# Are film SLRs worth buying?



## nonamexx

I was looking for a decent SLR camera but digial SLRs are way beyond my budget and spending capacity and I was wondering if it is worth going the film route.

I am seriously interested in improving my photography skills and range and I was wondering how troublesome it would be to develop films these days.

I was thinking of transparency film - how easy are they to use and what is their availability in India?

Any responses would be appreciated.


----------



## smlblk396

Think about how much you have to spend on film and developing.


----------



## donalson

I picked up a film pentax (honestly only for the lenses that work on my D-slr)... I picked up some film for it and had a very hard time with it... knowing that every shot costs more and more $$$... if it's good or bad it doesn't matter.

that being said... if you could find an older (all manual) SLR you can learn A LOT and have a good time... I was shooting from the time I was 4 (not good mind you) on my kodak/fisher price 110... stepped up to 35mm P&S at one point and eventualy to my dads early 70's nikromat in 5th grade... I learned a lot back then... but i never shot a ton due to film associated costs... by the time I was shooting my dad didn't have a dark room anymore so it was always waiting to send in and get film back.

so if you can find something inexpensive then i'd say go for it and have fun... I don't know what DSLR prices are like in india (i'm not assuming great) but in the states you could pretty quickly get a used entry level DSLR if you got a bit crazy with the film... about 30-40 rolls (cheap processing and cheap film) and you could just dab your way into a used entry level dSLR... just a though


----------



## nonamexx

Fact is I wanted to ask about transparency films. Can they be scanned directly into the computer? What equipment do you need to process transparency films?


----------



## smlblk396

I am lost on that question. Do not know anything about that kind of film.


----------



## Tulsa

might try the film section, no clue what you mean. Isnt all film transparent?


----------



## nonamexx

I meant this kind of film:

Reversal film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could a moderator then move this q to a suitable subforum?


----------



## djacobox372

Scanning reversal film is no different then scanning negatives--the results just aren't inverted.

Reversal film is typically more expensive to have developed, as it uses the E6 process which most cheapo developers (drug stores/walmart) have to send out to have done.

Reversal film can look great, but doesn't have quite the exposure latitude of negative film--it's every easy to blow out the highlights with reversal film.

As for film slr's, they're so cheap these days that it's hard to go wrong.  I'd look for a nikon FM or FE with a 50mm lens.


----------



## nonamexx

djacobox372 said:


> Scanning reversal film is no different then scanning negatives--the results just aren't inverted.
> 
> Reversal film is typically more expensive to have developed, as it uses the E6 process which most cheapo developers (drug stores/walmart) have to send out to have done.
> 
> Reversal film can look great, but doesn't have quite the exposure latitude of negative film--it's every easy to blow out the highlights with reversal film.
> 
> As for film slr's, they're so cheap these days that it's hard to go wrong.  I'd look for a nikon FM or FE with a 50mm lens.



Thanks. I am very excited about the thought of a film SLR because it's so affordable compared to digital SLRs. I'll research to find out what one is available where I live and the pricing and availability of film etc.


----------



## enzodm

Here slide roll costs about 5&#8364;,  development about 3&#8364;, plus about 5&#8364; to have a Kodak Picture CD (less for other kinds of digitization). A scanner with transparency module costs slightly more than usual, but if you want quality, you have to spend much more. Consider also these costs (although perhaps you will spend less in proportion for development and rolls).


----------



## nonamexx

enzodm said:


> Here slide roll costs about 5,  development about 3, plus about 5 to have a Kodak Picture CD (less for other kinds of digitization). A scanner with transparency module costs slightly more than usual, but if you want quality, you have to spend much more. Consider also these costs (although perhaps you will spend less in proportion for development and rolls).



I'll have to consider all these factors. Thanks for letting me know the approx cost factors to consider when getting into film photography.

Also regarding digitization, I'll have to see what choices are offered by the studio. Or get a scanner myself.


----------



## Higgs Boson

Things you buy for nostalgia (not efficient functionality):

Carburated cars
CRT monitors
Typewriters
VCRs
Landline phones
Film Cameras
Nintendo


----------



## nonamexx

Higgs Boson said:


> Things you buy for nostalgia (not efficient functionality):
> 
> Carburated cars
> CRT monitors
> Typewriters
> VCRs
> Landline phones
> Film Cameras
> Nintendo



I actually have a carburated car. 

Typewriter - check, I do actually have an old pre-war German typewriter - still functioning and still good enough in a crunch to type a letter or two. Might be an antique piece actually - haven't checked the date.

VCRs - not actually but it's actually quite the only choice to record TV programmes these days.

Landline phones are still common in India and pretty much still going strong - check. We have one at home.

Film camera - I actually own a 35mm film camera, just not a film SLR. Rarely used though. 

CRT monitor - our television set is still a CRT, so there you go.

Nintendo - this I must admit, I don't own a Nintendo, though I owned an old Nintendo video game - Mario Bros or years ago.


----------



## Tulsa

I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100. 

I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.


----------



## John Mc

I would say its allways useful to Learn The old way,i use Black and white Film in My Slr and use My digital for colour.
I process my own film and print it myself aswell.i find it cheaper to do then to do it in a store,most dont bother with Black and white unless its processed using Colour Chemicals (C-41).

Im considering trying Reversal Film,but im considering buying a Medium format Camera First to do this with as the Negatives are Bigger and more Visable


----------



## Chamelion 6

Tulsa said:


> I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100.
> 
> I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.


 
I have to agree... As much as I love film and miss my old darkroom, I just see film as much too expensive these days.  Granted the cameras themselves are cheap, but the reason for that is the cost of film and processing.  If you are any kind of prolific at shooting, and that's the real secret to improving, you're going to far exceed the cost of an entry level DSLR within a few months and an intermediate level one by the end of your first year. Add to that film is only going to get more expensive.  Kodak no longer supports it's own film, it outsources the processing to third parties...  For good or bad, film is a dead end street.


And unless you process your own film you are not going to really get anything more in the learning process than you would with a digital.  Other than pure nastalgia, I don't see any advantage.


----------



## Higgs Boson

harishankar said:


> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things you buy for nostalgia (not efficient functionality):
> 
> Carburated cars
> CRT monitors
> Typewriters
> VCRs
> Landline phones
> Film Cameras
> Nintendo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have a carburated car.
> 
> Typewriter - check, I do actually have an old pre-war German typewriter - still functioning and still good enough in a crunch to type a letter or two. Might be an antique piece actually - haven't checked the date.
> 
> VCRs - not actually but it's actually quite the only choice to record TV programmes these days.
> 
> Landline phones are still common in India and pretty much still going strong - check. We have one at home.
> 
> Film camera - I actually own a 35mm film camera, just not a film SLR. Rarely used though.
> 
> CRT monitor - our television set is still a CRT, so there you go.
> 
> Nintendo - this I must admit, I don't own a Nintendo, though I owned an old Nintendo video game - Mario Bros or years ago.
Click to expand...


Well, you are in India so that makes some sense but I will say that at the rate you guys are growing and our stagnation you will definitely be in flying cars before we are, lol!


----------



## sanpan

Hi Harishankar,

I do own a Film SLR (Canon EOS 66) but I have rarely used it since I got a digital P&S. You can get instant results and save them on your PC. Film SLRs, though, inexpensive can have added costs. A roll of film, the D&P would cost you about 200-500 Rs for about 30 odd pics. Also you will only know how the pic has come out only after you get the pics.
Used DSLRs can be really cheap. You can also buy a new Canon 1000D for about 20K Rs.
If you are in Mumbai, you can visit jjmehta in Dadar for good deals (jjmehta .com , Digital Camera , Digital SLR , Video Camera , Apple iPod , Sandisk Pendrive available all over India).


----------



## j-dogg

okay, I'm going to don my flame-retardant protective gear and give you my .02

pick up a film SLR, don't listen to these kids here shooting digital who've never got behind the wheel of 35mm I bet you half of the digital nutswingers here would be clueless if you gave them a full manual Nikon F from 1959 or a Canon rangefinder from the 50's. tell me I'm wrong.

It's a global market, you're from India you should know this by now, most of the 35mm gear I have I purchased locally from pawn shops and flea markets, Craigslist ad's, but my entire Kodachrome project used Kodachrome film from eBay. There's lots of 35mm equipment available on that site you could have it shipped there. I don't know where you would get it developed, but I'm sure you could mail it out.

Film image quality shot through a decent SLR is only surpassed by the most expensive digital SLR's, I'm talking about your Canon 5D's, Nikon D700's and above, you could build a full professional 35mm outfit with good lenses for half of the cost of digital and if you get the right lenses and decide to go the digital route, you've already got some nice glass to shoot with. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and two 35mm's, an EOS 650 and an Elan 7e and they all use the same lenses with the exception of crop format lenses for the XTi. Everything else works.

Developing costs aren't as expensive as everyone says, you would have to shoot hundreds of rolls to break even with the cost of operating a high-end DSLR. And NOTHING has the look of film, not even any of this horse**** in CS5 it just doesn't look the same.

It's too bad you didn't get into this earlier you could have shot Kodachrome.

Film is NOT dying off as some would say, it's actually coming back, go out and find a decent 35mm, Nikon FG is what I started on (any of the Nikon's from the 80's are good learners) get a couple lenses and post up in the film forum when you got something. If you go Nikon, the 50mm 1.8 Series E is one of the best manual lenses ever made, also grab a 105 f2.5, best portrait lens ever. Kodachrome may be going away but new films are coming out, Kodak released Ektar 100 not too long ago and it's pretty decent. 

Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:

Before I get flamed for this post, I'm not some old man who has shot film his whole life, I'm 25 and started on a DSLR and picked up the 35mm format soon after. BOTH formats have their advantages no doubt but film is still a great format to shoot and it's coming back.


----------



## JClishe

harishankar said:


> CRT monitor - our television set is still a CRT, so there you go.


 
It's amazing how far we've come in such a relatively short time related to TV quality. The difference between Blu-Ray and standard definition is astounding. Just the other night my wife and I were watching a show in SD and we commented that we couldn't believe that this is all that we used to have just a short time ago and were fine with it, and "loved" the step up to DVD.


----------



## yepp

Comment to jdogg:

I definitely see where you're coming from. Its expensive to beat the quality of an SLR when it comes to digital, but it makes more sense to buy the cheapest dslr he can and LEARN from that since you can review your photo's just about instantly and adjust your shot accordingly if you don't like it. I think the DSLR is a much better learning device than the slr due to the ease of use. Now as for quality, after he's learned, (assuming he's totally new to SLR's/DSLR) then it's probably better to get an SLR if he wants top quality for the $. I have nothing against slr's, matter of fact i think they are pretty cool, but i would have a hard time learning on that vs the DSLR.

Cheap DSLR= less quality pics/greater learning curve
SLR=slower learning curve/awesome quality pics


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> Tulsa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100.
> 
> I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree... As much as I love film and miss my old darkroom, I just see film as much too expensive these days.  Granted the cameras themselves are cheap, but the reason for that is the cost of film and processing.  If you are any kind of prolific at shooting, and that's the real secret to improving, you're going to far exceed the cost of an entry level DSLR within a few months and an intermediate level one by the end of your first year. Add to that film is only going to get more expensive.  Kodak no longer supports it's own film, it outsources the processing to third parties...  For good or bad, film is a dead end street.
> 
> 
> And unless you process your own film you are not going to really get anything more in the learning process than you would with a digital.  Other than pure nastalgia, I don't see any advantage.
Click to expand...


I am considering whether a film scanner would be a good idea, but even those seem to require the film to be developed first?? Not quite sure of this, but seems so.

I don't have the facilities for a dark room nor have the time to pursue that, so will consider all these aspects first.

As for film cost, I'm definitely going to check the prices out and consider my own frequency of shooting (which is actually quite low by many standards).

The one thing that pulls me towards film is that it's a challenge and I love challenges. So used to digital products that I have no excitement for a digital SLR and especially so at the prices they go for.


----------



## j-dogg

yepp said:


> Comment to jdogg:
> 
> I definitely see where you're coming from. Its expensive to beat the quality of an SLR when it comes to digital, but it makes more sense to buy the cheapest dslr he can and LEARN from that since you can review your photo's just about instantly and adjust your shot accordingly if you don't like it. I think the DSLR is a much better learning device than the slr due to the ease of use. Now as for quality, after he's learned, (assuming he's totally new to SLR's/DSLR) then it's probably better to get an SLR if he wants top quality for the $. I have nothing against slr's, matter of fact i think they are pretty cool, but i would have a hard time learning on that vs the DSLR.
> 
> Cheap DSLR= less quality pics/greater learning curve
> SLR=slower learning curve/awesome quality pics



^^Pretty much summed up my post.


----------



## ann

It is very cheap to process your own film (black and white) and easy, you don't need a darkroom etc. Just a few reels, a tank and chemistry.  Color is a different animal and altho it can be processed at home; temperature control is not always easy.

There are pro and cons , but sometimes it comes down to loving the process. Most people on this site lean toward digital which is fine. Most who do film and there are a lot , love the process, the love and being able to reach out and touch , hold an organic experience.

Oh, yes, I do both, teach both, so.............and more and more young people are moving in the film directions. Whether you want to believe that or not, it is happening. Will film ever be king of the hill again, don't think so, but don't be so quick to jump to a conclusion.  After all, people are still doing processes that are older than silver gelatin printing.


----------



## Nikon_Dude

Personally, I would not even be into photography if I did not have a digital slr. I first got one just to be able to get decent pictures at gatherings, when traveling, etc rather than pursue it as an art, hobby, whatever. That came later. I love the convenience of being able to shoot 100 frames and not worry about it costing anything more, as well as seeing instant results and adjusting accordingly. 

And call me lazy if you will, but I honestly don't think I have made a single print since I've had my dslr (over a year). I just share my pictures with friends and family through facebook or email them the pictures.


----------



## John Mc

I started Digital,But ive Learned Way more with Film.I like the fact that i cant see my images,it makes me pay more attention to the lighting,the scene,the focus,cropping the images in the frame ect.


----------



## Rapala46

If you are interested in the challenge and don't mind the expenses of film processing, film, etc then go ahead and get a film SLR.  If you're trying to learn it might be more economical to get a digital (even an advanced P&S).  I started out with a film SLR and definitely learned a lot.  I taught myself to really compose each photograph exactly how I wanted it because I didn't want to waste my film.  The problem was that I would get my film back and a lot of times the picture didn't come out exactly how I wanted it.  However, I eventually moved up to a D-SLR and my learning curve went through the roof.  With my D-SLR I was able to compose my shot, take the picture and then review it.  If I didn't like the way it turned out, I could adjust the framing, settings, etc and re-take the photo.  Additionally, I was able to mess around with every function of my camera and literally instantly see the effects of each change in settings.  This helped me to understand the capabilities of my equipment as well as understand all the different composition possibilities.  

Good luck with whatever route you take.


----------



## Higgs Boson

j-dogg said:


> okay, I'm going to don my flame-retardant protective gear and give you my .02
> 
> pick up a film SLR, don't listen to these kids here shooting digital who've never got behind the wheel of 35mm I bet you half of the digital nutswingers here would be clueless if you gave them a full manual Nikon F from 1959 or a Canon rangefinder from the 50's. tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> It's a global market, you're from India you should know this by now, most of the 35mm gear I have I purchased locally from pawn shops and flea markets, Craigslist ad's, but my entire Kodachrome project used Kodachrome film from eBay. There's lots of 35mm equipment available on that site you could have it shipped there. I don't know where you would get it developed, but I'm sure you could mail it out.
> 
> Film image quality shot through a decent SLR is only surpassed by the most expensive digital SLR's, I'm talking about your Canon 5D's, Nikon D700's and above, you could build a full professional 35mm outfit with good lenses for half of the cost of digital and if you get the right lenses and decide to go the digital route, you've already got some nice glass to shoot with. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and two 35mm's, an EOS 650 and an Elan 7e and they all use the same lenses with the exception of crop format lenses for the XTi. Everything else works.
> 
> Developing costs aren't as expensive as everyone says, you would have to shoot hundreds of rolls to break even with the cost of operating a high-end DSLR. And NOTHING has the look of film, not even any of this horse**** in CS5 it just doesn't look the same.
> 
> It's too bad you didn't get into this earlier you could have shot Kodachrome.
> 
> Film is NOT dying off as some would say, it's actually coming back, go out and find a decent 35mm, Nikon FG is what I started on (any of the Nikon's from the 80's are good learners) get a couple lenses and post up in the film forum when you got something. If you go Nikon, the 50mm 1.8 Series E is one of the best manual lenses ever made, also grab a 105 f2.5, best portrait lens ever. Kodachrome may be going away but new films are coming out, Kodak released Ektar 100 not too long ago and it's pretty decent.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:
> 
> Before I get flamed for this post, I'm not some old man who has shot film his whole life, I'm 25 and started on a DSLR and picked up the 35mm format soon after. BOTH formats have their advantages no doubt but film is still a great format to shoot and it's coming back.



Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and your age is on display in your post.  I won't say much, but at 25 (and most likely one of the youngest people in this thread - younger than me for sure) I think you're stretching a bit by referring to anyone as kids.....  Just because you may have had the opportunity to use a camera from the 50's while others have not does not mean much.

Let me sum up your post:
I like digital and film but I'll be different and tell you film but they both have their advantages.

When someone asks for helping picking ONE, it's helpful not to tell them both (as evidenced in your quote of another above saying "both" sums up your intention).  They know that.  Otherwise, the decision wouldn't require the input of others.

Just my 2.


----------



## Canon AE-1

Get yourself a Canon A-1 off ebay for 50 bucks.
Google the manual and read it all.
Buy some 400 speed film.
Go out and shoot some things.
Have fun.


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan

I just bought a mint condition Nikon N80 with 28-80 lens for $90 off of eBay about a month ago to shoot black and white film. I love it. It's definitely worth it to me.


----------



## tygr1

Back in the day, Kodak sold an E6 processing kit, which included all chemicals necessary to develop E6 transparency film at your kitchen sink in about 30 minutes. I doubt if they still do, but may be worth a little research.


----------



## djacobox372

tygr1 said:


> Back in the day, Kodak sold an E6 processing kit, which included all chemicals necessary to develop E6 transparency film at your kitchen sink in about 30 minutes. I doubt if they still do, but may be worth a little research.



Yes, you can still buy e6 development kits.  That's how I develop my e6 film, but it's not exactly simple--temperature needs to be controlled at 105 degrees.

Chemical costs for at-home e6 development are around $1.50 to $2 a roll (compared to 25 cents a roll for black and white).


----------



## djacobox372

harishankar said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tulsa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider saving for a DSLR, you could get a Canon 10d, or even one of the first Rebels, for a couple hundred dollars. A decent SLR film will run you around a $100.
> 
> I see no advantage to going film if you want DSLR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree... As much as I love film and miss my old darkroom, I just see film as much too expensive these days.  Granted the cameras themselves are cheap, but the reason for that is the cost of film and processing.  If you are any kind of prolific at shooting, and that's the real secret to improving, you're going to far exceed the cost of an entry level DSLR within a few months and an intermediate level one by the end of your first year. Add to that film is only going to get more expensive.  Kodak no longer supports it's own film, it outsources the processing to third parties...  For good or bad, film is a dead end street.
> 
> 
> And unless you process your own film you are not going to really get anything more in the learning process than you would with a digital.  Other than pure nastalgia, I don't see any advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am considering whether a film scanner would be a good idea, but even those seem to require the film to be developed first?? Not quite sure of this, but seems so.
> 
> I don't have the facilities for a dark room nor have the time to pursue that, so will consider all these aspects first.
> 
> As for film cost, I'm definitely going to check the prices out and consider my own frequency of shooting (which is actually quite low by many standards).
> 
> The one thing that pulls me towards film is that it's a challenge and I love challenges. So used to digital products that I have no excitement for a digital SLR and especially so at the prices they go for.
Click to expand...


You don't need a darkroom to develop film--only for printing.  This is where the scanner comes in handy--you just print digitally.

Developing black and white film yourself is very simple and very cheap, only around 25cents a roll for chemicals and a one time cost of around $50-75 for the containers, changing bag, etc.  There are many great tutorials on black and white film development on www.youtube.com you should check them out. 

Developing color film is a bit more tricky, more time consuming, and the savings aren't nearly as great.  

As for cameras, the nikon f100 can be bought on ebay for as little as $135, which is an absolute steal.  The build quality and controls of the F100 are on par with the most expensive nikon DSLR's available. You might also want to consider medium format film, as it's quality actually surpasses the most expensive dslrs available today.

Here's an excellent resource for film and developing equipment: http://www.freestylephoto.biz


----------



## white

Film is for people who like the process. If you don't like the process, or don't have the patience, stick with digital.


----------



## sobolik

If you are going into rugged back country then a film SLR is a good option. You can drop it out of the boat and it will probably still work after you dry it out. And the film will still produce a photo.

If you take hundreds or thousands of photos per year then go digital. If you take a few photos per year in between the learning phases/classes then you can easily live with a film camera. If you are obsessed over producing a quality photo then the post processing software will get that done. You can scan film into a computer.

By all means give the film SLR camera a go. They are cheap and valuable learning tools.


----------



## KVRNut

Yes, a SLR is worth buying. With the current prices for film cameras and glass, I think it's a good investment. Get a good quality SLR, one that allows you to use either aperture or shutter priority or full manual. If you like the lower ISOs, then film is the way to go. Not too many inexpensive digitals go down to ISO 50 and like loong exposures. Film also has more latitude than digital has and that can be handy in some situations. A good film camera will never be outdated either if you understand the camera and enjoy using it. 

Using transparency film is pretty easy. I meter for the ambient light, not the reflected light. Seems transparency film likes it better that way, or at least I seem to get better results that way. Seeing different types of light through your finished transparency and how it changes your finished transparency can be a good learning tool too. It can help you decide how to get the most out of a print when you decide to do one. You'll also like the fine grain characteristics of transparency film when doing an enlargement. 
If you follow the processing guidelines from the film manufacturer, you shouldn't have any problems with processing your own film. If you go the commercial processing route, yes, it can be expensive if you use a lot of film but that has taught me to take my time composing so I get the most I can out of a roll of film. (I just pretend that each shot costs the same as a large format 8x10 inch picture. LOL) I may get shot for this, but I use commercial processing for my film as I don't have room for a dark room and with someone else in the house who has health problems, those dark room chemicals are best left else where. I'm very lucky in the fact that I have a good lab to go to that understands my wants, style, and that lets me take part in the processing so I can get the results I want. Besides, I'd rather be out making pictures instead of in a dark room. LOL 
Instead of mounting the film in slide mounts, I keep the film in one piece as it makes scanning easier. That applies for both 35 and medium formats. Consider a scanner that will allow you to program in color profiles for different films. (Fuji Velvia can be a bear to scan at times and not come out with purple water on your scan.) Another piece of equipment you should consider is a light table along with a lope to examine your transparencies or negatives. I was able to build my light table a lot cheaper than buying one so that can save you some money.

35mm or medium format for transparency film? Use what suits YOU the best. I'm not afraid to set the medium formats aside to use the 35mm camera(s) if thats what frames the picture the best. Yes, 35mm is way smaller than medium format but then I've got some not too shabby poster size enlargements from 35mm.

Don't be dissuaded or put off by the digital only crowd. To say that film is dead and that everybody should be only using digital is like telling Michealangelo that he should have been only using Roman concrete instead of marble. Photography is an art form whether you are a hobbiest or make your living with a camera, it's still an art form. It doesn't matter if you use tin plate, wet plate, digital, film or any of the formats, it's still photography and there's plenty of room for everybody. It's been a personal pleasure of this film user to help a fair number of digital users get more out of their cameras by applying film techniques and to have some of those users come back to me with their newly aquired film cameras to learn another aspect of this art form we call photography. It's been even more fun to see those photographers grow and develop their own styles of photography in both film and digital. Those same photographers have told me that digital is a great learning tool to develop confidence before moving on to film. I've also been lucky enough to have other photographers show me their large format equipment and how to use it. That has spurred me on to get into the large formats, in both wet plate and film, and grow some more. At age 53, you'd think that I'd be getting into something lighter and easier but I'm going the opposite way and I'm going to have fun doing it. LOL 

I hope you get the SLR and have as much fun using transparency films as I have had over the years. Get out there, grow, and have fun doing it!


----------



## Higgs Boson

Good info in the above post!


----------



## nonamexx

KVRNut said:


> Yes, a SLR is worth buying. With the current prices for film cameras and glass, I think it's a good investment. Get a good quality SLR, one that allows you to use either aperture or shutter priority or full manual. If you like the lower ISOs, then film is the way to go. Not too many inexpensive digitals go down to ISO 50 and like loong exposures. Film also has more latitude than digital has and that can be handy in some situations. A good film camera will never be outdated either if you understand the camera and enjoy using it.
> 
> Using transparency film is pretty easy. I meter for the ambient light, not the reflected light. Seems transparency film likes it better that way, or at least I seem to get better results that way. Seeing different types of light through your finished transparency and how it changes your finished transparency can be a good learning tool too. It can help you decide how to get the most out of a print when you decide to do one. You'll also like the fine grain characteristics of transparency film when doing an enlargement.
> If you follow the processing guidelines from the film manufacturer, you shouldn't have any problems with processing your own film. If you go the commercial processing route, yes, it can be expensive if you use a lot of film but that has taught me to take my time composing so I get the most I can out of a roll of film. (I just pretend that each shot costs the same as a large format 8x10 inch picture. LOL) I may get shot for this, but I use commercial processing for my film as I don't have room for a dark room and with someone else in the house who has health problems, those dark room chemicals are best left else where. I'm very lucky in the fact that I have a good lab to go to that understands my wants, style, and that lets me take part in the processing so I can get the results I want. Besides, I'd rather be out making pictures instead of in a dark room. LOL
> Instead of mounting the film in slide mounts, I keep the film in one piece as it makes scanning easier. That applies for both 35 and medium formats. Consider a scanner that will allow you to program in color profiles for different films. (Fuji Velvia can be a bear to scan at times and not come out with purple water on your scan.) Another piece of equipment you should consider is a light table along with a lope to examine your transparencies or negatives. I was able to build my light table a lot cheaper than buying one so that can save you some money.
> 
> 35mm or medium format for transparency film? Use what suits YOU the best. I'm not afraid to set the medium formats aside to use the 35mm camera(s) if thats what frames the picture the best. Yes, 35mm is way smaller than medium format but then I've got some not too shabby poster size enlargements from 35mm.
> 
> Don't be dissuaded or put off by the digital only crowd. To say that film is dead and that everybody should be only using digital is like telling Michealangelo that he should have been only using Roman concrete instead of marble. Photography is an art form whether you are a hobbiest or make your living with a camera, it's still an art form. It doesn't matter if you use tin plate, wet plate, digital, film or any of the formats, it's still photography and there's plenty of room for everybody. It's been a personal pleasure of this film user to help a fair number of digital users get more out of their cameras by applying film techniques and to have some of those users come back to me with their newly aquired film cameras to learn another aspect of this art form we call photography. It's been even more fun to see those photographers grow and develop their own styles of photography in both film and digital. Those same photographers have told me that digital is a great learning tool to develop confidence before moving on to film. I've also been lucky enough to have other photographers show me their large format equipment and how to use it. That has spurred me on to get into the large formats, in both wet plate and film, and grow some more. At age 53, you'd think that I'd be getting into something lighter and easier but I'm going the opposite way and I'm going to have fun doing it. LOL
> 
> I hope you get the SLR and have as much fun using transparency films as I have had over the years. Get out there, grow, and have fun doing it!



Thanks a dozen for the excellent info and your experiences.

I just have one question: what film SLR would you recommend? Currently there seems to be very few out there in the market that are actively made. Is it a matter of purchasing second hand or is it possible to get a brand new one?


----------



## o hey tyler

It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.


----------



## nonamexx

o hey tyler said:


> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.



Well, at the moment new dSLRs are quite expensive and I can get a good quality, higher-end used film SLR camera at around 1/10th the price of a decent starting dSLR or 1/5th of a used dSLR. Even with all the supply costs of film and development, I estimate that it would take more than a year for me to reach the price of the most (brand new) basic dSLR camera. Calculating with the more middle range dSLRs, it would probably take more than 2 years (considering heavy shooting) for me to reach that level of expenditure.

So basically I look at cost-effectiveness from a cash-flow point of view. It's easier for me to spend the amount I would spend on a new dSLR over a period of a year or two considering I don't shoot a lot and on a film SLR I could get the SLR experience without much initial investment.

I am one of those who is very wary about spending heavily on essentially what is a hobby and I make no pretensions - I am a very amatuer, very basic hobbyist wanting the SLR experience. If film is slightly more involved, I don't mind that either - I could pay for development of film and getting the pics scanned on a CD and still not go too much high. The only factor I wanted to consider seriously is the availability of film and the necessity/convenience factor of visiting the local colour lab every time I want the pics on my computer.

I know the cash-flow equation may be different in different countries, but I am going to work this out from the most economical point of view and decide.

I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)

I understand all the points in favour of dSLRs and I appreciate them but the cost factor is something that I cannot get around or even justify to myself.

I definitely understand that not seeing the result instantly in film can be a limiting factor.


----------



## white

I just picked up an OM1 with 50 f/1.8 on ebay for 60 bucks.

/awesome


----------



## BKMOOD

I own twenty-three 35mm film cameras: Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxes, Olympus, a couple medium format cameras. I plan to buy more 35mm film cameras. I love them. I primarily shoot black and white, as it is easy to develop myself.

I love my DSLR as well. Its made me lots of money. However, it is so automated, a trained monkey could get a good picture with it. The technology takes the man out of the process. It's never really much of a challenge.

Film is a challenge. Did I get the shot? Did I not get the shot? I am nervous with anticipation in the dark loading film, mixing chemicals, waiting to see what I got. Film makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning, ripping open a box to see what I got.

I get no feeling of excitement or anticipation at all with my DSLR. I can't muster much respect for its achievements.  Actually, it bores me.

My DSLR feeds my wallet. My 35mm camera feeds my creative soul.


----------



## enzodm

harishankar said:


> I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)



image stabilization is something you'll not have even with an analog dSLR, so should not be considered in the equation. And lenses in general are something different from bodies - prices may be very high for high quality lenses, if they can still be used. The cost of a basic 50mm prime on analog SLR is more or less equivalent to the cost of a kit lens on dSLR, and often accounts for most of the camera cost. So, economical advantage is mainly on bodies. 
On the other side, there are cheap, old manual lenses that can still used on modern dSLR, at the price of manually focusing. Some of them are optically good, so may be an option for taking good pictures also with a cheap dSLR. This to say that there are different ways of saving money, with partial results (and different level of nostalgia, like manual focus ). 
I understand your economical point: however I started with film, but for learning I feel better with digital, where you can look at results immediately and correct errors. I could maybe go back to film after having reached some extra experience - at that point, black&white on film would be more interesting, although might be expensive if done on a trial-and-error basis, as prints are another cost to be considered.
Again, it is true that a basic SLR is so cheap that there is not much to loose in starting with it.


----------



## j-dogg

o hey tyler said:


> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.



now lets hear it from someone who actually DOES shoot both formats and knows what they cost.

Canon 7d body = roughly 1500 dollars depending on where you shop. I've seen them cheaper.

Canon EOS 3, the 35mm equivalent to the 7d (more accurately the 5d) used copies trade for about 300 with the power booster.

A roll of professional grade film, something nice, how about FujiFilm Pro 400h, good stuff, I pay about 9 dollars a roll, with my student discount 7.50 after tax.

Now you will need some glass, so how about 3 lenses, the 28-135 IS, Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 (astonishing lens) and a 70-300 IS. All the focal points covered for under a grand, around 800 dollars for all those lenses.

Subtotal.....

Canon 7d, lenses = 2300 dollars. Make it 2370 with cleaning accessories and a nice memory card

Canon EOS 3, lenses = 1100 dollars. 

Now, film.

Roll of nice film, about 9 bucks, let's make it 10 because I suck at math and 10 is a nice round number.

