Keeping a film camera too?

danks

Leading Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
0
Location
Rural Nova Scotia, CA
I have difficulty seeing myself reverting to film yet feel I should keep a film body at least until I have a second digital body to serve as a spare.

Don't want to be too hasty but I think the sooner my EOS3/PB-E2 gets to ebay, the more I will get for it. The value of film bodies will erode significantly as digital SLRs become more common in the marketplace.

How many out there are hanging onto their film bodies? Ever actually use them anymore?
 
Funny thing is that I bought my D60 and after five months I went and bought a EOS3. Figured that I might need a film backup!
How many out there are hanging onto their film bodies? Ever
actually use them anymore?
Film body? I think you are the last one owning such a thing. ;-)

Vesa
and 2*EOS-3
--
Sean
http://www.mmsean.com
http://pbase.com/slowrey

Canon D60, Tokina 19-35mm, 50mm, 85/1.8 USM, 28-70/2.8 L, 100/2.8 Macro USM, 100-400L USM IS, ST-E2, 550ex, Bogen Tripod & Monopod, Microdrives, Transcend, Mindstor and Tamrac Bags.
 
As much as I like my digital gear, it has limitations as well as mechanical issues (like the dust problem). So...the EOS1VHS/EOS3/A2E and Elan are still in my stable...although I don't shoot much film these days. Also, some competitions I participate in require film, Ahhh...give me the performance and build of the 1VHS in the size of the D60...
 
I'm on the verge of going fully digital but part of me wants to hang on to film, too.

I do plan on selling my extensive collection of Canon FD lens-based equipment and selling my EOS A2 body,VG and flash. But it is a hard decision to make since I only bought the EOS two years ago. If I sell it all, though, that would leave me filmless, so-to-speak.

I do plan to keep my EOs lenses, though ( Canon 28-70 f2.8 & Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 2X teleconverter ).

Stew
 
I have difficulty seeing myself reverting to film yet feel I should
keep a film body at least until I have a second digital body to
serve as a spare.

Don't want to be too hasty but I think the sooner my EOS3/PB-E2
gets to ebay, the more I will get for it. The value of film bodies
will erode significantly as digital SLRs become more common in the
marketplace.

How many out there are hanging onto their film bodies? Ever
actually use them anymore?
Based on discussions here and elsewhere, I thought I would not use my film cameras after buying the D30. But, guess what, just this morning I dropped off 6 rolls at the lab.

I use my film cameras for:
  • snapshots (Yashica T4 and Elan 7e), where I rather have the lab process 36 4x6 prints than having to print all those myself
  • some landscapes with my medium-format Pentax, for its high quality and pleasant workflow (when I've got the time)
  • some travel, where the small size of my Contax G cameras and lenses allows me to take more equipment in a small bag than the D30 would allow
  • super wide angle shots that are impossible with the D30
Also, unless you have/buy the 1D, I think you want to hold on to the EOS 3 for its superior autofocus compared to the D30/D60.
 
You've got to determine your level of comfort, but I've shot my last film. I have a coolpix 990 for absolute last resort. I simply have no desire to keep the film, body, etc. on the risk that my digital will cease working. It's too much like keeping a spare car in the trunk of my car instead of a spare tire.
I have difficulty seeing myself reverting to film yet feel I should
keep a film body at least until I have a second digital body to
serve as a spare.

Don't want to be too hasty but I think the sooner my EOS3/PB-E2
gets to ebay, the more I will get for it. The value of film bodies
will erode significantly as digital SLRs become more common in the
marketplace.

How many out there are hanging onto their film bodies? Ever
actually use them anymore?
 
Although I've only got my D60 for a month now, I plan to keep my Elan7E, for a number of reasons.
  • digital has its limits when you try to shoot subjects with very contrasted lighting, whereas print film and especially black and white handles it far better. I regularly have exposure problems with the D60, mostly getting blown off white areas, whereas I rarely had this problem, even with slide film.
  • As a recent test in a French magazine showed, most sensors deliver really "clean" images, but do not show tiny highlights or details as a fine grain film would. I plan to make my own tests, shooting the same subject with my favorite slide film (Provia 100) and my D60, to see if it is really that apparent.
  • I like wide angle pictures taken with a "real" 20mm and can't afford a 14mm.
  • I like to watch slides on the light table and like to show them to my friends.
I am going on holidays one week and will take both film and digital cameras. This will be a good test to see if I can still take back my film camera after several weeks. But I am confident as I already did take it back last weekend... with the 20mm!
 
