# is it still worth buying an slr camera?



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

Im in the market for buying a new camera, and I was wandering if its still worth it to buy a slr... is it???


----------



## The_Traveler (May 4, 2007)

Not to me, I have a couple.
But maybe to you if you want to be a better photographer.


----------



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

I mean, is SLR going by the wayside...


----------



## Big Mike (May 4, 2007)

Are you talking about a *film* SLR?

Most of the members of this forum use SLR cameras...digital ones...and they are certainly not going by the wayside.


----------



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

Ya, thats what I meant, FILM SLr...


----------



## selmerdave (May 4, 2007)

Film is definitely dead the primary medium, meaning it may be a little harder to get and develop your film.  Depending on where you are, mail-order may be necessary (for *good* film and developing).  If you're comfortable being in the minority, there has never been a better time to buy film equipment.  Most of the great cameras and some of the lenses are extremely cheap as everybody dumps it for digital.  

Dave


----------



## Alpha (May 4, 2007)

The film slr is not dead, for christ's sake. Yes, I'd probably prefer an M6, but why the hell not a film SLR? Jesus you people spend countless hours sitting in front of the computer PP'ing and you think it's inconvenient to develop film? gimme a break.


----------



## Big Mike (May 4, 2007)

People thought that B&W film would be dead when color film took hold...but it's still around.  Sure, it may be in a slow Delcine (Kodak stopped making B&W paper, after 100 years)...but it's still avaliable for those who want it.

I'm guessing it will be the same for color film...there will be a slow decline but it will probably be around for decades to come.  Don't expect every drug store to develope it for you though.


----------



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

So max, you support film still? How long does it take to get film developed...


----------



## Alpha (May 4, 2007)

Depends on the developer and temp .
2hr E6 at my local prolab


----------



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

SO would you pick film over digital for a beginner?


----------



## selmerdave (May 4, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> The film slr is not dead, for christ's sake. Yes, I'd probably prefer an M6, but why the hell not a film SLR? Jesus you people spend countless hours sitting in front of the computer PP'ing and you think it's inconvenient to develop film? gimme a break.



?

I said as the primary medium (in the industry), and it is no longer the primary medium nor is it likely to return as such.  Who said it's inconvenient to develop film?

Dave


----------



## Alpha (May 4, 2007)

I dunno what I was on about, with respect to you Dave.


----------



## Alpha (May 4, 2007)

lasershot said:


> SO would you pick film over digital for a beginner?



Absolutely. Nearly every film beginner I've seen has improved much faster than digital beginners.


----------



## Big Mike (May 4, 2007)

It differs for different people.  I've seen people who were stagnant in their development while shooting film...and then take off as they turn to digital.  The instant feed back helps as does the attached shooting info for every shot.

On the other hand, when learning with film, people do tend to take their time and think about things more...but there is no reason that you can't do that with digital.

In the end, film or digital...they are just tools...means to an end.


----------



## cigrainger (May 4, 2007)

Max, I think I grew much faster with digital, but now I'm shooting film. I've shot off over 2000 exposures on my digital in a month. That's several thousand dollars in film and processing if I had shot film (mostly in wasted practice shots). I now shoot film with a nearly 100% success rate, so there's no wasted film. Had I not spent that month with tons of digital exposures, I would still be at about a 50% success rate with my film. I still practice on my digital and execute on film.


----------



## selmerdave (May 4, 2007)

The question is, would you have wasted as many practice shots if you were paying for film?  Perhaps you would have learned out of necessity rather than by trial and error, and progressed as much shooting a couple of hundred frames of film with a lot of care?  That's the film argument anyway.

Also shooting digital there is still a lot of latitude for "saving" shots in PS, and in that respect shooting transparency requires (and rewards) more accuracy.

Of course that's just an argument for one side...

Probably more important than shooting film or digital is shooting manually.

Dave


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 4, 2007)

I can see both arguments, but I think people should stear clear of that "I can just fix it in Photoshop" mentality wheather it's film or digital.


