DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I think the last film I shot was in 1999. I'll not be returning to film.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Maybe if newer models (like Pentax is promising) were brought out interest would increase.

I see on the weather that Iowa getting very cold temperatures, be safe and stay warm.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Quick, count how many people you personally know who shoot film.
If you used more than one hand you belong to a club that does film and not counting yourself(You do shoot film, don't you?) you probably didn't need any fingers.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

It’s been a long time since I shot film. I still have my trusty old Olympus OM-1, but now days it’s mainly in charge of collecting dust. I probably don’t know many who still shoot film, though I know a few who are fond of saying, “One of these days I’m going to buy some film.”
With film, it’s a long wait from the time you press the shutter until the time you see the result, and PP is much faster and easier too with sliders and AI buttons.
I didn’t post this as a call to abandon all digital gear, but as something to think about and consider and maybe talk about. I’m surprised at how many responders have gotten defensive about the subject.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

My 128 g SanDisk card was about $25. Holds a lot, actual # unknown right now.i shoot rea and large jpeg

twowindsbear

How would one shoe horn a sensor into a film camera, or where would one place a film path into a digital camera?

suterjo Loc: Delaplane, VA

Years ago when I heard that Kodak wasn't going to make the projector anymore, I stocked up on bulbs!!! Still have some but probably won't use them since I've long ago gone digital. I didn't go digital until the image quality equalled or bettered Kodachrome (or Ektachrome).

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"What might be cool would be a camera that shoots both film and digital. Make your test shots with digital and when you’re happy with the result, then shoot the film."

My 22 year old granddaughter is a senior at the University of Washington. She is very much a smartphone photographer but also bought a Nikon film camera. (I don't know which one.) I asked her what she does with what she shoots. She sends the film out for development and has the images scanned so she can put them in her computer or phone to share on social media. She has 2800 followers on Instagram. No, I don't get it. Why buy the film and pay for development?

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

For some cameras, the make digital backs.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Prisms and or mirrors. DSLRs already have prisms that direct the image to the viewfinder. The image travels horizontally, then vertically then horizontally again into the viewfinder. And instead of having the sensor or oriented right to left, orient it forwards and backwards on one side of the centerline and the film-shutter front to back on the opposite side. Choosing film would direct the image to one side and digital to the other side.

Or have the film and sensor opposing each other on a rotating disk. One side up to move the sensor into focal plane location behind the lens, rotate it clockwise 180 degrees and the film is in position.

Of course such a camera would be larger, heavier and more bulky than ordinary hand held cameras. Aren’t there medium format or the big 8x10 cameras that have digital backs that replace the film parts? Since you have the big job on a tripod, are you able to switch the backs back and forth or is it more of a permanent swap? A hand held camera could have the same interchangeable backs depending upon which one the user was wanting to use. If not on a tripod you couldn’t take the same exact shot, but the same thing happens now when you swap lenses on today’s cameras.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I have two Miranda Sensorex 35mm and an old Olympus in a box, somewhere in the house/garage. I also have a TLR and a pack of 12 rolls of 120 film I never used around somewhere.

I didn't mean to get on your case etc. - it was the "inner retired teacher" coming out like I was supervising a class discussion.
My developing gear is also in the garage, except my "Good" enlarger. I gave that to a young man from Mexico who was visiting his Aunt across the street years back. He saw my enlarger on the driveway while I was cleaning the garage and came over, "That is the same model I learned on in my Uncle's portrait studio. I want to open my own studio in another town near my home. How much do you want for it?" I gave it to him with a box of accessories. The day he left to drive back to Mexico with only enough room in the car for himself and all the gear he picked up while here, he saw me on my porch and waved, yelled THANKS etc. in English and Spanish while blowing his horn as long as he could still see me.
It made me feel very good. I hope his studio was a great success.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

Digital sensors record more light. That is what photography is about. Film did it best. Digital improved to quality better than film. The cost and quality of photograph from film is inferior to digital sensor. Big camera companies have no incentive to produce film cameras for film resurgence just as Ford will not produce the Model T. With progress old systems are abandoned.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

Film does not render a better image just cost to view photo why spend money

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

Follow the money. Shooting film is very expensive compared to digital. It's the main driver of going to digital in the first place: reduced cost.

Same for enlarging. I can print a beautiful 13 x 19 COLOR print using a $300 digital printer. I could never do that for $300 using analog film enlarging.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Not going to work. Film responds totally differently to light than does a sensor. The latter is a straight line and film is a curve (think H&D curve).