Is There a reason to purchase a film camera? (Page 2): MTshooter is correct... Do it to collect, or to shoot film. If you do it to collect be prepared to be disappointed. Anal Purist...

Kuzano

MT Shooter wrote:

The only reason to buy a film camera is so you can shoot FILM.
I think you are confusing two different cameras though, either the FM, FM2, FM10, or the F100, there was no Nikon FM 100.

MTshooter is correct... Do it to collect, or to shoot film. If you do it to collect be prepared to be disappointed. Anal Purist Collectors are unbelievably picky. I don't buy and sell to collect. If you are doing it to shoot film, make sure you buy a tested camera. The biggest problem is the disappearance of certain batteries.

I've been buying and selling primarily film camera's for close to 20 years on eBay. Someone the other day PM'd me requesting prices on a Nikon F4S and would take as many as I could send him. I don't carry inventory. I just pick up a lot of camera's, clean them up and test them and list them. I usually make very certain to source out the batteries or work arounds that will power the camera and meters. I run a lot of pictures.

The biggest plus for me is that I have been a gearhead since the sixties. So, I get to buy, clean and test all the camera's that were too expensive for me when I was young (and I was). I have some favorites and I hang onto those until I find a cleaner example.

Playing with all those old camera's has been interesting. I'd be the first to say that the worst examples come out of closets after many years without a shutter release, and with batteries installed. The best way to kill a clean looking old camera is to run the time shutter release. I NEVER run the time release, and I do not guarantee it will not "brick" the camera if used.

Otherwise, business is good, and I am of the school of thought that film will always be around, just like vinyl. Film and processing is actually growing in availability. New emulsions are coming available all the time.

Finally digital will never kill film, and digital will never match the resolution of Medium Format and Large Format film, in any serious aspect of consumer availability.

Hah!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

GoofyNewfie wrote:

I really miss using the Nikon F100, my favorite Nikon ever. I hated my 8008.

That being said, I think imagemeister's suggestion of a medium format camera is a good idea. It will slow you down and depending on what you shoot, the difference of the quality of your images can be huge.

8008S are much cheaper than F100's - I get the impression the OP does not want to make this a large investment .....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Bike guy wrote:

I am one of those guys who likes to try new and OL... (show quote)

Shooting very occasional high quality old school landscapes is the best reason I can think of to use film. If you play your cards right with medium format (6X9 cm), your results can equal or better most digital - at 1/10 the cost.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Bike guy wrote:

I am one of those guys who likes to try new and OL... (show quote)

My dream camera is still a film camera (and not an SLR, at that). It is a Leica M6. For some reason, the process of loading/unloading is still part of the mystique, excitement (and, in the case of the Leica, challenge) of photography.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you want to buy that camera you could never afford, then buy the Nikon (I have done that, and it is a rewarding trip into nostalgia), but if you want to do something special, that can't really be replicated by digital, take imagemeister's advice and buy a medium format film camera (which are now dirt-cheap), and better yet, develop and print on silver based paper. It's different and it's magic. 95% of the time, I use my DSLR, and it will allow some things that couldn't be done with film. But that other 5%, I pull out my RB67, and I'm never sorry.

anotherview Loc: California

You write: "Film has a quality that digital can never achieve." Specify which quality you have in mind. After all, experienced photographers say digital photography surpassed film photography years ago.

Carl D wrote:

Film has a quality that digital can never achieve and when it comes to B+W you can't beat it. The Nikon F100 is the top dog of the film cameras IMO. Built like a tank and easy to use with some of the modern dslr offerings. Learn to develop your own film and then scan it. No darkroom needed. The best of both worlds, the richness of film and the convenience of Photoshop for PP.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

anotherview wrote:

You write: "Film has a quality that digital can never achieve." Specify which quality you have in mind. After all, experienced photographers say digital photography surpassed film photography years ago.

Quality has many dimensions, some are subjective. We stopped using steam engines for mainstream use a long time ago, but a steam engine has a quality that no deisel or electric engine can reproduce.

Every photographer should have film camera in their life somewhere. Mine still work. Don't use them as much as I should, but every now and then...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bike guy wrote:

When I was shooting film, I was always too poor to purchase Nikon. At least that is what I thought.
So now I have the 'itch' to finally own a Nikon 35mm SLR.
Regarding the issues of finding labs to develop and print, I understand the cost and time wait.

it's not that bad. It depends on what your needs are. LOTS of folks shooting film and keeping costs down.

Quote:

I am thinking that perhaps shooting film, will slow me down, only take good pictures (I can't seem to force myself to do that with the digital) and really learn composition.
Nikon FM 100 I understand is a great camera and can be purchased relatively cheap.