----------



## cigrainger (May 4, 2007)

selmerdave said:


> The question is, would you have wasted as many practice shots if you were paying for film?  Perhaps you would have learned out of necessity rather than by trial and error, and progressed as much shooting a couple of hundred frames of film with a lot of care?  That's the film argument anyway.
> 
> Also shooting digital there is still a lot of latitude for "saving" shots in PS, and in that respect shooting transparency requires (and rewards) more accuracy.
> 
> ...



I agree about shooting manually. 

See, I was able to waste a lot of shots practicing, and now I can use film with prime lenses which forces my composition and exposure techniques. I think I jumped a lot of hurdles by practicing that much that quickly, and now I am learning much faster with film. 

I dunno, it was just my learning process, and maybe I had natural talent, or maybe it was the process. I'm still not completely happy with all my shots, but many people (non-photogs) tell me that lots of my shots look professional. And I've only been shooting since late January. Sorry if that sounded conceited. I give conceited people a big :thumbdown:. Ahhh, I'm babbling.


----------



## lasershot (May 4, 2007)

I really want to get a digital camera just for the sake of being able to take a couple hundred pictures at a time... Thats the only thing that is holding me back from 35mm FILM....


----------



## cigrainger (May 4, 2007)

lasershot said:


> I really want to get a digital camera just for the sake of being able to take a couple hundred pictures at a time... Thats the only thing that is holding me back from 35mm FILM....



So check out the Pentax K100D, and you can snag a K1000 or ME Super for very cheap, and you can use any lens that you get for the film SLR with the digital. Best of both worlds. :thumbup:


----------



## dinodan (May 4, 2007)

Is it worth getting a film SLR?

At the prices they're going for today, ABSOLUTELY!!!


----------



## nealjpage (May 4, 2007)

Maybe we should ask this:  Are you wanting a NEW film SLR or do you have your eye on something used?  That may help clarify this discussion a bit.


----------



## panocho (May 5, 2007)

short answer: YES
longer answer: OF COURSE


----------



## Don Simon (May 5, 2007)

You could get a good digital point-&-shoot for about $200. A digital SLR at least two to three times that. Good working film SLRs can be had for $20 on eBay. In other words, even if you go digital, why not get a film camera as well? Then you can shoot both film and digital, and if you decide you prefer digital you've hardly lost anything.


----------



## YoungPic (May 5, 2007)

i know im a bit late on this thread but i was going ask this question also, but then i got my spotmatic. i started off in digital but had no clue what i was doing, but when i started to use film i understood aperture and shutter speed, iso all that stuff, and it makes you want every shot to be perfect rather than just snapping away, get a film slr and learn.


----------



## lasershot (May 5, 2007)

I think im going too... but, I'm going to wait to goto a camera store today and talk to them on this subject!


----------



## selmerdave (May 5, 2007)

Well at a camera store no doubt they will talk you into digital.  Honestly, unless you were specifically looking for the features of a Nikon F6, I don't know why you would buy a new film camera.  The prices of used ones are so dramatically lower unless you're buying specifically an F6 or a Canon EOS 1V (and need those features) you are going to get much better quality and durability for your money buying used.

Dave


----------



## lasershot (May 5, 2007)

Thats the thing, I don't have a Digital SLR, or Film SLR, I'm just starting out...

So what camera are you suggesting?


----------



## YoungPic (May 5, 2007)

i must say i have not had much experience with other cameras, but i love my spotmatic, and the other early pentax cameras are also good, i got a camera (spotmatic), a 135mm, a 55mm, and a 85-205mm on ebay for only $60, but in this case the meter was broken, but once you understand aperture and shutter speed the meter really isnt that big of a deal, so my advice is just search ebay for film cameras with a few lenses, and maybe do some advance research and start building a system.


----------



## Don Simon (May 5, 2007)

There are so many options when it comes to buying film SLRs. What I would say is that selmerdave is absolutely right in recommending that you look for used cameras rather than buying new. Film cameras, not only old mechanical ones but even the most modern ones, are less reliant on complex electronics than digital cameras so there is less risk in buying used. And as said the prices are incredibly low. You could get a modern fully featured multi-mode SLR, or a classic mechanical one; it all depends on what you're looking for in a camera.