I previously stated that I've kept my film gear but upon reflection I think a better answer is needed.

Look at commercial television. Some shows are shot with film; others videotaped. At least when it's film vs. videotape, film is warmer visually.

With our digital cameras, we have limitations with respect to wide angle coverage. We also have those terrible dust balls that can ruin scenic shots (happened to me more than once---AARGH).

I regret that I actually didn't shoot some of those precious scenics both with film and digital so that I would have at least one set of useful images.

Plus, as much as I like the D60, it still isn't up to par with my EOS3 or 1VHS (although I like the smaller footprint of the D60 but wish it had better build quality).

I bought the D60 and the D30 before it knowing they were far from perfect cameras. I didn't think I would use them as much as I do and they certainly made a believer out of me in digital imaging. Still, there are limitations. One thing I noticed is a bit different dynamic range. I now have a three-stop graduated neutral density filter when with film a two stop worked nicely on some scenics.

I do worry about microdrive failure. I will be in Alaska next week. I will be taking five 1gb microdrives with me, each getting 441 shots minimum in large fine JPEG (sorry, I rarely shoot RAW--quality improvement not significant enough vs. real estate consumed on the CF cards or microdrive). If I stay with large fine JPEG, that works out to 61 rolls of film, which hopefully will cover me (but I notice I shoot more with digital). I will have my 1VHS with me, too, and 20 rolls of Velvia and Provia (in fact, at the end of my trips I often wind up handing out unused film to other photographers).

I carry two batteries in my grip and another four charged up in my camera bag. I do worry about battery failure (but I have spares, so that worry is minimized). With my 1VHS, 8 AA batteries work like a charm and you can get them anywhere.

In some respects I miss coming back from a shoot and getting that box from Fuji a week or so later with my slides. But then those slides often sat in the box and took an eternity to scan. Now I come back, pop the CF card and/or microdrive in the reader and get to work.

So, although I seldom use film today, it still has a place.

I also note that there is a different learning curve with digital and it's yet to be adequately defined. With film, it really doesn't matter much whether you're shooting Nikon or Canon, they work about the same and, all things being equal, you should get the same shot with either. Not so with digital. How Nikon and Canon handle digital imaging is different. It's not like I can pick up an F5 or F100 and be shooting basic stuff within a minute even though I am not a Nikon shooter.

Ah, decisions, decisions.....

http://free.hostdepartment.com/photothewild/index.htm
 
There are still plenty of reason to shoot film. In fact, I bought another film camera after I bought the D30. One reason is that I travel a lot. I brought my D30 to Spain for a 7 day trip. One microdrive, three batteries, no recharger. I pretty much filled up the microdrive in four days shooting RAW and had to edit out a lot of stuff for the next few days. All three batteries went dead by the sixth day.

The point is, with my new Leica, I can pack three lenses in half the space and go for a month long trip without worrying about running out of film or batteries. I don't have to worry about dropping the microdrive and losing all my pictures from the trip. If I want I can drop film off in the mail as I go along so I won't lose everything if the luggage was lost. If it's a trip of a lifetime and I get some unforgettable images, I can blow them up much nicer than I can with digital. There are tons of film choices I have that would be difficult to emulate in photoshop. There are obviously many downsides to film too, but all I am saying is that there is definitely a place for film in the current state of digital affairs.

Paul.
 
Just think, with a full frame 35mm film body, you guys can get real wide angle shots with all those extreme wide angle zooms you are forced to buy.

Tariq
I have difficulty seeing myself reverting to film yet feel I should
keep a film body at least until I have a second digital body to
serve as a spare.

Don't want to be too hasty but I think the sooner my EOS3/PB-E2
gets to ebay, the more I will get for it. The value of film bodies
will erode significantly as digital SLRs become more common in the
marketplace.

How many out there are hanging onto their film bodies? Ever
actually use them anymore?
 
I have four spare batteries with me (and I just bought two more). I also bring one of my chargers. I can either recharge at my hotel overnight or in my rental car with the use of a $30 power inverter (that I pack in my regular liggage).
 
