIIc with two screw mount lenses. They are fairly cheap and just might spark my creativity even more than the $900 D80 and $1,500 80-400mm VR.
http://tinyurl.com/2ekw75
Kent in SD
I've had n F5 for sale for a while, and over time the price has dropped $300, and still no takers. That's when it really 'rang my door bell' - as Arnold once said "Game over...."....
Cheers
JB
I would, however, like to get your thoughts on "the 'newbies' come straight out of the gates into digital.... ". Am I seeing it incorrectly when I observe that a lot of newbies who do not have a history in film are not getting a good grounding in the craft of photography? Am I wrong in my opinion that the bells and whistles on modern digital equipment are being treated as a substitute for old fahioned disipline? I mean we have ESP or Multi Pattern auto exposure. We have auto focus and image stabilizing. We have "Scene Modes" that supposedly do it all for you, automatically selecting the "right" shutter speed for sports or the "right" aperture for portraits etc. etc. etc. Is any of this teaching our newbies what a light meter is actually telling them? Would any of them learn what the dynamic range (in f stops) of their camera is and could they condense the Zone System to be useable on a CCD? Would they know what to do with a spot meter reading if it was pointed at anything other than 18% grey? Would they know what 18% grey is anyway? Would any of them learn the value of using a tripod or that there is no "right" shutter speed or no "right" aperture if their camera does all the thinking for them?
I recently encountered a middle aged gentleman on one of my nature hikes who had jumped into the world of digital SLR and had all the bells and whistles. I was using, by comparison, a very plain digital pro body with P,A,S,M and nothing more than a good viewfinder, my tripod and a few pieces of good glass. The people who made my camera figured that even a pop-up was secondary to solid, quality build and a good knowledge of the craft. The man asked to see my kit and ended up assuming that it was a very cheap, amature excuse for a camera. I could do no more than bid him a good day, good luck and secret sympathy for his terribly uneducated attitude. I hope he someday learns enough to actually become a photographer but, unfortunately, if he continues to suppose that the camera makes the photographer he will never realize his need of an education.
Any thoughts?
Respectfully
Bob
That is true, Jeff, but it's simply not the same. IMO, the digital IR effect comes nowhere near the result one achieves with IR film. Digital simply cannot replicate film in this respect.
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if Canon would make their digital bodies as functional as the old film bodies? The EOS-1n, with its midline 5 sensors that easily passed a moving subject from one sensor to the next, was better for action shooting than anything made since. Much of the time now Canon users, despite having 43 focusing points (or whatever the number is) shoot action with only the central sensor selected; when the subject is moving quickly and unpredictably, you are far more likely to lose focus than with the 1n. Similarly, I find the EOS-3's eye-controlled focusing incredibly useful. I actually have to laugh when people talk about focusing in one-shot AF, then recomposing to place the subject offcenter. With the 3, you leave the camera on Servo, look at the eye, and shoot. It would be nice when spending $7,000 not lose such useful features.
As for the newbie comments from Bob. Probably for the majority of them they don't need to know a lot of our old corner stone rules and guides. The technology is scary good. And I'll also quickly follow that with they still need to have ' an eye' to create a truely great photo. But when they can throw a lot of technology at it right out of the gates, in many cases, the exposures and focus are at least close to dead bang, or good enough. Since I photograph a lot of moving objects, when autofocus first came out I was darn near giddy.. :), then Nikons Matrix metering made me breathe a little easier around tough shots where I may not have had time to do a lot of metering, whether it was quickly changing light or a moving target. I have to say there was a lot of satisfaction going thru all the old gyrations to create a great exposure in a tough situation, and getting the film back verified my efforts. But the bank account breathes easier with the technology to back that up on the really hard stuff.... :)
Cheers
Jeff
I am considering donating them to young people wanting to learn photography. I can only give, for what I've received over the yards.
JG
Now a bit OT and moving to MF
Orginally I sold the 6x17 (Linhof) but I found myself missing the quaility and mechanical (yes it will work regardless of what I have just done) robustness - especially as I have tendency to dissappear away from the beaten track. I also found that I was getting sloppy in my composure/technicals so I bought a replacement for it, a Fotoman 6x17, and am very glad I did. No more cold worries and if I break anything (shutter) it doesn't mean that I have to send the whole unit off to be fixed. Horses for courses.
I anticipate that you will see a stabilisation of the market quite soon. Full Frame (35mm) sensors are reaching their resolution limits. Canon's next beast is rumoured to be 20.67MP effective and this, if it is true, is only a 23% increase. Unless they are going to change the mount or the lens technology again, I can not see this getting much more on 35mm size
Although a different beast (and crutially a different shape) the scanned resolution of a 6x17 @ 3200dpi = approx 161MP and the market is just to small for cheap mass production for anything that would attempt to even try and approach this. That said I look forward to the Xpan digital (two 8MP sensors side by side).
T