Some things to consider when choosing an SLR system are the availability of lenses (new or used), the cost of the lenses, and whether or not you want to be able to use the lenses on a digital SLR in future since this is possible with some old lens mounts but not others.


----------



## lasershot (May 5, 2007)

So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...


----------



## selmerdave (May 5, 2007)

The Spotmatic is excellent for the price.  Check the thread just below with some examples from a member using a Spotmatic.  On one hand, the bodies are cheap, very solid, and the lenses are very cheap as well and many are excellent.  On the other hand, there are fewer lenses available with modern coatings for M42 (spotmatic) mount.  I would suggest going one generation newer, with something like a K1000, KX, or MX, which are basically Spotmatics with K-mount lens mounts.  You'll pay a little more for the lenses as they are compatible with new Pentax's, but they are excellent glass and still quite affordable.  In that age group (70's-early 80's) there is some likelihood of needing some service, but I wouldn't let that scare you as once the service is performed you're good to go for a while.  There are plenty of other options from other makers such as the Olympus OM line or Nikon F, FE or FM lines.

Dave


----------



## Steph (May 5, 2007)

lasershot said:


> So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...


 
The Spotmatic is a good camera and you can buy a lot of M42 lenses for not very much. When buying, keep in mind that they are around 30 year old: after so long the lighthmeter may have failed or won't be very accurate any more (but you can use a separate handheld meter) and the light seals may need replacing. Some M42 lenses are very good (Pentax 50mm f1.4 SMC, Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4, Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5 are highly regarded for example).


----------



## Steph (May 5, 2007)

lasershot said:


> How long does it take to get film developed...


 
Here in the UK most mail order labs have a turn around of 3 to 5 days. If you send your films on a Monday you get them developped by the end of the same week. Once you found a good lab I think it is worth the wait.

As for buying films I think it is really easy with the Internet. You can find many unusual films on the Internet that you would not have found at your local camera shop before.


----------



## cigrainger (May 5, 2007)

I get film developed in 24 hours.

The Spotmatic is a WONDERFUL camera, but I would suggest a K1000, KX, or ME Super. The reason I say that is because if you decide you do want a digital camera, the K-mount lenses are all compatible with the digital SLR body without an adaptor.

I have all of the above, and that's not such a bad idea either. You can always buy a £20 adaptor to use the M42 mount lenses on the digital SLR.

If you shoot color you want to make sure the light meter works or get a handheld light meter. While you have some room with black and white and even color print films, IMO the best color films are slide films and they really don't have much room for exposing improperly. The built in meter on the Spotmatic is actually really awesome, especially considering it's 40 years old.


----------



## Alpha (May 5, 2007)

lasershot said:


> So is the Spotmatic good? I'm finding it REALLY cheap with a lens included on ebay...




Pentax Super Program is the way to go if you can find one. I've shot with pentax's entire "photo student" lineup, the k1000, me, me super, etc etc, as well as the Nikon FE's and the Canon AE1. The super program wins hands down.


----------



## dinodan (May 5, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Pentax Super Program is the way to go if you can find one. I've shot with pentax's entire "photo student" lineup, the k1000, me, me super, etc etc, as well as the Nikon FE's and the Canon AE1. The super program wins hands down.


 
I've never used one, but I've read lots of good things about the Super Program. Here's what might be a pretty good deal (though one would need more info)...

http://bham.craigslist.org/pho/304587785.html


----------



## CDG (May 5, 2007)

Professional photographers don't use fim much anymore.  That said, the reports of the death of film are greatly exaggerated.  If you're into black and white, I'd still pick film.  If you're into nostalgia, pick film.  If you're worried that film won't be available in another 20 years, I wouldn't sweat it.  They said the same about cinema film 20 years ago when VHS and digital standards began to emerge and that hasn't happened yet...  

