stevenkl Loc: Swainsboro,GA

I am trying to make a decision on replacing two of my fave film cameras. I "lost" them in 2003. I now have a Nikon DSLR that I haven't built on yet. The 35's were. Canon A2 and Elan bodies. I cann get them both very cheap..and then pay tons of $ for nice glass? Or just go with building my on my Nikon DSLR?
Thank you for the imput.
Steve

ebaribeault Loc: Baltimore

I have toyed with getting Nikon F6 but then again I always opted to build on my D300 and improve my editing software

stevenkl Loc: Swainsboro,GA

Thanks. Sweet camera too. I had four film Nikons: F,FE,FM,and N2000. Oh, I forgot about the EM (toy?) that took nice shots..and the Nikkormat Frn. Well, my collectin is gone now..so to start over? I think the D7000 will be my next purchase...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well....I shot some back in the film days....not a whole lot but enough to know that it was not as instantly gratifying as digital.

I would would go digital but I'm probably weird.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Steven,

I'm with RP here. Digital lets you know immediately if you got the shot. If not, you hit the erase button. With film, you have to wait for developing & printing. Digital doesn't cost you anything until you put the image to paper which is still cheaper in the long run.

The other thing to consider is film costs. Years ago, Kodak announced a huge cutback in the R&D/Production budget for their film division because they could see the writing on the wall. It would be a shame to sink a ton of money into a film system camera and then find out down the road that it's too expensive to shoot.

I was a diehard film guy when I was still a kid in high school. I kind of let photography slide for awhile. When digital first came on the scene, I figured it was just a flash in the pan (no pun intended). But I went out and bought a Canon Powershot with a WHOPPING 2MP sensor. Believe it or not, I was hooked. I haven't shot film in years and don't miss it. Add to this the fact that you can play around with post processing on your computer (no chemicals) and it's a no-brainer.

PD

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Hello Steven, I thought about taking my film SLR on a trip to get B&W shots, but after calculating the costs for battery, film, and developing, I have decide that if I want B&W shots when I return I will convert them in PP. The point is film is expensive today (and finding it), it seems it is wiser to invest in good glass first.

Larry L Loc: Los Angeles

STEVENKI:

I am getting more and more deeply involved with digital. Be that as it may, I still fondly clear my troubled soul by shooting film. I have two that I absolutely love:
On the sophisticated side, I have my Nikon N-80 with a 28-50 and 70-300. on the simple side, i have a Rollie 35 with it's 40mm Zeiss Tessar. When I schlep my new Nikon D5100, I usually have the Rollie as my back up. I'd say from what you wrote, the Canon A 2 is a win-win alternative.

twowindsbear

If you WANT to go 'back' to film - I'll suggest going with Nikon film camera(s). This will allow you to share the same lenses with both your film and digital cameras.

Good luck

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I have to second that opinion. Thats why I use Nikon Film AND Digital bodies, pretty much everything is interchangeable, much cheaper way to go. Plus you KNOW your lenses function on your DSLR so you pretty much KNOW the way it will work on the Nikon film body too.

Larry L Loc: Los Angeles

After reading the comments from my friends and colleagues on the forum, I agree with their Nikon recommendations. I've gained two additional lenses by continuing to use my trusty N-80 as an extension (not back-up) of my new D5100.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Nikon still makes the manual FM10 that comes with a 35-70mm lens for $337. You may be able to find a used one. It would take you back to the time that you would have to set up your shots and think about your photography. Expensive? Don't go snap crazy.