10 bucks a roll, and to professionally develop and print for me is like 20 bucks and I get a CD. Net cost is 30 dollars each roll, you would have to shoot +40 rolls of film just to break even on a 7d. And that's expensive film, not even cheap stuff that looks almost as good. And when it's all said and done, and you save up for your 7d, you got an awesome 35mm companion to your bag that uses all your nice lenses.

You don't even need something super nice like an EOS 3 I have an Elan 7e that costs more than half as much as an EOS 3, and those Nikon FG's I mentioned earlier can be had for 50 bucks, which is dirt cheap and produces just as good an image.

Bottom line, I shoot both formats and have been behind the wheel of everything from my FujiFilm point and shoot to my bud's 1ds Mark III + 70-200 f2.8L IS, if I could only shoot one camera the rest of my life it would be a Nikon F. Enthusiasts, artists and curious people like yourself are what keeps film alive, and it is a growing format again. Both formats have their highlights and downfalls. Digital is a great learning tool but 200 years from now where will your digital images be?

I swear to God threads like this need to be stickied somewhere.


----------



## o hey tyler

harishankar said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at the moment new dSLRs are quite expensive and I can get a good quality, higher-end used film SLR camera at around 1/10th the price of a decent starting dSLR or 1/5th of a used dSLR. Even with all the supply costs of film and development, I estimate that it would take more than a year for me to reach the price of the most (brand new) basic dSLR camera. Calculating with the more middle range dSLRs, it would probably take more than 2 years (considering heavy shooting) for me to reach that level of expenditure.
> 
> So basically I look at cost-effectiveness from a cash-flow point of view. It's easier for me to spend the amount I would spend on a new dSLR over a period of a year or two considering I don't shoot a lot and on a film SLR I could get the SLR experience without much initial investment.
> 
> I am one of those who is very wary about spending heavily on essentially what is a hobby and I make no pretensions - I am a very amatuer, very basic hobbyist wanting the SLR experience. If film is slightly more involved, I don't mind that either - I could pay for development of film and getting the pics scanned on a CD and still not go too much high. The only factor I wanted to consider seriously is the availability of film and the necessity/convenience factor of visiting the local colour lab every time I want the pics on my computer.
> 
> I know the cash-flow equation may be different in different countries, but I am going to work this out from the most economical point of view and decide.
> 
> I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)
> 
> I understand all the points in favour of dSLRs and I appreciate them but the cost factor is something that I cannot get around or even justify to myself.
> 
> I definitely understand that not seeing the result instantly in film can be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking a ~500USD Canon Rebel XS (That's what a 23,000rs 1000D). I'm speaking of a ~200USD camera body with a 90USD lens. Around half the price (13,105.00rs) Worth saving up for as the lens pushes you to think and explore depth of field. You can also do test shots at f/1.8 to f/22 and everywhere inbetween to *learn depth of field* and how to achieve sharp focus even with a small focal plane. The 10D is a Semi-Professional level DSLR. It's an old one, but it will give you more immediate control. You could also find an old 300D for around the same price if you had preference towards a rebel. 

Just trying to think what would save you money in the long run, while not breaking the bank. This would be the cheapest but most cost effective setup for a beginner.


----------



## j-dogg

BKMOOD said:


> I own twenty-three 35mm film cameras: Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxes, Olympus, a couple medium format cameras. I plan to buy more 35mm film cameras. I love them. I primarily shoot black and white, as it is easy to develop myself.
> 
> I love my DSLR as well. Its made me lots of money. However, it is so automated, a trained monkey could get a good picture with it. The technology takes the man out of the process. It's never really much of a challenge.
> 
> Film is a challenge. Did I get the shot? Did I not get the shot? I am nervous with anticipation in the dark loading film, mixing chemicals, waiting to see what I got. Film makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning, ripping open a box to see what I got.
> 
> I get no feeling of excitement or anticipation at all with my DSLR. I can't muster much respect for its achievements.  Actually, it bores me.
> 
> My DSLR feeds my wallet. My 35mm camera feeds my creative soul.



plus F---ing one.....my thoughts exactly, I could never think of a way to describe it but you just did.


----------



## o hey tyler

j-dogg said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now lets hear it from someone who actually DOES shoot both formats and knows what they cost.
> 
> <snip>
Click to expand...


So you're telling me that dropping 300 dollars on a film SLR body only to spend as much as a used DSLR that he quoted as "being too much" within the first 10 rolls of film he purchases, shoots, and actually sees? When for about $290-310 he can get a prosumer DSLR and a large aperture lens? He's not talking about spending a lot of money here, this is kind of the point. 10 dollars for a roll of film is steep, when an investment in a 4gb memory card stays constant and pays for itself. Film is great quality wise, and it's fun to shoot if you have disposable income. This person doesn't sound like they do, or else they'd be buying a 1000D. I'm just trying to tell them that their money would be much better used being tucked away for a 10D and learning composition on a point and shoot.


----------



## Canon AE-1

BKMOOD, Man, you are so right!


----------



## j-dogg

I didn't say he HAD to get that, he could get the same rig I started on, a Nikon FG for like 50 bucks. Very under-rated camera I recently re-did all the light seals in mine.

I'm just saying, there's lots of people out there quick to denounce film because it's antiquated technology, so is every single car produced in the last 100 years, yet we still rely on reciprocating gasoline-burning horseless carriages that in the grand scheme of things, except for a few luxury items have not changed much only until recently with hybrids.

at the end of the day, we're all still photographers :thumbup:

and

"*Owning a $3,000 DSLR doesn't tell me you're a good photographer, it tells me you have good credit.*" <-------this FTW


----------



## nonamexx

Let's talk actual money.

I cannot think of buying a brand new Film SLR. Simply not feasible since most models are no longer being produced.

For around Rs. 3000 ($ 67 approx) I can get a used Nikon FM 10 (fully manual SLR) with the kit lens 35-70 mm and for each cartridge of 36 shots I spend around Rs. 250 (around $6-$7 for film and developing costs with photo CD). Additional lenses are still available for this model I believe.

I enquired and Kodak 100 ISO film is actually still quite cheap here in India. Kodak 400 is slightly more expensive. 

If I take a 1000 shots a year (a bit high for my estimate), that works to around Rs. 7300+ in operating costs which I think is reasonable. I might end up spending around Rs. 5000 or 6000 per year with a film camera.

Then again I am taking a risk in buying a used SLR camera, but I think buying a used dSLR has the same risks as above. 

Again, I forgo the convenience and automatedness of a dSLR and so on... I realize that and feel it's reasonable trade-off. For getting into SLR photography it seems all right. I'll still be shooting digital, mind you, with my P & S bridge camera.


----------



## enzodm

harishankar said:


> I realize that and feel it's reasonable trade-off. For getting into SLR photography it seems all right. I'll still be shooting digital, mind you, with my P & S bridge camera.



this makes things different. If you have a bridge, you have already some idea on photography. So, a film camera can be a good companion. I would consider to do test shots with the bridge, and then final shots with SLR (as in the past photographers did with instant cameras). This way you have an idea of the composition at least. 
Anyway, if you were aiming at quality, the 35-70 kit zoom is the same low quality as any modern kit zoom. Good for taking average pictures (and learning, of course). You may find also other lenses, because Nikon maintained in time the same lens system, but for the same reason good lenses will be expensive. 

Regarding total automatedness, missing soul and so and so of digital,  from the result point of view, SLR and dSLR are the same. If soul is missing, the problem is elsewhere (in particular, where a soul could be, i.e., not in the machine).


----------



## Higgs Boson

BKMOOD said:


> I own twenty-three 35mm film cameras: Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxes, Olympus, a couple medium format cameras. I plan to buy more 35mm film cameras. I love them. I primarily shoot black and white, as it is easy to develop myself.
> 
> I love my DSLR as well. Its made me lots of money. However, it is so automated, a trained monkey could get a good picture with it. The technology takes the man out of the process. It's never really much of a challenge.
> 
> Film is a challenge. Did I get the shot? Did I not get the shot? I am nervous with anticipation in the dark loading film, mixing chemicals, waiting to see what I got. Film makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning, ripping open a box to see what I got.
> 
> I get no feeling of excitement or anticipation at all with my DSLR. I can't muster much respect for its achievements.  Actually, it bores me.
> 
> My DSLR feeds my wallet. My 35mm camera feeds my creative soul.



Like I said, film is nostalgia.  A feeling you get.  Something people collect.



j-dogg said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now lets hear it from someone who actually DOES shoot both formats and knows what they cost.
> 
> Canon 7d body = roughly 1500 dollars depending on where you shop. I've seen them cheaper.
> 
> Canon EOS 3, the 35mm equivalent to the 7d (more accurately the 5d) used copies trade for about 300 with the power booster.
> 
> A roll of professional grade film, something nice, how about FujiFilm Pro 400h, good stuff, I pay about 9 dollars a roll, with my student discount 7.50 after tax.
> 
> Now you will need some glass, so how about 3 lenses, the 28-135 IS, Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 (astonishing lens) and a 70-300 IS. All the focal points covered for under a grand, around 800 dollars for all those lenses.
> 
> Subtotal.....
> 
> Canon 7d, lenses = 2300 dollars. Make it 2370 with cleaning accessories and a nice memory card
> 
> Canon EOS 3, lenses = 1100 dollars.
> 
> Now, film.
> 
> Roll of nice film, about 9 bucks, let's make it 10 because I suck at math and 10 is a nice round number.
> 
> 10 bucks a roll, and to professionally develop and print for me is like 20 bucks and I get a CD. Net cost is 30 dollars each roll, you would have to shoot +40 rolls of film just to break even on a 7d. And that's expensive film, not even cheap stuff that looks almost as good. And when it's all said and done, and you save up for your 7d, you got an awesome 35mm companion to your bag that uses all your nice lenses.
> 
> You don't even need something super nice like an EOS 3 I have an Elan 7e that costs more than half as much as an EOS 3, and those Nikon FG's I mentioned earlier can be had for 50 bucks, which is dirt cheap and produces just as good an image.
> 
> Bottom line, I shoot both formats and have been behind the wheel of everything from my FujiFilm point and shoot to my bud's 1ds Mark III + 70-200 f2.8L IS, if I could only shoot one camera the rest of my life it would be a Nikon F. Enthusiasts, artists and curious people like yourself are what keeps film alive, and it is a growing format again. Both formats have their highlights and downfalls. Digital is a great learning tool but 200 years from now where will your digital images be?
> 
> I swear to God threads like this need to be stickied somewhere.
Click to expand...



So you used expensive film to compare, you also used relatively expensive 7D to compare as well.  Even using a 7D vs a Rebel, 40 rolls is break even according to your calculations?  40X what, 24 pictures a roll? = 960 pictures to break even, how many of which are going to be wasted?  I've had my current camera for a year and have taken 6000 pictures.  That means my break even point (if it were a 1600 dollar 7D, which it's not, it's a 500 dollar Rebel) would have been at 2 months.....lol.  What if it were a Rebel comparison?  A couple weeks?

Come on, film does not make financial sense.

Art? Soul? Nostalgia?  Fine, fine, fine.  I agree.


----------



## nonamexx

It's not even nostalgia. It's just plain economics for some of us. While a lot of you seem OK with spending a huge chunk of money in one go, I don't. I don't earn at the moment (though I will in a few months) and I am looking at maximizing my opportunities to learn and develop skill.

From a cash-flow point of view, I feel a film SLR camera can offer what a dSLR does at a much lower initial investment.

It's very hard to blow a lot of money in one go for a lot of people, including me.

As I said, used film SLRs can be bought for a steal in ebay. Used dSLRs - not so inexpensive.

1 Kodak 100 ISO roll costs only around Rs. 100 and can take 36 snaps. Rs. 100 is about 2.25 USD. Not 10 USD. So immediately my cost factor is reduced by a fourth.

Even if I take a 1000 snaps, film costs approx meagre Rs. 2800 and development another Rs. 4800.

I am not so prolific in snapping away, you see.

Still a lot less expensive than initial investment for dSLRs. 

So you see, it all depends on where you live.


----------



## nonamexx

Bottom line: film and development costs are much cheaper in India than overseas it seems. So I am no longer confused by all the advice. You guys are paying a ransom for film!

I enquired today at the local colour lab and the prices are very, very reasonable. 

For around $5-6 total, I can buy a regular Kodak ISO 100 film roll of 36 snaps each and get it developed (and put it on CD also).

So economics are very variable.


----------



## enzodm

harishankar said:


> Bottom line: film and development costs are much cheaper in India than overseas it seems. So I am no longer confused by all the advice. You guys are paying a ransom for film!



In fact I told you initially that perhaps you were going to spend less in rolls and development. When I visited Dehli, prices were way lower than here for almost everything (except imported electronics, of course). 
In any case, money spent in consumables is not money saved for next step.


----------



## nonamexx

enzodm said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: film and development costs are much cheaper in India than overseas it seems. So I am no longer confused by all the advice. You guys are paying a ransom for film!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I told you initially that perhaps you were going to spend less in rolls and development. When I visited Dehli, prices were way lower than here for almost everything (except imported electronics, of course).
> In any case, money spent in consumables is not money saved for next step.
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not. Expenses of consumables can be controlled depending on my usage and as I said before, I am not giving up digital. I am not so prolific in snapping away either, so...

In any case, I'm thinking of getting a used Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR. Any thoughts on this model?


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan

j-dogg said:


> Bottom line, I shoot both formats and have been behind the wheel of everything from my FujiFilm point and shoot to my bud's 1ds Mark III + 70-200 f2.8L IS, if I could only shoot one camera the rest of my life it would be a Nikon F. Enthusiasts, artists and curious people like yourself are what keeps film alive, and it is a growing format again. Both formats have their highlights and downfalls. Digital is a great learning tool but 200 years from now where will your digital images be?



I love you man!  

:hug::


----------



## o hey tyler

Alright, I'm going to throw actual money in my toilet and take photos of it.


----------



## Higgs Boson

o hey tyler said:


> Alright, I'm going to throw actual money in my toilet and take photos of it.



are you going to use film or digital?
keep in mind with film it will be art.  capture the green soul in your toilet.  use film!


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply not cost effective to shoot film if you're interested in some point getting a DSLR. It's more expensive resource wise, but it forces you to learn quicker since you're literally paying for every shot. However, if you save and go for digital (which inevitably will be the way all camera's will go. Whether any film fanatic wants to admit it or not) you can practice composition along the way, and make sure that you are still interested in photography in a few months time. Before you know it, you'll have a 10D or 20D, and a 50mm f/1.8. The perfect setup to get your feet wet in the world of full manual controls, and learning the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at the moment new dSLRs are quite expensive and I can get a good quality, higher-end used film SLR camera at around 1/10th the price of a decent starting dSLR or 1/5th of a used dSLR. Even with all the supply costs of film and development, I estimate that it would take more than a year for me to reach the price of the most (brand new) basic dSLR camera. Calculating with the more middle range dSLRs, it would probably take more than 2 years (considering heavy shooting) for me to reach that level of expenditure.
> 
> So basically I look at cost-effectiveness from a cash-flow point of view. It's easier for me to spend the amount I would spend on a new dSLR over a period of a year or two considering I don't shoot a lot and on a film SLR I could get the SLR experience without much initial investment.
> 
> I am one of those who is very wary about spending heavily on essentially what is a hobby and I make no pretensions - I am a very amatuer, very basic hobbyist wanting the SLR experience. If film is slightly more involved, I don't mind that either - I could pay for development of film and getting the pics scanned on a CD and still not go too much high. The only factor I wanted to consider seriously is the availability of film and the necessity/convenience factor of visiting the local colour lab every time I want the pics on my computer.
> 
> I know the cash-flow equation may be different in different countries, but I am going to work this out from the most economical point of view and decide.
> 
> I don't want to compromise by choosing a low-end or starting dSLR with just the kit lens. Even that is a bit high in price, but I wouldn't feel justified in spending that much. (The starting Canon EOS 1000d is about Rs. 23,000-25,000 range in India and its kit lens doesn't even have image stabilization)
> 
> I understand all the points in favour of dSLRs and I appreciate them but the cost factor is something that I cannot get around or even justify to myself.
> 
> I definitely understand that not seeing the result instantly in film can be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...