Digital can be cheaper, true, but bear in mind that it costs less than 50 cents per shot to shoot and print 35mm film.  I doubt if you can print digital any cheaper with your inkjet and photographic paper.  And while you don't have to print everything you do digitally, you also tend to take more pictures in the first place.  It's probably still cheaper to go digital, but reports of it being "way" cheaper don't really apply to the amateur/weekend warrior.  

Otherwise buy digital and be happy.  There's nothing fundamentally wrong about choosing either in my view.  I admit though to being a film addict -  chemical magic still holds its spell over me, as to clunky, funky old cameras.  I consider film to be tradition, although I am something of a fiddler on the roof in that regard.


----------



## selmerdave (May 5, 2007)

CDG said:


> Professional photographers don't use fim much anymore.



One little side note on this.  I am a musician by profession, and as is often the case a portion of my income comes from playing weddings and private parties.  As a result, I get to do a casual survey of pro photography in that industry anyway, and it's been interesting to see the digital-film thing from that perspective.  It is fair to say that the vast majority of photography in those situations is digital, but I have noticed that as the parties go up in price so does the likelihood of film photography.  At the rediculous well-into-six-and-sometimes-seven-figure parties, the photographers are out there with their hassleblads, and quite often Leica's and very extensive film SLR setups along with a few specialty cameras (panorama etc.).  A basic five-figure wedding is almost always digital.  Not scientific at all of course, but interesting (to me) to observe.

Dave


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 5, 2007)

selmerdave said:


> One little side note on this.  I am a musician by profession, and as is often the case a portion of my income comes from playing weddings and private parties.  As a result, I get to do a casual survey of pro photography in that industry anyway, and it's been interesting to see the digital-film thing from that perspective.  It is fair to say that the vast majority of photography in those situations is digital, but I have noticed that as the parties go up in price so does the likelihood of film photography.  At the rediculous well-into-six-and-sometimes-seven-figure parties, the photographers are out there with their hassleblads, and quite often Leica's and very extensive film SLR setups along with a few specialty cameras (panorama etc.).  A basic five-figure wedding is almost always digital.  Not scientific at all of course, but interesting (to me) to observe.
> 
> Dave



That is interesting!


----------



## CDG (May 5, 2007)

Indeed it is interesting.  I'm definately not the expert, but it's good to see film isn't necesarily limited to amateurs anyway...


----------



## jeffbuckley (May 29, 2007)

Time to get sentimental and nostalgic. I miss those SLRs and films I used to roll and develop in the dark room when I was in college studying basic photography. Now, everything is in digital. Fast-paced world indeed.



_______________________
Rob
Project Cars & Race Cars by skunk2 Racing


----------



## fmw (May 30, 2007)

My opinion is that getting a medium format SLR is definitely worth doing.  Buying a 35mm SLR, however, is not in my opinion.  That's the opinion of someone who has used 35mm SLR's for decades, has used them professionally and has owned over 50 of them.  Current digital SLR's simply provide better image quality than 35mm film.  That isn't a popular opinion on this forum but it is my opinion nevertheless.  

Medium format digital is far too expensive for a casual photographer so medium format film represents an excellent way to get into film and enjoy even better image quality than a DSLR.  I still have a 35mm SLR system and see no prospect that I will ever use it again.  My medium format SLR, however, gets plenty of use - as much as my DSLR's.


----------



## fmw (May 30, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> The film slr is not dead, for christ's sake. Yes, I'd probably prefer an M6, but why the hell not a film SLR? Jesus you people spend countless hours sitting in front of the computer PP'ing and you think it's inconvenient to develop film? gimme a break.


 
Max, you know better than that.  If you have someone else do the processing then film and digital are the same amount of work.  If you do the work yourself, it isn't even a horse race.  A properly composed and exposed digital image should only take a couple of minutes in Photoshop.  I spend about 30 seconds on each of my digital product photos.  I've never spend countless hours doing anything related to processing an image.  You're overstating things, don't you think?