All in all a very nice, thought out answer, and I agree with it.

Another reason to keep a film body, in my view, is travel. Going to Africa? Even with the x-ray scans, you could carry a light manual SLR, lenses, and 2 boxes (40 rolls) of film a lot easier and with a lot less worry than a DSLR, extra batteries, charger, power transformers, CF cards, laptop computer, and lenses. Not to mention the trouble of finding a place to charge the equipment and upload photos each evening :- .

Is this a correct view? Not to denigrate DSLRs, but I’ve always seen that as a big limitation.

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/
 
The point is, with my new Leica, I can pack three lenses in half
the space and go for a month long trip without worrying about
running out of film or batteries.
I have thought about a Leica for the same reason. I have a D30 and a decent set of lenses/EX strobes etc, so in many ways an EOS film body would make more sense.

OTOH The EOS film body would still be very battery dependent and my EOS kit is very bulky. The only advantage over a D60 would be better AF (if I get a decent body) and wide angles.

A Leica could be the ideal travel camera. Very compact and unobtrusive and it only needs a battery for the meter. Rangefinders seem ideal for wide angle use (the lenses seem sharper and much smaller than the SLR equivalents). The down side of course is cost. Though only two or three lenses would be needed, they would not be cheap.
 
I agree that you can compensate for batteries most of the time, but it depends on the type of trips you take. For example, a trekking trip in Nepal (pretty popular and not TOO exotic) is usually about 14+ days. You might not get the opportunity to recharge the batteries, and even if you do, it's one large charger and extra weight that you'll have to carry around on your back while hiking up and down some of the tallest passes in the world.

It really just depends on the situation I guess, but there are definitely many trips that I plan to be taking where using digital would either be a major hassel or simply impossible. In all the other cases I would be happy to bring my digital with me.

Paul.
I have four spare batteries with me (and I just bought two more).
I also bring one of my chargers. I can either recharge at my hotel
overnight or in my rental car with the use of a $30 power inverter
(that I pack in my regular liggage).
 
Will use it for some ultra-wide b/w stuff with slow ilford B/W PanF (ISO 50) and for some high speed grainy Kodak 3200 b/w film which is great for shooting parties and events, with a 2.8 lens you can get away w/o flash most of the time.

m
 
Maybe another alternative might be to purchase something like a Nikon 5700 as a backup to your DSLR as opposed to Film. Anyone backing up their DSLR with another Digital Camera?
All in all a very nice, thought out answer, and I agree with it.

Another reason to keep a film body, in my view, is travel. Going to
Africa? Even with the x-ray scans, you could carry a light manual
SLR, lenses, and 2 boxes (40 rolls) of film a lot easier and with a
lot less worry than a DSLR, extra batteries, charger, power
transformers, CF cards, laptop computer, and lenses. Not to mention
the trouble of finding a place to charge the equipment and upload
photos each evening :- .

Is this a correct view? Not to denigrate DSLRs, but I’ve
always seen that as a big limitation.

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/
 
All in all a very nice, thought out answer, and I agree with it.

Another reason to keep a film body, in my view, is travel. Going to
Africa? Even with the x-ray scans, you could carry a light manual
SLR, lenses, and 2 boxes (40 rolls) of film a lot easier and with a
lot less worry than a DSLR, extra batteries, charger, power
transformers, CF cards, laptop computer, and lenses. Not to mention
the trouble of finding a place to charge the equipment and upload
photos each evening :- .

Is this a correct view? Not to denigrate DSLRs, but I’ve
always seen that as a big limitation.
The weight problem with SLRs isn't the weight of the camera body itself, it is the weight of all those lenses. A D30/60 is a fairly compact SLR, until you put on a battery grip, 550EX and a zoom lens (plus all the other lenses in the bag of course). My solution is the 28.2.8 prime and/or perhaps the 50/1.4.

If I was going to africa though, I would want a big white lens or two. I would definitely take the DSLR (and a 1V of course) .
 
Maybe another alternative might be to purchase something like a
Nikon 5700 as a backup to your DSLR as opposed to Film. Anyone
backing up their DSLR with another Digital Camera?
I would not personally do this, I don't like the compact digitals (I had one before the D30). What I will probably do is buy a D60 and keep my D30 as a backup.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top