 

People here are making some assumptions that simply aren't true.  There are plenty of digital people out there that have a great deal of experience with film.  I started shooting back in '75 and there wasn't a lot of digital equipment afailable back then.  No home computers back then either.  

The reality is that while start up is less with film, it is a recurring expense.  With digital the expence is up front.  Over the long term digital is simply cheaper.  Period.

Film may not be dead, but it is dying.  Most of the major film manufacturers are either gone or no longer supporting film as a media.  Many of the stocks available are overage from the film days and even Kodak, at one time the largest of the film giants only produce some in small quantities as special orders and they no longer support the product themselves.  When you send your film to them they outsource it to somebody else.  As far as I know there is only one Ectachrome processor left in the US.

I processed film myself for years and yes, it has some advantages over digital, mainly lattitude, but that difference is not as great as some suggest.  And film has it's drawbacks too... It's messy, the chemicals are toxic and smell bad, you have little visual control over what you're getting...  it's much more labor intensive and expensive to experiment with.  Even in it's heyday, it wasn't cheap.  If you don't process your own prints you have even less control over the finished product unless, you resort to scanning the images and then you're right back where you started with the digital and PP on the computer.

That's not to say shooting film isn't rewarding in it's own way, kinda like getting behind the wheel of a vintage car or something.  And the more rare film becomes, the greater the attraction for some.  Muscle cars are fun, but they aren't cheap..........

Point is, you are concerned with cost.  The only time your film camera is going to be cheap is the day you buy it.  After that the cost of operation everytime you trip the shutter is going to raise that cost.  Not just the cost of film, but the cost of processing.  You're gonna find that you get real choosy about what you shoot and what you don't when you start realizing that every failed shot is money down the drain.  And those are often the greatest learning experiences.

And I'm sorry, but film is no more challenging than digital, they are just different.  Processing film is all about charts and tables.  I still have all my old books of processing tables.  It's not hard or difficult at all.  If you can bake a cake, you can process film....

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you really wanna control cost, you want to go digital.  The media is reuseable and you can tinker and experiment endlessly without cost.  Film is far less forgiving.

If film were still as cheap as it was in the 80's I'd be shooting both.  But given the current situation, the advantages film offers don't outweigh the disadvantages...  At least for me.  Film and digital are a means to an end, not the end in itself...  As I learn more about the digital media, I'm discovering that there are few things you can do with film you can't do with digital....


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> enzodm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: film and development costs are much cheaper in India than overseas it seems. So I am no longer confused by all the advice. You guys are paying a ransom for film!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I told you initially that perhaps you were going to spend less in rolls and development. When I visited Dehli, prices were way lower than here for almost everything (except imported electronics, of course).
> In any case, money spent in consumables is not money saved for next step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. Expenses of consumables can be controlled depending on my usage and as I said before, I am not giving up digital. I am not so prolific in snapping away either, so...
> 
> In any case, I'm thinking of getting a used Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR. Any thoughts on this model?
Click to expand...

 
Remember, you can only control consumables by shooting less...  And that's exactly my point.  If you spend a hundred dollars on a film camera and only use it once in a great while as compared to a digital that you use constantly, what is the value in terms per shot taken?

The more you use your digital the cheaper it becomes over all.  And you learn by shooting, what ever the media.


----------



## dzaneh

if your gonna shoot film you need to go to 
ecamerafilms.com
go to pro bulk section... you can get 50 rolls for $50 this is color film I haven't seen any B&W bulk on there...


----------



## o hey tyler

Higgs Boson said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, I'm going to throw actual money in my toilet and take photos of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you going to use film or digital?
> keep in mind with film it will be art.  capture the green soul in your toilet.  use film!
Click to expand...


I'll be using film too.


----------



## MichiganFarts

This thread made me laugh...

Ok, so I don't want to spend a lot of money on photography right away...just over time.  I want to learn photography...but I don't want to shoot a lot of pictures in order to do so?

Gotcha...man don't I wish $300 - $600 DSLR's were actually available when I bought my Nikon N90s kit for $1600...


----------



## white

o hey tyler said:


> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, I'm going to throw actual money in my toilet and take photos of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you going to use film or digital?
> keep in mind with film it will be art.  capture the green soul in your toilet.  use film!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be using film too.
Click to expand...

Flush this discussion when you're done.


----------



## j-dogg

For the naysayers. :thumbup:

This Year in Photography: Film makes a comeback | RESOLVE ? the liveBooks blog

FoxNews.com - Polaroid Instant Film Making a Comeback

Is film making a comeback? Why indeed it is! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Kodak Sees Film Making a Comeback

By the way, Rebel 2000 is a decent camera, very common and even here in the States they can be had for next to nothing.


----------



## djacobox372

35mm Film can be a less expensive choice for those that already have trained in photography and don't need to shoot hundreds of photos to get a few keepers. But it's a poor choice for learning, and will end up costing more if you shoot daily. 

Film is also a good choice for someone that wants the absolute best quality without spending thousands of $$ on a D3x or medium format digital setup. This is how I choose to use film; for everyday shooting my d700 is great, but I prefer the higher quality of medium and large format film when shooting more critical subject matter.


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enzodm said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I told you initially that perhaps you were going to spend less in rolls and development. When I visited Dehli, prices were way lower than here for almost everything (except imported electronics, of course).
> In any case, money spent in consumables is not money saved for next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. Expenses of consumables can be controlled depending on my usage and as I said before, I am not giving up digital. I am not so prolific in snapping away either, so...
> 
> In any case, I'm thinking of getting a used Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR. Any thoughts on this model?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, you can only control consumables by shooting less...  And that's exactly my point.  If you spend a hundred dollars on a film camera and only use it once in a great while as compared to a digital that you use constantly, what is the value in terms per shot taken?
> 
> The more you use your digital the cheaper it becomes over all.  And you learn by shooting, what ever the media.
Click to expand...


Did I ever mention anything about giving up digital? I just don't want a digital SLR, that's all.

Most of you are assuming film is expensive here where I live.

I made the calculations and even with the cost of shooting and processing, it'd take years for me to reach the price of a starting digital SLR camera with a decent lens. Especially when I can get a used film SLR model for throwaway prices with very good lens.

As I said, I guess some people don't understand cash-flow very well. It's easier for me to spend a huge amount over a period of 3 years than say in a single day. I'd RATHER spend continuously over a period of time for the film and processing, than blow a huge amount on a dSLR that I probably will be under-utilizing. And that's precisely my argument.

Let's put it another way. If I wait for one year to save up to buy digital SLR, it's one year wasted without SLR experience.

I'd rather be shooting with a film SLR a little more conservatively than not shooting at all. And no, I don't think a decent DSLR is inexpensive enough to justify to myself as a hobbyist.


----------



## nonamexx

I just wanted to say I'm convinced about the film SLR choice as value for money and I could do more with help on choosing a decent/recent model rather than trying to get me to choose a DSLR. Maybe a moderator could move this to the film section?


----------



## nonamexx

MichiganFarts said:


> This thread made me laugh...
> 
> Ok, so I don't want to spend a lot of money on photography right away...just over time.  I want to learn photography...but I don't want to shoot a lot of pictures in order to do so?
> 
> Gotcha...man don't I wish $300 - $600 DSLR's were actually available when I bought my Nikon N90s kit for $1600...



I think you're not realizing that I already own a P&S bridge digital camera which I use for my regular use.

I asked for advice on Film SLR because I wanted the SLR experience without blowing tons of money on a DSLR.

Discussion over. I'm not a newbie to photography and I understand the basics quite well.


----------



## o hey tyler

harishankar said:


> As I said, I guess some people don't understand cash-flow very well. It's easier for me to spend a huge amount over a period of 3 years than say in a single day. I'd RATHER spend continuously over a period of time for the film and processing, than blow a huge amount on a dSLR that I probably will be under-utilizing. And that's precisely my argument.



Well then why the **** did you even ask a question then? If you were willing to invest in the money to develop B&W film and do it yourself by hand then your decision would be worthwhile. 

However you'd quickly end up spending the same amount of money you would have spent for a used DSLR that wouldn't cost you any more than an initial investment. Money expended will only rise though film, and should be better utilized once metering through trial and error is understood on a DSLR. 

(For the record, this is coming from someone who fashioned a fallout shelter into a B&W Darkroom earlier this year)


----------



## nonamexx

o hey tyler said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I guess some people don't understand cash-flow very well. It's easier for me to spend a huge amount over a period of 3 years than say in a single day. I'd RATHER spend continuously over a period of time for the film and processing, than blow a huge amount on a dSLR that I probably will be under-utilizing. And that's precisely my argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why the **** did you even ask a question then? If you were willing to invest in the money to develop B&W film and do it yourself by hand then your decision would be worthwhile.
> 
> However you'd quickly end up spending the same amount of money you would have spent for a used DSLR that wouldn't cost you any more than an initial investment. Money expended will only rise though film, and should be better utilized once metering through trial and error is understood on a DSLR.
> 
> (For the record, this is coming from someone who fashioned a fallout shelter into a B&W Darkroom earlier this year)
Click to expand...


Why did I post this thread? I wanted inputs. Why have I made up my mind? Because I did some independent research after I posted this thread. 

I cannot control the way a thread goes after I post it, can I? If you can tell me some way to delete the thread after it was posted I would be more than glad </sarcasm>

For the record I am not going to develop film myself. I am willing to pay to have it done and it's not so expensive.

Again, I made up my mind much after this thread was posted.

If you feel annoyed at me because I chose a different option than the one you have endorsed, then ignore this thread. Or get it moved to the film forum. I've asked several times for moderator to do this with no response.

The digital fanboy crowd is beginning to annoy me intensely. I never once said I am going to abandon digital in favour of analog or stop taking photos on my digital P & S bridge camera. For the hundredth time, I merely want the SLR experience without buying a digital SLR camera.

What I would like now is recommendations for a decent film SLR and lens. If you cannot offer that advice, please move on. I thank you for whatever inputs you've given, but the fact is, this is beginning to sound like a broken record. I'm the one who's going to pay the money.


----------



## nonamexx

Can I just state one thing. People are assuming I'm going to clicking away film roll after film roll with an SLR camera every day.

Fact is, photography is the merest hobby of mine and I want to get an SLR experience on it without blowing a ton of money in a single stroke on Digital SLRs. 

Even with digital I simply don't snap away every single day and use the camera only when I really have an opportunity to take something. 

In other words, please stop worrying about my costs. I have done the necessary research after I posted this thread. And if I caused any inconvenience to any of you, my apologies, but the fact is I have made up my mind and I am only seeking advice on choice of model.


----------



## enzodm

harishankar said:


> What I would like now is recommendations for a decent film SLR and lens.



just open a new thread in the right place. This one served to decide (by the way, you did "independent research" but you also had inputs), now you can change question, but is better to move in film forum, you will receive more specialized support.


----------



## j-dogg

I'll save this thread. :thumbup:

The Rebel 2000 you mentioned earlier is a great film SLR and can be had for pretty cheap. The only downside to a Rebel is the kit lenses that come with them are usually junk, however there are a plethora of cheap and sharp zoom lenses in the Canon EF line that will suit your needs, like the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 Macro. 

Also check out any of the 80's manual Nikon SLR's, the FG is what I started on, and the lenses for the FG are pretty cheap and give excellent results. I absolutely love mine to pieces. To this day many say the original Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 that came with those cameras as the kit lens is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made.

If you go the Nikon route, get a 105mm f2.5, it's a bit on the pricey side but another one of those Nikon gems people rave about. It's possibly their best portrait lens ever.

Nikkormats can be had for pretty cheap too and they are pretty beefy. Get the Nikkormat FTN or the FT2, the FT2 can use a traditional prism-mount hot shoe flash where as the FTN does not. Also, the pre-AI lenses that the Nikkormat uses are generally a little cheaper than their more modern counterparts. Best of all, with the exception of the Nikkormat EL, all Nikkormats are full manual and only use a battery for light metering, so if the battery conks out, you can still take a photo. The light seals are a cinch to replace, I did mine in a half an hour, and you will probably want to replace them if you get one.

I'll go ahead and throw my 4th camera in the ring too, my Minolta Maxxum 4. This is probably your cheapest and best alternative. Not only are they dirt cheap, but the earlier kit lenses, like the Minolta AF 35-70 f3.5 4.5 are razor sharp and cost next to nothing. Their newer kit lenses, not so much though. They had a LOT of gems, the 70-210 f4, also called the "Beercan" and the 50mm f1.7, and they all generally trade for less cash than their Nikon and Canon counterparts. Plus......if you decide to go the DSLR route and get a Sony, which is compatible with ALL auto-focus Minolta lenses, those awesome lenses will be image stabilized because the Sony image stabilization is built into the body.


----------



## nonamexx

Thanks j-dogg. I've also opened a thread in the film forum regarding this topic, so as not to disrupt this current one.

I apologize to everybody if I sounded a bit harsh, but fact was I laid out my research and reasons for preferring the film camera at the moment. My only concerns are what factors I should consider before buying a used film camera and what model would be better ...

Thannks.


----------



## Chamelion 6

j-dogg said:


> For the naysayers. :thumbup:
> 
> This Year in Photography: Film makes a comeback | RESOLVE ? the liveBooks blog
> 
> FoxNews.com - Polaroid Instant Film Making a Comeback
> 
> Is film making a comeback? Why indeed it is! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
> 
> Kodak Sees Film Making a Comeback
> 
> By the way, Rebel 2000 is a decent camera, very common and even here in the States they can be had for next to nothing.


 
Interesting, but I'm not sold.  There's probably always going to be a market for film that's going to wax and wane.  As the articles state, the main focus are college kids...  It's a botique hobby.

Time and technology progress and before long sensors will rival film in every way.  I still have one of my Canon A-1 and my Minolta SRT 100.  Both still work, but I personally don't see the point in getting back into the expense of shooting film.

Even back in the day, I didn't trust someone else to process my film, there's no way I'd trust anyone now.  I suppose shooting B&W might be interesting, but I sold off all my darkroom equipment years ago and the real pleasure of the process was printing the negatives... 

I think the idea that film is going to really make a comeback beyond the botique crowd is wishful thinking.  When I see pros start a full force migration back to it I'll be convinced.

I'm not against film, nor am I a member if the digital only crowd.  People get into this hobby for different reasons.  I love old cameras.  I have quite a collection of them, Polaroids, Brownies, SLR's I've collected over the years, so I understand the attraction.


----------



## nonamexx

I definitely understand the antique attraction, but I think there is still a practical use for film SLRs for people who want to experience SLR photography without getting too overwhelmed by having to lay down a ton of cash in one go.

Since 35mm film is still inexpensive as is the processing I am willing to accept that limitation (if it is one).

Besides, I've always enjoyed doing something new. The thought of a DSLR doesn't excite me as much because I'm used to digital cameras now and since I own one old Canon Powershot S50 P & S with full manual controls (including manual focus and RAW mode!) and now a P & S bridge camera I don't think I will find DSLRs as exciting.

However, if somebody can sell me a used DSLR with a decent lens quite cheap, I'm not one to say no!


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> I definitely understand the antique attraction, but I think there is still a practical use for film SLRs for people who want to experience SLR photography without getting too overwhelmed by having to lay down a ton of cash in one go.
> 
> Since 35mm film is still inexpensive as is the processing I am willing to accept that limitation (if it is one).
> 
> Besides, I've always enjoyed doing something new. The thought of a DSLR doesn't excite me as much because I'm used to digital cameras now and since I own one old Canon Powershot S50 P & S with full manual controls (including manual focus and RAW mode!) and now a P & S bridge camera I don't think I will find DSLRs as exciting.
> 
> However, if somebody can sell me a used DSLR with a decent lens quite cheap, I'm not one to say no!


 
Since you say you made up your mind this is less about convincing you as it is a discussion on the pros and cons of shooting film these days.

As for getting excited about SLR's versus DSLR's  I guess I care more about the finished product than the tools I use to get it.  I shooting in a given medium doesn't mean all that much so long as I get what I want.  It's like the age old debate about acrylics versus oils, who really cares.