----------



## mintwin101 (Jun 3, 2007)

I am also getting my first camera soon and am going to get a digital.  Most of this is because of my budget.  If i were to get a film camera not only would i have to pay for film but i would also have to  pay for it to be developed.  In the long run i see it as being more expensive. Plus i know that starting off im going to have to take a lot of pictures.  Thats just the way i learn though.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 3, 2007)

Gee whiz I wish someone had told me that professional photographers no longer use film.  I'll have to turn in my state license and all that other stuff I have.


----------



## malkav41 (Jul 10, 2007)

I have slr film cameras that start out in the mid 1960's all the way up to 2001. So to have someone tell me that film is pass'e, I just shake my head. Film has been around for 100+ years. It maybe slowing down in it's old age, but it is nowhere near dead yet. 

Maybe once +16MP digital cameras are affordable to the masses in general then, maybe, just maybe, film might possibly be in some trouble. Maybe.


----------



## selmerdave (Jul 11, 2007)

Just to clarify as it seems to be my words that are coming up a few times, I said that film is dead *as the primary medium* in the industry, meaning it is no longer (by a good margin now) the dominant part of the market either at the consumer or pro level.  I was simply commenting on the industry and I think it's hard to dispute.  Obviously film is still in wide use and probably has a larger portion of the market with respect to digital among pros compared to consumers, and I am an avid film user.

FWIW I think it's inevitable and probably not that far off that digital will reach very high resolution (20+ MB) considering that just two years ago 6MP was a pro camera and now there are several 12MP consumer cameras.  I don't think that will change the relative use or validity of film as I don't think people who are using film now are doing so because of the resolution.

Dave


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 11, 2007)

In my mind, film and digital are two different mediums entirely.  I've heard plenty of folks claim "digital is better" or "anything you can do with film you can do in photoshop" etc...  and that really gets my goat because they're hardly even blood realatives.  They can both be used to make images, but otherwise they might as well be from different planets.  Personally I like the look of film over digital and the process of shooting and developing b&w in general.  

It's no wonder that digital has come to the point where it has.  It's a wonderful tool that opens up different possibilities.  Further more, I think there are distinct personality types that are lead to either medium.  With that said, I feel I have no true right to tell folks to only work with film.  Likewise, I get annoyed by folks telling me I have to go digital.  (fortunately this has never happened on tpf)  My best advice is to play with both mediums until you find your happy place.  You'll find that each has it's own distinct possibilities, and it's a wonderful thing that you have the opportunity to try both.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Film is in a different state than it was a few years ago, but it's still worth trying.  Sometimes I feel like this is the new cold war and both sides have itchy trigger fingers.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

I would get a film SLR if I were you. They are dead cheap compared with dSLRs. OK, you pay for each shot, true, so you will not take as many images per week as you would with a digital camera, but that is in some way an advantage.

I have seen many people just taking thousands of images digitally, and not improving a lot or learning alot since they had no reason to think first before they press the shutter release (as digital images do not cost you anything). Whereas with film you are more careful and automatically try more intensly to get the shots right.

The great advantage of digital, however, is the instant feedback you can get. So your learning curve could be steeper with digital for that reason. However, with a good lab around, getting feedback the day later is possible also for film.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 11, 2007)

I scan my negs (i guess my gate swings both ways then) so when I take my color film to the one hour photo, I just get negs.  It's cheaper than slides and faster too.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

selmerdave said:


> Just to clarify as it seems to be my words that are coming up a few times, I said that film is dead *as the primary medium* in the industry, meaning it is no longer (by a good margin now) the dominant part of the market either at the consumer or pro level.



I agree ... just as cars have taken over compared to horses. Still many people enjoy riding 



> FWIW I think it's inevitable and probably not that far off that digital will reach very high resolution (20+ MB) considering that just two years ago 6MP was a pro camera and now there are several 12MP consumer cameras.



MPs do not give you the effective resolution of the sensor. It only gives you the number of pixels. Unfortunately, today's sensors are not able to resolve (in terms of lines per inch) down to their theoretical pixel resolution. So what we need here is better image quality/resolution ... and not more MPs 

Also, even in the pro segment of lenses you do not easily find lenses which give an optical resolution which matches anything beyond 12 MP.