I know exactly what you mean. In theory you can just "pretend" to shoot film and slow down but for me, knowing that I DO have 1000 tries at the same picture, it just wasn't the same...it wasn't. I know folks will disagree, but that's the reality for me. And yes, that Nikon is available and affordable, not only that Nikon but almost all SLR's are relatively cheap right now. I have an FM2 that I paid about $150.00 for that is in great shape. If it were me (and I'm not a tinkerer) I'd buy one that's had a "CLA" done (clean, lube, adjust) by a reputable shop (KEH is one but there are a lot of places, try Ebay) A Nikon from the 70's that's had a CLA will outlast all of us!.

Quote:

Will the two Nikon lenses I already own, be good enough? The 50mm 1.8 D lens takes great shot on my 7000.

Yes, more than good enough. The sharpness race that you see in digital doesn't happen in film shooting...I don't know why but if you search a film camera forum you won't find endless questions about sharpness and stuff like that.
If those lenses are "DX" cropped format" then you should just get a Nikon with a lens attached...the cost won't be much different...$20.00 to $40.00. Mine came with a 50mm lens. I have an extra that I'd mail to you for the cost of mailing...let me know.

Quote:

Most of my photography of late has been landscapes and I am wanting to branch out more into B&W.

That's great! Both can be done with 35mm and if you choose, you can develop your own black and white film cheaply. (pennies per roll)

Quote:

Thoughts?
Thanks
Jim

Film is very rewarding to shoot in this day and age and dare I say that this is a GREAT time to be a film photographer! There is a world of gear to choose from for cheap prices, film is plentiful and if you shop wisely, it can be cheap to shoot (loading your own canisters means you can shoot B&W for about $2.00 a roll) color can go from $2.50 per roll to $10.00 per roll depending on what you like to use.

If you need anything or any help, just PM me and I'd be glad to help with what little knowledge I have.

Is there a reason to shoot film?

Yes! Because I love the results, I love the process, and I love the community of film.

Also a GREAT forum to surf is the APUG forum "Analog Photographers forum" and there are a LOT of very helpful guys there who are VERY knowledgable about shooting film..it's all they do!

Here is the address:

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php

While you're waiting, check out this video on film shooting called "Long Live Film"...it's gorgeous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtphPVchJI

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Carl D wrote:

Film has a quality that digital can never achieve and when it comes to B+W you can't beat it. The Nikon F100 is the top dog of the film cameras IMO. Built like a tank and easy to use with some of the modern dslr offerings. Learn to develop your own film and then scan it. No darkroom needed. The best of both worlds, the richness of film and the convenience of Photoshop for PP.

Yes!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

GoofyNewfie wrote:

I really miss using the Nikon F100, my favorite Nikon ever. I hated my 8008.

That being said, I think imagemeister's suggestion of a medium format camera is a good idea. It will slow you down and depending on what you shoot, the difference of the quality of your images can be huge.

Yeah...theoretically, but if the OP is going to scan and send to flickr, then it's sort of a waste. The good thing about 35mm is that it's very portable, you can sling one over your shoulder and shoot anywhere anytime...a MF format camera is something you take out on purpose to shoot and you definitely don't just sling them over your shoulder (most of them anyway) It's a different thing for sure.

For posting online and prints at or less than 8 x 10, I don't think you'd even see a difference.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

anotherview wrote:

You write: "Film has a quality that digital can never achieve." Specify which quality you have in mind. After all, experienced photographers say digital photography surpassed film photography years ago.

I agree with the OP and others when they say this and I'm not about to get into this debate. I do see it, it's a quality that I like, it's just "there" like "you know when you see art...you can't explain it, but you know it when you see it"

If others like digital, and for them there isn't a difference, then MAZEL TOV! but let's not have that stale debate here...let the OP have his moment :)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

TriX wrote:

But that other 5%, I pull out my RB67, and I'm never sorry.

Lol...except when paying the chiropractor! :)

Sorry, I couldn't resist, I have owned an RB67 and it was just a BEAST...most definitely a boxcar of a camera. More than I was willing to lug around for any reason, but I'm not downing you or anyone else on this...I just wanted to make a joke when I saw what you said.

NorthPacific

EXCELLENT ...YOU HAVE a Sony A6000 ...classic camera!!

I would suggest buying a good condition Nikon F5 and a Nikon F2S...make sure the meter works on the F2S.... KEH.com usually has these at a reasonable price....

Just do what makes you happy and what is fun even if it is retro....

good shooting!!!

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I just bought a Minolta SR-7 slr, believe it or not, 1966, black enamel, in perfect working order, even the metering works !
So, how much ? £20 !!! In a charity sale. I was in its original fitted case, Rokkor F1.4 lens, plus a spare telephoto !!!
All shutter speeds OK, smooth, and the seals are all fine... I have had three year old digital completely useless; go foigure !

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I just bought a Minolta SR-7 slr, believe it or not, 1966, black enamel, in perfect working order, even the metering works !
So, how much ? £20 !!! In a charity sale. I was in its original fitted case, Rokkor F1.4 lens, plus a spare telephoto !!!
All shutter speeds OK, smooth, and the seals are all fine... I have had three year old digital completely useless; go foigure !