My decision to shoot in a digital media is made along a more practical and functional line of thought.  I shoot with a Canon T1i and my lenses are mostly unremarkable, yet I don't feel limited by my equipment image wise.  I don't feel shooting film adds any more credibility to an image than if it was done digitally.  Simply a different set of skills easily master by anyone...  And if you have someone else process your film then 99% of what makes that medium unique and different from shooting digitally is lost anyway.

But then, to each their own.  If I ever saw any advantage to shooting film, I'd pick it back up, I already have two excellent film SLRs and a variety of other formats sitting here.  I shot a lot of film through them.  They're cool, but not really any more exciting than my T1i...


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely understand the antique attraction, but I think there is still a practical use for film SLRs for people who want to experience SLR photography without getting too overwhelmed by having to lay down a ton of cash in one go.
> 
> Since 35mm film is still inexpensive as is the processing I am willing to accept that limitation (if it is one).
> 
> Besides, I've always enjoyed doing something new. The thought of a DSLR doesn't excite me as much because I'm used to digital cameras now and since I own one old Canon Powershot S50 P & S with full manual controls (including manual focus and RAW mode!) and now a P & S bridge camera I don't think I will find DSLRs as exciting.
> 
> However, if somebody can sell me a used DSLR with a decent lens quite cheap, I'm not one to say no!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you say you made up your mind this is less about convincing you as it is a discussion on the pros and cons of shooting film these days.
> 
> As for getting excited about SLR's versus DSLR's  I guess I care more about the finished product than the tools I use to get it.  I shooting in a given medium doesn't mean all that much so long as I get what I want.  It's like the age old debate about acrylics versus oils, who really cares.
> 
> My decision to shoot in a digital media is made along a more practical and functional line of thought.  I shoot with a Canon T1i and my lenses are mostly unremarkable, yet I don't feel limited by my equipment image wise.  I don't feel shooting film adds any more credibility to an image than if it was done digitally.  Simply a different set of skills easily master by anyone...  And if you have someone else process your film then 99% of what makes that medium unique and different from shooting digitally is lost anyway.
> 
> But then, to each their own.  If I ever saw any advantage to shooting film, I'd pick it back up, I already have two excellent film SLRs and a variety of other formats sitting here.  I shot a lot of film through them.  They're cool, but not really any more exciting than my T1i...
Click to expand...


*First of all let me make one thing clear. I am neither pro-film nor pro-digital but look for the least expensive way to get into a different technology than what I'm used to.*

My point about excitement was less to do with any sentimentality and more to do with my own experience with cameras. 

There are two issues here:

#1 factor: Digital cameras are familiar to me. I said I was less excited about a DSLR, not due to sentimentality for film but because any kind of SLR is new to me and film SLRs are something different from the digital cams I've been used to for most of the time. Any new toy is exciting if it's different from my old toys. 

#2 factor: Also my point is the initial cost of Film SLR as a way to get into SLR photography is lower by an order of magnitude. That thought alone excites me more than the fact that it's film. I am NOT going to go hardcore film and neither am I going to set up my own dark room to develop films. I see film as purely an opportunity to get the SLR experience for cheap!

#3 factor: I think the prices of DSLRs are outrageous, but then what do I know? I am also much less worried about the tools than the end result, but I also keep my eye on the purse. I cannot afford dropping huge sums of money in a single point of time, but I can afford to pay much smaller sums spread over a period of a year or two. If film affords me that kindness to my purse, why shouldn't I be excited about it?

I am no film sentimentalist or a technologically backward fool. But equally I am not of the "all new technology is better" camp. I would love a quality DSLR if somebody gifted it to me.


----------



## BAK61

it's true DSLRs are more expensive...at the outset...SLRs on ebay are inexpensive,but do they all work? remember,you have to buy the film,process it ( or buy a scanner to make your own prints),regardless of how your shots come out,you pay for them. Lenses are an inherent cost either way. I think it all balances out over time...but with digital you dont pay for prints you dont like...believe me i use a holga and processing is about $20 for 12 exposures....since then ive added an EPL1...this is an expensive hobby no matter how you look at it...but oh so worth it  .   good luck...enjoy...BAK


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> *First of all let me make one thing clear. I am neither pro-film nor pro-digital but look for the least expensive way to get into a different technology than what I'm used to. *
> 
> My point about excitement was less to do with any sentimentality and more to do with my own experience with cameras.


I'm not suggesting otherwise...  Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just expressing my own view of the film / digital debate.



harishankar said:


> #1 factor: Digital cameras are familiar to me. I said I was less excited about a DSLR, not due to sentimentality for film but because any kind of SLR is new to me and film SLRs are something different from the digital cams I've been used to for most of the time. Any new toy is exciting if it's different from my old toys.


So according to this, the attraction of film is that it's not digital.  You see it as different than what you already have.  That's what I mean by a sentimental preference.  I don't understand why you find that comment offensive.  There's nothing wrong with liking something just cause you like it.



harishankar said:


> #2 factor: Also my point is the initial cost of Film SLR as a way to get into SLR photography is lower by an order of magnitude. That thought alone excites me more than the fact that it's film. I am NOT going to go hardcore film and neither am I going to set up my own dark room to develop films. I see film as purely an opportunity to get the SLR experience for cheap!


We see "cheap" differently.  I already have 2 SLRs and don't see film as a cheap alternative.  I judge the cost by each click of the shutter.  By how much I pay everytime I want to experiment and how much each time I fail to get what I want is costing me.  By that measure film isn't, and never was, cheap.  Add to that the loss of control by having someone else process my film and the whole thing really looses it's appeal to me.  But again, that's just me.




harishankar said:


> #3 factor: I think the prices of DSLRs are outrageous, but then what do I know? I am also much less worried about the tools than the end result, but I also keep my eye on the purse. I cannot afford dropping huge sums of money in a single point of time, but I can afford to pay much smaller sums spread over a period of a year or two. If film affords me that kindness to my purse, why shouldn't I be excited about it?


Again, different point of view.  DSLRs are only really expensive if you insist on jumping to the top of the heap.  I've been browsing e-bay and and most of the SLR's there are comparable to entry to intermediate level DSLRs.  You don't need a top of the line DSLR to shoot an occasional picture.  We're not really talking about a huge difference in price and the break even point, even shooting just a few rolls of film, is really a few months, not years...  When I was shooting film, 8 to 10 rolls a day was the norm.  Shooting digital I probably shoot at twice that rate now.  And I see myself as an occasional hobbyist...




harishankar said:


> I am no film sentimentalist or a technologically backward fool. But equally I am not of the "all new technology is better" camp. I would love a quality DSLR if somebody gifted it to me.


 
Whatever you buy, the camera you use is better than the camera sitting on the shelf collecting dust.  If you find film exciting at the moment, regardless of the reason, then that's the direction you should go.  As a hobby, it's all about enjoying what you're doing, isn't it? 

We just come at this thing from different directions.  Different ways of measuring it.  It's not a right / wrong thing.  It's all about preference.

BTW... The old Canon F-1, the manual one, is a tank.  If you can find one, that'd be my recomendation.


----------



## Higgs Boson

you seriously need to do a comparison for cost of entry vs cost of ownership (including the non-monetary cost)

i'll give you a golf example.  many moons ago i bought a cheap set of golf clubs.  it hurt my arms to use them, so much vibration and the sweet spot was so small i couldn't get the ball to do what i wanted.  i quit.  golf was too hard.
a few years later, i decided to golf with a friend.  he has NICE clubs.  more expensive clubs.  i hit the ball straight, it felt great, I wanted to play more.  i loved golf.

after wasting money on equipment that made me want to avoid the activity, i spent more money on equipment that helps me love it.

if you buy a film camera and get discouraged after paying to develop bad pictures, it is very possible you put the activity down altogether and the world will never know the next potential "ken rockwell * ;-) *....and you will tell people that photography sucks, like I did golf for a while.

just think about it before the low price of a film camera body lures you in.  in the long run (and not that long for digital vs film) you always get what you pay for.


----------



## white

Yeah, neat analogy. Except that you forgot to mention the flipside -- that he buys an inexpensive camera for a fraction of what it used to retail for, has a blast and lives happily ever after.

Do you digital fanboys pull this same shit when talking to alt. process enthusiasts? Some people still make ambrotypes. OH MY GOD!! _The cost must be terrible!_

Oh, yeah, that's right: cost doesn't matter if what you're doing makes you happy. You'll find a way to do it.

I have a DSLR and about 7 film cameras. The camera I walk around town with is a Canonet rangefinder. Why? Because I love taking pictures with the camera. I can stash it in my coat and not look like a photographer.


----------



## o hey tyler

white said:


> Do you digital fanboys pull this same shit when talking to alt. process enthusiasts? Some people still make ambrotypes. OH MY GOD!! _The cost must be terrible!_



No, because they're actually DOING the process. Not paying someone else at a photolab to spit out prints after an hour. If he were going to shoot exclusively black and white film and develop it himself, I'd back him 100%. 

White, I don't look at your photos and say "Well, I think you could have done this more cost effectively by blah blah blah". You do alternative process because you're good at it and you enjoy doing it. There's a difference between that and going to Walgreens to get your prints. And that's why I advocate digital to save money if you're looking for a medium to LEARN the basics on.


----------



## Higgs Boson

white said:


> Yeah, neat analogy. Except that you forgot to mention the flipside -- that he buys an inexpensive camera for a fraction of what it used to retail for, has a blast and lives happily ever after.
> 
> Do you digital fanboys pull this same shit when talking to alt. process enthusiasts? Some people still make ambrotypes. OH MY GOD!! _The cost must be terrible!_
> 
> Oh, yeah, that's right: cost doesn't matter if what you're doing makes you happy. You'll find a way to do it.
> 
> I have a DSLR and about 7 film cameras. The camera I walk around town with is a Canonet rangefinder. Why? Because I love taking pictures with the camera. I can stash it in my coat and not look like a photographer.



I think you should read the OP....  This is not a film vs digital debate for the sake of "love of the game."

It's a beginner thread on which to learn how to take a picture.  He doesn't know what makes him happy yet (with respect to photography).  He is making the decision to learn on film based on cost, not happiness.

I don't disagree that film has a place.  I never said it didn't.  But I do disagree that it's best for beginners.

Let me ask you film advocates this:

Why was the digital format created?
Why does digital outsell film by leaps and bounds today even with a higher cost of entry?

Don't stress yourself out.  I'll tell you why.
Because that's what the customers want.  Just like anything else.  if they didn't want it, it wouldn't get produced and it certainly wouldn't sell.

Next step:
Why do customers want it and why do they pay more for it (the camera bodies)?  Surely not EVERYONE is a fool.....with no soul....or are they????


----------



## photorookie12

Considering that the industry will continue moving to more and more digital, any move you make into film will be quirky at best.  There are no real advantages to film other than nostalgia, I would recommend saving up rather than going for film.  Also, a decent digital SLR camera house comes quite cheap these days, the cost is more on the lenses.  Any of the intro-level Canon, Nikon etc. SLR's are more than decent enough.  The big cost is lenses and other equipment.  If you do go for film first, then make sure you buy digital compatible lenses (bigger issue on Canon than on Nikon).


----------



## Buckster

It seems to me that what everyone is skipping over is that the OP appears to be interested in the BARE NECESSITY ENTRY cost to start shooting NOW.  He seems to be asking what's the cheapest way to get started, not what will cost more over time.

He clearly doesn't have the startup costs associated with decent digital gear, so that's out at this time.

He could save up for digital gear, but it might take quite a while, and during that time, he'll not be shooting anything.  But he clearly wants to start shooting, so that's not much of an option either.

Or he can get a decent film SLR cheap, and shoot rolls of film cheap enough to at least be shooting - right now - and he can afford that low entry fee - right now.


----------



## Josh66

Buckster said:


> It seems to me that what everyone is skipping over is that the OP appears to be interested in the BARE NECESSITY ENTRY cost to start shooting NOW.  He seems to be asking what's the cheapest way to get started, not what will cost more over time.
> 
> He clearly doesn't have the startup costs associated with decent digital gear, so that's out at this time.
> 
> He could save up for digital gear, but it might take quite a while, and during that time, he'll not be shooting anything.  But he clearly wants to start shooting, so that's not much of an option either.
> 
> Or he can get a decent film SLR cheap, and shoot rolls of film cheap enough to at least be shooting - right now - and he can afford that low entry fee - right now.



In that context, I would still say yes, they are worth buying.

The only real downside is that the learning curve will be steeper.
But I guess a steep learning curve is better than not even 'getting on'.

By the time you save up for the digital gear you want (assuming you even want that), you'll have a decent head start and you'll remember the lessons more since they took more work.


And I don't know what everyone does for backups, but for me film is easier and cheaper to keep track of and keep safe.  Really, the only thing I have to worry about is my house burning down.  But ... I'd have other problems if that happened.


----------



## Buckster

Higgs Boson said:


> Let me ask you film advocates this:
> 
> Why was the digital format created?


Because Texas Instruments invented the integrated circuit, which replaced tubes. EVERYTHING has been going digital ever since.



Higgs Boson said:


> Why does digital outsell film by leaps and bounds today even with a higher cost of entry?


There are many reasons for this. Most, from convenience to quality to long-term expense, have been thoroughly covered, but there's one more that is often overlooked: People are sheep who are led by the advertising industry, who paid good money to think tanks over the past 70 years or so to figure out EXACTLY how to make most of us want to buy EXACTLY what they want to sell, as though it's a coincidence.



Higgs Boson said:


> Don't stress yourself out.


I wouldn't think of it.



Higgs Boson said:


> I'll tell you why.


Best thing about the internet: It's full of experts willing to tell us "why".



Higgs Boson said:


> Because that's what the customers want. Just like anything else. if they didn't want it, it wouldn't get produced and it certainly wouldn't sell.


Riiiiiiiight. Keep telling yourself that's the way marketing works.



Higgs Boson said:


> Next step:
> Why do customers want it and why do they pay more for it (the camera bodies)? Surely not EVERYONE is a fool.....with no soul....or are they????


I'm having flashbacks to idiots in polyester leisure suits and gold chains wagging their cocaine-numbed fingers at me while explaining why disco is so awesome.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Buckster said:


> It seems to me that what everyone is skipping over is that the OP appears to be interested in the BARE NECESSITY ENTRY cost to start shooting NOW. He seems to be asking what's the cheapest way to get started, not what will cost more over time.
> 
> He clearly doesn't have the startup costs associated with decent digital gear, so that's out at this time.
> 
> He could save up for digital gear, but it might take quite a while, and during that time, he'll not be shooting anything. But he clearly wants to start shooting, so that's not much of an option either.
> 
> Or he can get a decent film SLR cheap, and shoot rolls of film cheap enough to at least be shooting - right now - and he can afford that low entry fee - right now.


 
He's stated he's already got a digital camera so getting started shooting isn't the issue.  Nor is cost, really, as many of the options considered rival the cost of an entry level DSLR.  It's pretty much been stated that interest in marginal even...

I think the insterest lays more with being unique and different than everyone else.  That's what I'm getting from the flow of what I've read.  Some filks like muscle cars, some like film cameras.  Either way, I think he's pretty much decided.


----------



## Buckster

Chamelion 6 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that what everyone is skipping over is that the OP appears to be interested in the BARE NECESSITY ENTRY cost to start shooting NOW. He seems to be asking what's the cheapest way to get started, not what will cost more over time.
> 
> He clearly doesn't have the startup costs associated with decent digital gear, so that's out at this time.
> 
> He could save up for digital gear, but it might take quite a while, and during that time, he'll not be shooting anything. But he clearly wants to start shooting, so that's not much of an option either.
> 
> Or he can get a decent film SLR cheap, and shoot rolls of film cheap enough to at least be shooting - right now - and he can afford that low entry fee - right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's stated he's already got a digital camera so getting started shooting isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

First, I went back looking for his statement that he's already got a digital camera, and couldn't find it. What I did find is what I thought I was reading all along: That he wants to shoot with an SLR. So, I should have clarified: Shooting WITH AN SLR, per his opening statement that defined his goal, as well as the many statements he made after that, reitterating that same goal.



Chamelion 6 said:


> Nor is cost, really, as many of the options considered rival the cost of an entry level DSLR.