But even with all said above, a digital 35mm sensor today gives a better resolution than 35mm fine grain pro film from my personal experience.



> I don't think people who are using film now are doing so because of the resolution.



true 

Oh, and this was not a rant, I just wanted to comment further


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 11, 2007)

One of my favorite things to do is buy expired film.  You never know what color casts you'll get or what the saturation will be like... and that's the joy of it.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 14, 2007)

lasershot said:


> SO would you pick film over digital for a beginner?



As I have mentioned numerous times in other threads, I am convinced a beginner is better off starting with a manual film camera and a hand held meter to quickly grasp the fundamentals of photography and have them firmly embedded in your mind. I prefer SLR's over range finders in most instances.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jul 14, 2007)

Here's a vote for a used film SLR.  You can use the money you save to buy a good P&S digital so you'll have the digital for the occasions when convenience is tantamount.  When you want to take your time and develop your craft, use the film SLR.  

It's like Dave said: they're different mediums.  Sometimes an artist needs watercolors, sometimes airbrushes, sometimes pen and ink.  Mixing mediums can make great results too.


----------



## Mohain (Jul 18, 2007)

I picked up a second hand Canon EOS3 recently for £125. Awsome piece of kit! Problem is it makes my £800 30D look rather toy like now.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 18, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> As I have mentioned numerous times in other threads, I am convinced a beginner is better off starting with a manual film camera and a hand held meter to quickly grasp the fundamentals of photography and have them firmly embedded in your mind.



Yes people are more likely to stop and think and absorb information when they have to pay per photo. It gives people an incentive to learn to get it right.


----------



## jwkwd (Jul 18, 2007)

I like threads like this. Every time I begin to think about looking into digital and see the "film is dead" posts, I go out and shoot some Velvia and look forward to waiting for the little box of slides to show up in the mail.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 23, 2007)

The only reason to develop your own film is to explore effects.  I do agree with everything everyone has said.


----------



## cigrainger (Jul 23, 2007)

Chronicle said:


> The only reason to develop your own film is to explore effects.



Are you kidding?


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 24, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Are you kidding?



I would say I am not kidding, though I am not 100% serious.  I am presenting a very extreme opinion to illustrate the middle ground.  I am not stating my version of the middle ground but instead helping people to think of their own version of it by stating an extreme.  It is a communication technique.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 24, 2007)

I haven't seen anything in this thread that mentions the subject matter being shot.

I shoot horse events for money.  
The rate that subject movement and opportunities change, require all of the DSLR features to be used. Film is an unaffordable luxury for this kind of photography. 
Most of my customers come from the internet which would require converting to some form of digital file anyway.  
In my case, it boils down to what is most practical and economical.
I do see an old film SLR in the hands of some Grandma/Grandpas once in a while. They take a few quick snaps of their cute little Grandkids, then wander off, talking about getting their film developed.

The occasional and dedicated photographer can still afford to use film and enjoy the unique results that film produces.

I processed nearly 3000 files from our cameras this weekend.  Film wasn't an option.


----------



## deanimator (Jul 24, 2007)

Yes...it´s worth it.

There is nothing to discuss, unless you are not interested in learning anything...in which case, there is still nothing to discuss.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 24, 2007)

Jon said:


> I haven't seen anything in this thread that mentions the subject matter being shot.
> 
> I shoot horse events for money.
> The rate that subject movement and opportunities change, require all of the DSLR features to be used. Film is an unaffordable luxury for this kind of photography.
> ...



I shoot digital for the same reason, different subject. Live bands easily consume 600-1000 frames in a 4-5 hour gig. I am going back to MF film when the studio is operational, but will be scanning the negs. But all that said, I still own every 35mm I have ever owned. With the new scanner, I have the desire/need to shoot them again. I am thinking of loading up an old FM or even a N2000 with a 45mm 2.8 GN and using that as my go anywhere/anytime rig instead of an older 4 MP P&S.


----------