Here's what he opened this with:


harishankar said:


> I was looking for a decent SLR camera but digial SLRs are way beyond my budget and spending capacity


Not really ambiguous, to my mind. And none of the options considered that rival the cost of an entry level DLSR were options HE considered. In fact, what HE considered was a used model for around $67.



Chamelion 6 said:


> It's pretty much been stated that interest in marginal even...
> 
> I think the insterest lays more with being unique and different than everyone else. That's what I'm getting from the flow of what I've read.


Then you're reading a different thread than I am, because he directly addressed that in this thread multiple times and stayed on track with the theme that his goal is SLR shooting with as little money up front as possible, even with the knowledge that it will cost him more over time.



Chamelion 6 said:


> Some filks like muscle cars, some like film cameras.


He shows no interest in that, and I think you're reading into it what you want. Of course, only the OP knows for sure, but at this point, I'm still getting that he wants the control, quality and versatility of a Single Lens Reflex camera, and is considering a film SLR as a less expensive means to get there. That would work, as it is much less expensive in the short term or, as I said, "entry fee". Of course, I'm only going by what he wrote, rather than reading his mind.



Chamelion 6 said:


> Either way, I think he's pretty much decided.


That's usually the case with folks who ask these kinds of questions; They're 99% sure they want to pull the trigger already when they ask, and are looking for a just a bit more confirmation and reassurance that they're not totally off their rocker, enabling them to go for it.


----------



## Higgs Boson

Buckster said:


> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you film advocates this:
> 
> Why was the digital format created?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Texas Instruments invented the integrated circuit, which replaced tubes. EVERYTHING has been going digital ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does digital outsell film by leaps and bounds today even with a higher cost of entry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many reasons for this. Most, from convenience to quality to long-term expense, have been thoroughly covered, but there's one more that is often overlooked: People are sheep who are led by the advertising industry, who paid good money to think tanks over the past 70 years or so to figure out EXACTLY how to make most of us want to buy EXACTLY what they want to sell, as though it's a coincidence.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think of it.
> 
> 
> Best thing about the internet: It's full of experts willing to tell us "why".
> 
> 
> 
> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what the customers want. Just like anything else. if they didn't want it, it wouldn't get produced and it certainly wouldn't sell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiiiiight. Keep telling yourself that's the way marketing works.
> 
> 
> 
> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next step:
> Why do customers want it and why do they pay more for it (the camera bodies)? Surely not EVERYONE is a fool.....with no soul....or are they????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm having flashbacks to idiots in polyester leisure suits and gold chains wagging their cocaine-numbed fingers at me while explaining why disco is so awesome.
Click to expand...


Well I won't profess to know how marketing works just because I got my bachelors in marketing and hold an mba because that's just paper.

But we aren't talking about marketing, we are talking about economics, so I will just leave it at that.

All points were made in extreme tones for poignancy....please don't be offended.
And I am not a camera expert.  I'm a beginner at photography.  However, what I said can apply to anything.

Disco?  Never heard of it.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Buckster said:


> First, I went back looking for his statement that he's already got a digital camera, and couldn't find it. What I did find is what I thought I was reading all along: That he wants to shoot with an SLR. So, I should have clarified: Shooting WITH AN SLR, per his opening statement that defined his goal, as well as the many statements he made after that, reitterating that same goal.


 
His statement regarding owning a digital camera...




harishankar said:


> I think you're not realizing that I already own a P&S bridge digital camera which I use for my regular use.





harishankar said:


> I asked for advice on Film SLR because I wanted the SLR experience without blowing tons of money on a DSLR.
> 
> Discussion over. I'm not a newbie to photography and I understand the basics quite well.




My comment on the muscle car was intended as an analogy... Some people like old stuff, some think it's a waste of time.  Whatever the reason, he likes the idea of shooting film and I believe that weighs in far more than the cost...  There are two threads by the OP and some of the cameras entertained, especially the medium format cameras, rival the cost of entry level DSLRs.  Not that it really matters I suppose...  Its not like he has to justify what he spends his money on.

Where we disconect here is my understanding of the original question was "What's the most cost effective way to get into a SLR / DSLR?"  In my opinion, no matter how you dress it up, film isn't cheaper...  Not if you look at ALL the options.  Unless you plan to shoot 7 or 8 rolls of film and move on.

Which isn't to say digital is better... I just don't think cost was ever really the primary concern.  Just my opinion...


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I went back looking for his statement that he's already got a digital camera, and couldn't find it. What I did find is what I thought I was reading all along: That he wants to shoot with an SLR. So, I should have clarified: Shooting WITH AN SLR, per his opening statement that defined his goal, as well as the many statements he made after that, reitterating that same goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His statement regarding owning a digital camera...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're not realizing that I already own a P&S bridge digital camera which I use for my regular use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for advice on Film SLR because I wanted the SLR experience without blowing tons of money on a DSLR.
> 
> Discussion over. I'm not a newbie to photography and I understand the basics quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My comment on the muscle car was intended as an analogy... Some people like old stuff, some think it's a waste of time.  Whatever the reason, he likes the idea of shooting film and I believe that weighs in far more than the cost...  There are two threads by the OP and some of the cameras entertained, especially the medium format cameras, rival the cost of entry level DSLRs.  Not that it really matters I suppose...  Its not like he has to justify what he spends his money on.
> 
> Where we disconect here is my understanding of the original question was "What's the most cost effective way to get into a SLR / DSLR?"  In my opinion, no matter how you dress it up, film isn't cheaper...  Not if you look at ALL the options.  Unless you plan to shoot 7 or 8 rolls of film and move on.
> 
> Which isn't to say digital is better... I just don't think cost was ever really the primary concern.  Just my opinion...
Click to expand...


Do you realize that film and development is cheaper where I live? How many times have I got to repeat this over and over again in this thread?

I don't think you even understand the economics of the issue. 

Don't you understand the basic point I'm making that I would rather spend more money spread over a period of 3 years than blow a lot of money in a DSLR at one go?

I can get a decent film SLR + good lens at 1/10th the price of the starting DSLR with a good lens. So even if I spend a lot on film and development, it's going to take a long time for me to reach the price of the starting DSLR.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

I am NOT a film fanatic. I think Buckster has got this correctly. I want an entry into SLR photography that is initially cheap. The recurring expenses don't worry me so much because I don't intend shooting rolls and rolls of film every single day. If I click 50 snaps a month on average that's a lot for me, even with a digital.


----------



## white

Any classic film SLR will do. I prefer the all metal ones. The plastic stuff just feels cheap. I have yet to purchase a Nikon F (or F2 or F3), but it's on my list. Minolta SRT's are tanks; just bought an OM-1, lovely little camera; but the Canonet QL17 G3 is my favorite at the moment, but that's just because I can't afford a Leica M6.


----------



## nonamexx

I also wanted to add: I am not considering a brand new film SLR because of 1. cost and 2. non availability of most models.

So even though I was considering some of the options including medium format, I would practically never choose a medium format because it's very hard to get film and development where I live for such exotic media.

I like exotic hobbies, but equally I am practical enough to understand the cost-benefit of getting into it. I usually decide in terms of getting the most enjoyment out of the least expensive and if that expense is spread over a period of time, all the better for me, because I can balance my cash flow.


----------



## nonamexx

You know another thought occured to me: people are talking about cameras being an "investment" and how I could get a better return for value on a DSLR.

First of all the whole thing of it as an investment seems to be a specious argument at best. Unless I am a full-time professional, no photo gear that I purchase is an "investment" at all. It's a dead-end - I get no monetary return of it. Nothing. Zilch. This is true of both film and DSLRs. Anybody who earns from their photography is probably in a minority and I am not one of them. Don't even pretend to have the skills necessary to put up my pics on a microstock photo site, so there you go!

By putting in tons of money on a DSLR up front, I'm losing out on interest on the money if it had been in a bank deposit or a mutual fund. Since DSLRs are so expensive, it means I lose out on a lot of interest on that initial "investment" with nothing to show in return except an expensive toy. While with a film SLR a lot of that money is still in my bank account and I could probably use the long term interest on that money for buying film and developing them. Also on the shooting front, I am not hanging a camera around my neck going around everywhere and snapping pics, so around 50 snaps/month is slightly more than average for me.

So there you go. I've answered all the arguments in this thread.

If people still think I'm a film fanatic or a sentimentalist they're free to do so. I cannot get more practical than this.


----------



## Josh66

It's only an investment if it makes you more money than you spent on it.

If you're not planning on using it to make money, you'll never get a return on the money spent...

That's why it's a hobby though.


----------



## nonamexx

O|||||||O said:


> It's only an investment if it makes you more money than you spent on it.
> 
> If you're not planning on using it to make money, you'll never get a return on the money spent...
> 
> That's why it's a hobby though.



That's precisely why I'd like to make it so cheap for the initial cost. I've already determined that I can easily afford the recurring expenses of film at my current rate of snapping away pictures.

Yes, if I could get a DSLR for around $100 I'd buy it, but I am dreaming


----------



## Josh66

harishankar said:


> Yes, if I could get a DSLR for around $100 I'd buy it, but I am dreaming


Actually, you _can_ get one for not much more than that.  Not a new one, obviously...

Canon Digital KISS N SILVER (JAPAN REBEL XT) 8 MEGAPIXEL WITH BATTERY & CHARGER (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com

Canon Digital REBEL XT BLACK 8 MEGAPIXEL WITH CABLES, CD, BATTERY & CHARGER, INSTRUCTION BOOK (CF CARD ), DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com

Canon Digital 10D 6.3 MEGAPIXEL WITH BATTERY GRIP BG-ED3 ONLY (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com

It'll be a few generations behind, but they still work.

You can get a much better 35mm body for the same amount of money though.


----------



## Josh66

35mm bodies:
Canon EOS Camera Bodies - KEH.com

1N for $170 ... 3 for $180...

There are also a bunch for less than $50, and a few for $10 or less.


The camera in my avatar is a 1N RS that I got there for $260.  It was BGN rated, but it looks perfect to me...


----------



## nonamexx

O|||||||O said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if I could get a DSLR for around $100 I'd buy it, but I am dreaming
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you _can_ get one for not much more than that.  Not a new one, obviously...
> 
> Canon Digital KISS N SILVER (JAPAN REBEL XT) 8 MEGAPIXEL WITH BATTERY & CHARGER (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com
> 
> Canon Digital REBEL XT BLACK 8 MEGAPIXEL WITH CABLES, CD, BATTERY & CHARGER, INSTRUCTION BOOK (CF CARD ), DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com
> 
> Canon Digital 10D 6.3 MEGAPIXEL WITH BATTERY GRIP BG-ED3 ONLY (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA - KEH.com
> 
> It'll be a few generations behind, but they still work.
> 
> You can get a much better 35mm body for the same amount of money though.
Click to expand...


I appreciate the links. It all looks interesting and if I could choose any of those used models from a local source, I would be very happy indeed.

But one of my limitations is that of course I cannot risk having it shipped from outside India as I'm not sure of customs regulations regarding electronic products. I might end up paying double the camera costs as duty or something. This is why I've had to be so selective in my approach. 

If I could have bought any of the used digital SLRs recommended in this thread without this drawback I might have chosen some of the more reasonably cheap ones. 

I don't think people have appreciated this aspect of it either. Shipping + taxes might end up making it doubly expensive for me.


----------



## Josh66

Ah, damnit...lol.  I completely forgot that you were in India...


---
They do ship internationally though...  But yeah - there's always the tax/duty thing though...
And I know what you're talking about there ... once or twice I had to pay more to customs than what the item cost...


----------



## nonamexx

No problem. If only we could eliminate government and taxes 

If I had any close friends in Singapore or the US, I could ask them to buy something for me and bring it back when they visit India. Let's see if that is an option. 

Otherwise I have ebay.in as a fallback for the couple of models I've decided on.


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I went back looking for his statement that he's already got a digital camera, and couldn't find it. What I did find is what I thought I was reading all along: That he wants to shoot with an SLR. So, I should have clarified: Shooting WITH AN SLR, per his opening statement that defined his goal, as well as the many statements he made after that, reitterating that same goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His statement regarding owning a digital camera...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're not realizing that I already own a P&S bridge digital camera which I use for my regular use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for advice on Film SLR because I wanted the SLR experience without blowing tons of money on a DSLR.
> 
> Discussion over. I'm not a newbie to photography and I understand the basics quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comment on the muscle car was intended as an analogy... Some people like old stuff, some think it's a waste of time. Whatever the reason, he likes the idea of shooting film and I believe that weighs in far more than the cost... There are two threads by the OP and some of the cameras entertained, especially the medium format cameras, rival the cost of entry level DSLRs. Not that it really matters I suppose... Its not like he has to justify what he spends his money on.
> 
> Where we disconect here is my understanding of the original question was "What's the most cost effective way to get into a SLR / DSLR?" In my opinion, no matter how you dress it up, film isn't cheaper... Not if you look at ALL the options. Unless you plan to shoot 7 or 8 rolls of film and move on.
> 
> Which isn't to say digital is better... I just don't think cost was ever really the primary concern. Just my opinion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that film and development is cheaper where I live? How many times have I got to repeat this over and over again in this thread?
> 
> I don't think you even understand the economics of the issue.
> 
> Don't you understand the basic point I'm making that I would rather spend more money spread over a period of 3 years than blow a lot of money in a DSLR at one go?
> 
> I can get a decent film SLR + good lens at 1/10th the price of the starting DSLR with a good lens. So even if I spend a lot on film and development, it's going to take a long time for me to reach the price of the starting DSLR.
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat this?
> 
> I am NOT a film fanatic. I think Buckster has got this correctly. I want an entry into SLR photography that is initially cheap. The recurring expenses don't worry me so much because I don't intend shooting rolls and rolls of film every single day. If I click 50 snaps a month on average that's a lot for me, even with a digital.
Click to expand...

 
Wow... We're really hung up on labels. 

I understand your economics perfectly. But you're no hearing what I'm saying about them.

Do I realize that film is cheaper than what?  What is the comparison?  Even when film was mass produced by hundreds of companies and cost half of what it does now, _*it was NEVER cheap*_. Spreading out a recurring expense over any amount of time does not decrease it. With a film camera every roll increases your cost. With a digital every shot decreases your cost. By only shooting 50 shots a month you might be managing that expense so that it is acceptable to you, but to MY way of thinkling you're simply limiting the potential.

As for the term investment... It simply refers to value per dollars spent. If you spend 600 on a camera and only shoot 100 shots that's not as good of an investment as a camera for the same price that you shot 10,000 shots on. Same price, more use = better investment. Its not about making money, it's about how efficent your purchase turns out to be.

And you admit you like "exotic" hobbies. Personally, I just feel from several of your posts that a big part of the appeal is the fact that not many people around you shoot film. That adds value to shooting film over digital. Which is fine.

So to sum up my opinion here...
Film is NEVER a cheaper option than digital. Never.
Film may sometimes be a BETTER option than digital, depending on what you're looking for.
Stating a preference for a given medium over another implies nothing about a person other than the preference.

Feel free to disagree with any or all of these premises. Its simply opinion.

As for people getting so passionate over this debate. I own 25 to 30 film cameras, I shot film from about 1975 to about 1997 or so. I own 1 digital camera and have been shooting digital from August of 2010. For me digital offers less cost and more control than film. Given that and the fact that the kinds of stuff I shoot the difference in quality is negligable, I prefer a digital format. But that's just me.


----------



## ghache

if you wanna shoot film for fun, why not? just get a old slr camera, buy some film, get a scanner and blow your face off.

i bought a nikon FE in mint condition for about 100 shipped with a 50mm lens. got a epson v500 for around 100$ and 150 roll of film for 40$, there is always deals outthere. However, i wouldnt invest 800$ on a film camera and start shooting expensive roll of film.


----------



## enzodm

Chamelion 6 said:


> Do I realize that film is cheaper than what?  What is the comparison?



Although I agree with your post in general, I understand also the position of Hari. I had the need to back on that kind of basic economics until I finished my studies. I know now that from a rational point of view is not good economics, but on the other side I also know that when I was student, I did not have options. So I had my first stereo cassette player very cheap, knowing  the risk of breaking it earlier, my first film SLR was a used Zenit (russian, up to 1/500, with fragile shutter tents - they broke after one year or so, I bought another one that is still functioning). I was shooting slides because less expensive than prints; I looked at them with a small handheld plastic screen. 
You may invest if you have something to invest. And if you foresee better times, you may also waste a small amount of money to have now an approximation of what you want, instead of waiting and saving until possible. You loose something, but not so much. 
This is not good economics, but hey! We are living just now the results of good thought economics, isn't it?


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> Wow... We're really hung up on labels.


Who?



Chamelion 6 said:


> I understand your economics perfectly. But you're no hearing what I'm saying about them.



And you have conveniently ignored my cash-flow analysis which means I have more money in the bank at all times, even though I spend more on film along the way. 



Chamelion 6 said:


> Do I realize that film is cheaper than what?  What is the comparison?  Even when film was mass produced by hundreds of companies and cost half of what it does now, _*it was NEVER cheap*_. Spreading out a recurring expense over any amount of time does not decrease it. With a film camera every roll increases your cost. With a digital every shot decreases your cost. By only shooting 50 shots a month you might be managing that expense so that it is acceptable to you, but to MY way of thinkling you're simply limiting the potential.



I was comparing film costs in other countries to that in my country.



Chamelion 6 said:


> As for the term investment... It simply refers to value per dollars spent. If you spend 600 on a camera and only shoot 100 shots that's not as good of an investment as a camera for the same price that you shot 10,000 shots on. Same price, more use = better investment. Its not about making money, it's about how efficent your purchase turns out to be.



That is not an investment. Any investment has a return in monetary terms and you mixed up the jargon. 



Chamelion 6 said:


> And you admit you like "exotic" hobbies. Personally, I just feel from several of your posts that a big part of the appeal is the fact that not many people around you shoot film. That adds value to shooting film over digital. Which is fine.



So you have sought to turn this into a psychological analysis of my character?



Chamelion 6 said:


> So to sum up my opinion here...
> Film is NEVER a cheaper option than digital. Never.
> Film may sometimes be a BETTER option than digital, depending on what you're looking for.


Love how you clothe your opinions as absolute fact.

I see digital SLR as a huge dead cost until I shoot enough pictures to add the so-called "value" you speak of. And given the rate of inflation money today is more valuable than money in the future.



Chamelion 6 said:


> Stating a preference for a given medium over another implies nothing about a person other than the preference.



So? I prefer neither. Just the cheapest possible option for initial cost.



Chamelion 6 said:


> Feel free to disagree with any or all of these premises. Its simply opinion.



What is the point then of analyzing my character and motives?



Chamelion 6 said:


> As for people getting so passionate over this debate. I own 25 to 30 film cameras, I shot film from about 1975 to about 1997 or so. I own 1 digital camera and have been shooting digital from August of 2010. For me digital offers less cost and more control than film. Given that and the fact that the kinds of stuff I shoot the difference in quality is negligable, I prefer a digital format. But that's just me.



It was never about format. I wanted a cheap entry into the SLR world and considered film.

You keep saying that digital is somehow cheaper than film but you've not bothered to show me why money in my bank earning interest is worse than money blown on an expensive toy with no tangible "return".

You can keep talking about cost per shot and you're probably right on that score, but I still think I would rather keep my money in a mutual fund or bank deposit earning some interest rather than throw a ton away on an expensive camera and deplete my bank balance.


----------



## Buckster

As an analogy, it's kind of like credit.  Not everyone can walk into the nearest car dealer and pull out a wad of $20k to buy a car with no interest, which would be the most economical way to do it.  Instead, they pay $200 per month over time.  Even though they end up paying much more than the $20k - it's the only way they can afford to do it AND be driving immediately, so to them it's an acceptable tradeoff.

Some folks in the thread obviously pay for everything in cash because it's not economically logical to pay interest on things like cars or houses or anything else.  In fact, they probably bought all the clothing they would ever need in their lives long ago in bulk at a discount rate because that's economically better than buying them one or two at a time at full price, and that's what buying decisions are ALL about; What's the most economically efficient decision in the long term?

Makes total sense.


----------



## Chamelion 6

enzodm said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I realize that film is cheaper than what? What is the comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree with your post in general, I understand also the position of Hari. I had the need to back on that kind of basic economics until I finished my studies. I know now that from a rational point of view is not good economics, but on the other side I also know that when I was student, I did not have options. So I had my first stereo cassette player very cheap, knowing the risk of breaking it earlier, my first film SLR was a used Zenit (russian, up to 1/500, with fragile shutter tents - they broke after one year or so, I bought another one that is still functioning). I was shooting slides because less expensive than prints; I looked at them with a small handheld plastic screen.
> You may invest if you have something to invest. And if you foresee better times, you may also waste a small amount of money to have now an approximation of what you want, instead of waiting and saving until possible. You loose something, but not so much.
> This is not good economics, but hey! We are living just now the results of good thought economics, isn't it?
Click to expand...

 
True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras.  New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera.  Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.  So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.

In this situation cost isn't the only factor.  There are other choices and options.


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras.  New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera.  Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.  So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.
> 
> In this situation cost isn't the only factor.  There are other choices and options.



You're forgetting that I live in India, and I don't have all the options that you have for purchasing a used DSLR. I might end up paying higher in shipping and taxes if I had to choose international sites.

And the prices of used DSLRs are anyway higher than used film SLRs so it becomes even more of a hunt for used DSLRs at the price I can get for a used film SLR locally. 

Do you think I would throw up a chance to buy a used DSLR at sub-$100 if it is easily available here?

Let me throw you a challenge: I can get a used film SLR today for around $67. Can you match that price for a used DSLR? I mean something that is available to me without paying a ton extra for shipping and taxes.


----------



## nonamexx

Just to make my point even clearer. 

I THINK film is a compromise in my situation and it's less than ideal since I am not interested in film processing etc. etc., but what I'm actually saying is that digital SLR initial cost is too high for me right now and the cost of film and development is low enough that I can easily afford it at my current rate of shooting.


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... We're really hung up on labels.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
Click to expand...

You...  You keep insisting you're not a filmophile and I'm not saying you are.



harishankar said:


> And you have conveniently ignored my cash-flow analysis which means I have more money in the bank at all times, even though I spend more on film along the way.


I didn't ignore it, I disagreed with it.  I still do.  




harishankar said:


> I was comparing film costs in other countries to that in my country.


Ok... But I never considered the cost compared to this country or any other.  What ever it costs, the point is it adds to the cost of the over all system. That means it is always going to be a path to diminishing returns.  Period.




harishankar said:


> That is not an investment. Any investment has a return in monetary terms and you mixed up the jargon.


English is not that precise.  Your definition is one of many for that term and the way I used the word is common usage here.



harishankar said:


> So you have sought to turn this into a psychological analysis of my character?


No...  Just sorting out the pros and cons of purchasing a digital camera versus a film camera.  And the reason a person might choose one over the other.



harishankar said:


> Love how you clothe your opinions as absolute fact.


Even though I clearly say it's opinion?  ok..... 



harishankar said:


> I see digital SLR as a huge dead cost until I shoot enough pictures to add the so-called "value" you speak of. And given the rate of inflation money today is more valuable than money in the future.


I spent 20 some odd years as a liscened investment professional.  We're talking about buying a camera, not stocks or mutual funds...  Inflation rates change and there are many types of risk... that's a different topic.



harishankar said:


> So? I prefer neither. Just the cheapest possible option for initial cost.


  That's fine...  But I think there are cheaper options.  They simply don't appeal to you.




harishankar said:


> What is the point then of analyzing my character and motives?


I've no analyzed your character and I've only discussed your motives regarding this purchase.  You said you like exotic hobbies, I didn't presume that.  You said a digital camera doesn't appeal to you as much as film, I didn't presume that either.  Anytime you ask about opinions on a purchase, motivation play a role. 




harishankar said:


> It was never about format. I wanted a cheap entry into the SLR world and considered film.
> 
> You keep saying that digital is somehow cheaper than film but you've not bothered to show me why money in my bank earning interest is worse than money blown on an expensive toy with no tangible "return".
> 
> You can keep talking about cost per shot and you're probably right on that score, but I still think I would rather keep my money in a mutual fund or bank deposit earning some interest rather than throw a ton away on an expensive camera and deplete my bank balance.


 
If money in the bank is a concern then my suggestion is don't buy anything, you have a camera.  But that wasn't the premise of the original question.  The question was the cheapest way to get into a SLR or DSLR.  50 shots or less per month, the cheapest way is to look into a used DSLR, not a new top of the line DSLR but a used older technology, but adequite, DSLR. Dollar for dollar it is the biggest bang for the buck with no recurring expense.  And if you shop around it's not going to deplete your account any more than the film camera, in fact, probably less.  

Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason...  :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh66

Chamelion 6 said:


> New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera.  Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.


See the links I posted on the previous page.

A _very good_ 35mm SLR can be had for $3-500, a _pretty good_ one can be had for $1-300, and if all you need is something that works - you can get that for $8.

Find me a link for any DSLR for less than $20...

For what a used 350D costs, you can buy a used (obviously) 1 series body.

Used 4 or 5 generation old entry level digital bodies go for the same price as the top-of-the-line pro 35mm bodies from 10-15 years ago.

I don't know about you, but I would take a 1 series body over a Rebel any day.  (Also, used 1D MkII's are fairly cheap too - $4-500.  I would consider that over a new Rebel for almost the same amount of money...)


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True to a point, but only if we continue to compare NEW DSLRs to USED film cameras. New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them. So I stand by my original statement. If cost is the ONLY factor then digital is the winner.
> 
> In this situation cost isn't the only factor. There are other choices and options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting that I live in India, and I don't have all the options that you have for purchasing a used DSLR. I might end up paying higher in shipping and taxes if I had to choose international sites.
> 
> And the prices of used DSLRs are anyway higher than used film SLRs so it becomes even more of a hunt for used DSLRs at the price I can get for a used film SLR locally.
> 
> Do you think I would throw up a chance to buy a used DSLR at sub-$100 if it is easily available here?
> 
> Let me throw you a challenge: I can get a used film SLR today for around $67. Can you match that price for a used DSLR? I mean something that is available to me without paying a ton extra for shipping and taxes.
Click to expand...

 
I get your point.  But it's a balance.  A $67 dollar camera only works with film and processing.  There is a break even point.  What is the cheapest used digital you can find at the moment?  How much film is it going to take to hit that break even point?  Include shipping in that figure and that opens up more options.

And don't get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with choosing film, I just don't believe it's cheap.  That's the point we disagree on.  And I'm not there, so I'll even conceed that if you only ever plan to shoot 2 or 3 rolls a year it might be the better option in the long run.  My problem is with the term "cheap."


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason...  :mrgreen:



Did you note my point about local availability and cost factor of shipping and taxes?


----------



## nonamexx

Chamelion 6 said:


> I get your point.  But it's a balance.  A $67 dollar camera only works with film and processing.  There is a break even point.  What is the cheapest used digital you can find at the moment?  How much film is it going to take to hit that break even point?  Include shipping in that figure and that opens up more options.
> 
> And don't get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with choosing film, I just don't believe it's cheap.  That's the point we disagree on.  And I'm not there, so I'll even conceed that if you only ever plan to shoot 2 or 3 rolls a year it might be the better option in the long run.  My problem is with the term "cheap."



The cheapest used DSLR I could find that is locally available is at least 5 times more expensive than the cheapest used film SLR.

Of course my research is not yet complete but it feels hard to find a decent DSLR camera at the price range I've narrowed down.


----------



## Chamelion 6

O|||||||O said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New entry level DSLRs can be had for not much more than a decent used film camera. Used DSLRs can be had for about the same cost as used SLRs if you take the time to look for them.
> 
> 
> 
> See the links I posted on the previous page.
> 
> A _very good_ 35mm SLR can be had for $3-500, a _pretty good_ one can be had for $1-300, and if all you need is something that works - you can get that for $8.
> 
> Find me a link for any DSLR for less than $20...
> 
> For what a used 350D costs, you can buy a used (obviously) 1 series body.
> 
> Used 4 or 5 generation old entry level digital bodies go for the same price as the top-of-the-line pro 35mm bodies from 10-15 years ago.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I would take a 1 series body over a Rebel any day. (Also, used 1D MkII's are fairly cheap too - $4-500. I would consider that over a new Rebel for almost the same amount of money...)
Click to expand...

 
At the moment I'm a student and on a very fixed income. In fact, I have no income other than loans and financial aid so I understand budget cnstraints.

I shoot with a T1i and the kit lens plus the EF-s 55 to 250 and a Sigma 10-22 f3.5. It's a crop body Rebel and the lenses are not first rate glass by any means. If I had the recurring cost of film, I'd not be shooting at all, as it is I shoot often and without restraint. Are there compromises in quality between my gear and and a mess of white lenses on a full sized sensor? Absolutely. But cost was the overiding consideration. 

That flexibility came because I didn't give in to the temptation to keep investing into film and limiting my potential. It all came to one question, which is MOST cost effective? All else aside. 

Coming from a film background I had concerns about quality. They were unfounded. The camera and lens both produce excellent images, far beyond what I expected. I made the right choice, _for me._ But yes, I had to suck it up for a month or so to get there.

So is cost really the only concern here?


----------



## Chamelion 6

harishankar said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless that older digital doesn't appeal for some reason... :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note my point about local availability and cost factor of shipping and taxes?
Click to expand...

 
I'd not seen that post when I wrote this.

But again, I'm more than willing to conceed that the film camera might be the better of the two options, I just don't see it as the cheaper option. 

See my previous post.

We all come from different situations and perspectives, so when someone asks a question like this we each bring some different view to the table.  My view of this question is very much rooted in my situation and having wrestled with this same issue a few months ago.  Even though I already own working SLRs I decided film wasn't my best option because of my limited budget into the forseable future.  I recognized that if I went with film I'd forever be haunted by budget restrictions and the whold reason for picking up the camera again was to have a diversion from the stresses of money and school.  I can now shoot as much or as often as I want and cost isn't an issue.  But I had to budget for the bigger picture rather than the immediate.


----------



## Josh66

Chamelion 6 said:


> So is cost really the only concern here?


Well, for me anyway - no.

For a given amount of money, you can buy a higher quality film body than digital.

The 1N RS I shoot with cost me about the same as what 350D's are selling for now.  (I also have a 350D...)

The SINGLE advantage the 350D has is that it's cheaper to shoot.

In every other way, the 1N RS is better.

Better AF, better ergonomics, more and easier to access controls, better viewfinder, higher FPS (10 FPS!), faster sync speed (1/250), faster max shutter speed (1/8000), etc...

So, I chose film for better gear per dollar, not necessarily for the film (though I do like shooting film).

The next camera I buy will probably be a used 1D MkII...  I just can't go back to a Rebel after getting used to the 1N RS, lol.  I don't typically print larger than 8x10, so 8MP is fine with me.


----------



## MichiganFarts

harishankar said:


> The cheapest used DSLR I could find that is locally available is at least 5 times more expensive than the cheapest used film SLR.
> 
> Of course my research is not yet complete but it feels hard to find a decent DSLR camera at the price range I've narrowed down.



Why aren't you posting your current results then?

Obviously you need babysat through this...but you can't post a decent price analysis in your area for us?

In USD preferably.


----------



## Higgs Boson

If you just want to get a cheap film camera to learn:

Cheap Film Camera


----------



## iamacyborg

Higgs Boson said:


> If you just want to get a cheap film camera to learn:
> 
> Cheap Film Camera



For ****s sake, for someone that likes to go on about their marketing degree, you sure don't know how to read, something you'd think would be important for anyone who's gone through higher education.

The OP has said time and time again that he wants an SLR camera. He's decided on a film SLR, rather than a digital SLR for reasons already posted.

Quit being such an arse and learn to read, and if you disagree with his opinion, tell him so and then shut up about it.


----------



## Mike_E

The  Canon is a good camera.  Somebody said something about vibration reduction/image stabilization lenses a while back, a Nikon F100 (or an F5 for that matter) is perfectly fine with a VR lens.  

I think that you've learned about as much as you can from a forum about your needs and it's time to ask around at your local photo shops and pro photographers (both types tend to enjoy talking about their passion) about what makes sense in your area.  In a country of over 600 million I find it hard to believe that you would have any trouble finding film or getting it developed and this includes 120 film.

I bring up the 120 film again because having viewed your flicker accnt. I think that your current camera is filling the everyday need that a 35mm is designed for and that you are ready to step up your photography.  A larger format will help you to concentrate on the more subtle aspects and give you better results when you've gotten those down.

Your choice of course, good luck with it.


----------



## nonamexx

MichiganFarts said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cheapest used DSLR I could find that is locally available is at least 5 times more expensive than the cheapest used film SLR.
> 
> Of course my research is not yet complete but it feels hard to find a decent DSLR camera at the price range I've narrowed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't you posting your current results then?
> 
> Obviously you need babysat through this...but you can't post a decent price analysis in your area for us?
> 
> In USD preferably.
Click to expand...


I never needed babysitting and I did a lot of research on my own to come up with pricing situation. And I've converted every figure I've quoted in USD for your convenience. I've already done a lot to make my point and I don't feel like going through all those websites again to get the prices.

You somehow doubt my figures? Why should I lie about it? I have nothing to prove here.


----------



## nonamexx

Mike_E said:


> The  Canon is a good camera.  Somebody said something about vibration reduction/image stabilization lenses a while back, a Nikon F100 (or an F5 for that matter) is perfectly fine with a VR lens.
> 
> I think that you've learned about as much as you can from a forum about your needs and it's time to ask around at your local photo shops and pro photographers (both types tend to enjoy talking about their passion) about what makes sense in your area.  In a country of over 600 million I find it hard to believe that you would have any trouble finding film or getting it developed and this includes 120 film.
> 
> I bring up the 120 film again because having viewed your flicker accnt. I think that your current camera is filling the everyday need that a 35mm is designed for and that you are ready to step up your photography.  A larger format will help you to concentrate on the more subtle aspects and give you better results when you've gotten those down.
> 
> Your choice of course, good luck with it.


Thanks for your thoughts on my Flickr stream.

I've somehow doubts about the availability of large or medium format film but I will check it out locally. 

Most photography stores don't stock anything other than 35mm film and there's only one brand: Kodak.


----------



## Higgs Boson

iamacyborg said:


> Higgs Boson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you just want to get a cheap film camera to learn:
> 
> Cheap Film Camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For ****s sake, for someone that likes to go on about their marketing degree, you sure don't know how to read, something you'd think would be important for anyone who's gone through higher education.
> 
> The OP has said time and time again that he wants an SLR camera. He's decided on a film SLR, rather than a digital SLR for reasons already posted.
> 
> Quit being such an arse and learn to read, and if you disagree with his opinion, tell him so and then shut up about it.
Click to expand...


Lol. I mention my degree once in my life anywhere and that means I like to go on about it? Riiiight.

Furthermore, may last post is clearly in jest of a dead topic. Take a laxative. Good lord. Cyborgs have no sense of humor. You might try upgrading to windows 7 or are you a mac?


----------



## enzodm

MichiganFarts said:


> Obviously you need babysat through this...but you can't post a decent price analysis in your area for us?
> 
> In USD preferably.



I add a variable: average salary is very different. Passing from 67$ to 200$ in US or EU is one thing, in India I suspect is a major step. Electronics cost about the same everywhere.


----------



## enzodm

On the other side...
NYT: Kodachrome's road ends at Kansas photo lab - Business - The New York Times - msnbc.com


----------



## MichiganFarts

harishankar said:


> I never needed babysitting and I did a lot of research on my own to come up with pricing situation. And I've converted every figure I've quoted in USD for your convenience. I've already done a lot to make my point and I don't feel like going through all those websites again to get the prices.
> 
> You somehow doubt my figures? Why should I lie about it? I have nothing to prove here.



I don't think asking for the results of your research is anywhere the same as accusing one of lying.  It's just curiosity after following this thread.  And I think, one, easy to read post with all your research priced out, shouldn't be that hard to do.  Unless you had an ulterior motive to begin with, and never did good research, this info should be at your fingertips.

If you cannot quickly access your own research and post the results...how good is your research anyway?  You shouldn't have to go back through all those websites, you should have that information saved and bookmarked on your computer.

If you want a badly worded OP, and fairly misleading thread name to be followed up by extremely vague results...then by all means.  Seems only fitting after all the digital vs. film flaming anyway lol.  You can be lord of badly worded, uninformative threads.


----------



## Jakefreese

I think it is still worth it at least in my situation.  I like to take pictures of horses, reined cowhorse shows, cutting shows, wildlife....The lower end digitals make me very angry when I push the button I want the picture taken!  I am not going to buy the digital until I can buy the Canon eos 7d.  I am having Arlington camera process my film at $2.99 a roll, process and scan negatives.  I have a Canon elan 7e right now, but am keeping an eye out for a great deal on a EOS 1V


----------



## nonamexx

MichiganFarts said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never needed babysitting and I did a lot of research on my own to come up with pricing situation. And I've converted every figure I've quoted in USD for your convenience. I've already done a lot to make my point and I don't feel like going through all those websites again to get the prices.
> 
> You somehow doubt my figures? Why should I lie about it? I have nothing to prove here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for the results of your research is anywhere the same as accusing one of lying.  It's just curiosity after following this thread.  And I think, one, easy to read post with all your research priced out, shouldn't be that hard to do.  Unless you had an ulterior motive to begin with, and never did good research, this info should be at your fingertips.
> 
> If you cannot quickly access your own research and post the results...how good is your research anyway?  You shouldn't have to go back through all those websites, you should have that information saved and bookmarked on your computer.
> 
> If you want a badly worded OP, and fairly misleading thread name to be followed up by extremely vague results...then by all means.  Seems only fitting after all the digital vs. film flaming anyway lol.  You can be lord of badly worded, uninformative threads.
Click to expand...


The reason is I don't bookmark the information I find on the web and I often don't save the pages. Yes, call me lazy. I don't care. 

And I cannot easily get the research information done in the REAL WORLD (remember such a thing exists?) into the computer without a lot of typing. The research info is easily accessible to me. That doesn't mean it is accessible easily to you. So stuff that.

I just cannot and won't be bullied into posting that information for your benefit or amusement or to prove that I really did research. And that I'm not going to do, whatever you might call me.

Also some of the items I researched on are no longer on ebay (having either been sold or removed from auction)

My results are vague only to you. I have no duty or obligation to share my hard work with you people just because of your silly accusations.


----------



## MediocreMan

I just bought an Elan II (film camera) because I don't want the cost of repair / replace a digital body next time I slip and camera body gets submerged. That happened to me in September with a borrowed Rebel XT. Fortunately that model is old enough I was able to purchase a replacement without going too broke, but film bodies are even cheaper.

My strategy is to use consumer digital for most shots and use the SLR when I want more control. I'm shooting transparency film at the moment, with digital as the target, but I'll have to do some tests.

My plan is to scan them myself using a consumer film scanner (haven't picked yet, thinking $200 range) and any that are absolutely outstanding (probably less than 1 every 3 or 4 rolls) I will pay for highest quality scanning I can find (but probably not until I have 10 or more to do).

Assuming you don't drop your camera into creeks, digital is cheaper than film in the long run, but shooting film *may* help you learn to pay more attention to composure and lighting before you snap the shutter.


----------



## stereo

Digital are ok, but in film cameras you will feel what real photography  means


----------



## und34dcow

For me shooting with film or digital camera is not as important as the comparison of SOFTWARE -vs- DARKROOM

OP, once you've been working in the darkroom, photoshop feels like a bad crap. Just started to scan film, however it will remain an activity just for the sake of posting on web.


----------



## Buckster

und34dcow said:


> For me shooting with film or digital camera is not as important as the comparison of SOFTWARE -vs- DARKROOM
> 
> OP, once you've been working in the darkroom, photoshop feels like a bad crap.


  :lmao:  Man, how I love opinionated internet experts!!

This is gettin' good...


----------



## ghache

Photoshop bad crap? hurm, somebody is having too much blow or film devlopper.


----------



## und34dcow

I have a hunch that you sir, are the one so opinionated that you don't even allow yourself to understand the sentence in a way it is intended to. It's about the experience of having a bad crap not the crap itself (I love all of mine, no matter shape or consistency)

and photoshop is a fine piece of software worth the damn money they ask for


----------



## burgo

j-dogg said:


> okay, I'm going to don my flame-retardant protective gear and give you my .02
> 
> pick up a film SLR, don't listen to these kids here shooting digital who've never got behind the wheel of 35mm I bet you half of the digital nutswingers here would be clueless if you gave them a full manual Nikon F from 1959 or a Canon rangefinder from the 50's. tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> It's a global market, you're from India you should know this by now, most of the 35mm gear I have I purchased locally from pawn shops and flea markets, Craigslist ad's, but my entire Kodachrome project used Kodachrome film from eBay. There's lots of 35mm equipment available on that site you could have it shipped there. I don't know where you would get it developed, but I'm sure you could mail it out.
> 
> Film image quality shot through a decent SLR is only surpassed by the most expensive digital SLR's, I'm talking about your Canon 5D's, Nikon D700's and above, you could build a full professional 35mm outfit with good lenses for half of the cost of digital and if you get the right lenses and decide to go the digital route, you've already got some nice glass to shoot with. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and two 35mm's, an EOS 650 and an Elan 7e and they all use the same lenses with the exception of crop format lenses for the XTi. Everything else works.
> 
> Developing costs aren't as expensive as everyone says, you would have to shoot hundreds of rolls to break even with the cost of operating a high-end DSLR. And NOTHING has the look of film, not even any of this horse**** in CS5 it just doesn't look the same.
> 
> It's too bad you didn't get into this earlier you could have shot Kodachrome.
> 
> Film is NOT dying off as some would say, it's actually coming back, go out and find a decent 35mm, Nikon FG is what I started on (any of the Nikon's from the 80's are good learners) get a couple lenses and post up in the film forum when you got something. If you go Nikon, the 50mm 1.8 Series E is one of the best manual lenses ever made, also grab a 105 f2.5, best portrait lens ever. Kodachrome may be going away but new films are coming out, Kodak released Ektar 100 not too long ago and it's pretty decent.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:
> 
> Before I get flamed for this post, I'm not some old man who has shot film his whole life, I'm 25 and started on a DSLR and picked up the 35mm format soon after. BOTH formats have their advantages no doubt but film is still a great format to shoot and it's coming back.



great post mate. You have inspired me to get my old canon eos 3000 out. I agree that you can get prints pretty cheaply these days as well.


----------



## JoeDanBeck

Well if you develop your self the cost shrinks instantly. You can get kits to develop c41 for about twenty dollars. These are good for about twenty rolls. So for twenty dollars you have around 480 negatives. And with a inexpensive scanner, like any epson with a negative slot, you can digitize those negatives. The quality you can get with a film SLR for $50 can often rival a digital SLR that cost $500.


----------



## dxqcanada

Pentax k-mount ... manual focus lenses can be used on and auto focus SLR's ... both film and digital.
So start with that ... and if you want to get a DSLR you can continue to use the same lenses.


----------



## swimswithtrout

und34dcow said:


> For me shooting with film or digital camera is not as important as the comparison of SOFTWARE -vs- DARKROOM
> 
> OP, once you've been working in the darkroom, photoshop feels like a bad crap. Just started to scan film, however it will remain an activity just for the sake of posting on web.



So what troll is this ?

I built my first darkroom in ~ '1967.

Processed my B&W's through the 90's

Bought a scanner in the 90's and started using PS at the same time.

Somebodies been "huffing" in the darkroom I think.


----------



## swimswithtrout

JoeDanBeck said:


> Well if you develop your self the cost shrinks instantly. You can get kits to develop c41 for about twenty dollars. These are good for about twenty rolls. So for twenty dollars you have around 480 negatives. And with a inexpensive scanner, like any epson with a negative slot, you can digitize those negatives. The quality you can get with a film SLR for $50 can often rival a digital SLR that cost $500.



I was surprised to even see C41 for sale .

Every link I've found say's the kit is only good for 8 rolls at $20-30 dollars.

Granted you might find a decent SLR and one stock lens for <$100, but then you need to find a film scanner if you want to post your "Cheap" pictures on the web.

Throw in at least ~ $ 400 for a "cheap" film scanner that can "almost" reproduce what the cheapest P&S digital cams can do right out of the camera.

8 rolls of film cost how much ? Times say $4 a roll if you do the processing yourself ?

Color film by the way, is also the most grainy, least sharp medium in photography.

It's a loosing battle trying to compare C41 to digital .

The only thing that can challenge the IQ of a DSLR on a budget is a MF camera shooting Provia, and then only if scanned at 4000 dpi plus.

I just sold my Pentax 6X7 and it's plethora of lenses.

I hadn't used them in 5 yrs since switching to a DSLR.

I can shoot 1000's of shots a day, no film costs, no processing costs, no scanning time/ film clean up.

Trying to justify shooting film as being "cheaper/better" is wrong on many levels.


----------



## und34dcow

swimswithtrout said:


> So what troll is this ?
> 
> I built my first darkroom in ~ '1967.
> 
> Processed my B&W's through the 90's
> 
> Bought a scanner in the 90's and started using PS at the same time.
> 
> Somebodies been "huffing" in the darkroom I think.



I think you been too busy clicking your mouse that you might have lost  all the reading ability... (like 90% of US society nowadays). do you  have to spell out the meaning of every sentence to people?

Film is NOT better than digital, NOT cheaper either, darkroom techniques are NOT better than photoshop or any other more adv. software for that matter. If one is concerned only about results than film has nothing to offer above digital.

but if OP is considering playing with film he should know that the sheer experience of working in a darkroom is MORE FUN then sitting in front of your monitor adjusting curves.

Of course if you are a kind of person who prefers playing NBA'11 on Xbox live instead of actually picking up the ball... then I have nothing to say.


----------



## compur




----------



## JoeDanBeck

swimswithtrout said:


> JoeDanBeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you develop your self the cost shrinks instantly. You can get kits to develop c41 for about twenty dollars. These are good for about twenty rolls. So for twenty dollars you have around 480 negatives. And with a inexpensive scanner, like any epson with a negative slot, you can digitize those negatives. The quality you can get with a film SLR for $50 can often rival a digital SLR that cost $500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised to even see C41 for sale .
> 
> Every link I've found say's the kit is only good for 8 rolls at $20-30 dollars.
> 
> Granted you might find a decent SLR and one stock lens for <$100, but then you need to find a film scanner if you want to post your "Cheap" pictures on the web.
> 
> Throw in at least ~ $ 400 for a "cheap" film scanner that can "almost" reproduce what the cheapest P&S digital cams can do right out of the camera.
> 
> 8 rolls of film cost how much ? Times say $4 a roll if you do the processing yourself ?
> 
> Color film by the way, is also the most grainy, least sharp medium in photography.
> 
> It's a loosing battle trying to compare C41 to digital .
> 
> The only thing that can challenge the IQ of a DSLR on a budget is a MF camera shooting Provia, and then only if scanned at 4000 dpi plus.
> 
> I just sold my Pentax 6X7 and it's plethora of lenses.
> 
> I hadn't used them in 5 yrs since switching to a DSLR.
> 
> I can shoot 1000's of shots a day, no film costs, no processing costs, no scanning time/ film clean up.
> 
> Trying to justify shooting film as being "cheaper/better" is wrong on many levels.
Click to expand...



Not trying to make the argument that cheap is better. Just trying to say that it can be made more affordable. And i use a epson v330 ($100) to scan my negatives with completely satisfactory results. I don't really care if i can zoom in to the image super far. Also i used C41 as an example as it is the most available film, without having to order it. I have tried a DSLR, for over one year and it got boring. When you can take 1000 pictures in a day and constantly redo shots it loses the passion and the fun.


----------



## JoeDanBeck

burgo said:


> j-dogg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong I love my digital and being able to put 1000 images on a memory card is awesome, but except for the highest-echelon digital SLR's, that's just about all digital is good for compared to 35mm format. :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup::thumbup:
Click to expand...


----------

