- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,043
I don't use film any more. I can't stand how they crop off the top and bottom of the image when you order prints. Maybe someone around can preserve the original dimensions, but I have not found any.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Does anyone but me use old 35mm cameras anymore?
- Thread starter glockman99
- Start date
glockman99
RIP Dann, you were a good guy.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2000
- Messages
- 21,269
This is one of the reasons why I like film better than digital...Shooting film FORCES you to take a good photo in the first place.
Secret_77
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 516
I have an old Minolta. I used it to take pictures of Motor Vehicle Accident Vehicles and Accident locations. Sometimes bodily injuries. All for court attorney use... and a very good side job by the way.
The attorney's don't have time to drive out the the tow companies to get these photos before they total or repair the car. About $200 - $300 to photo one car for 15 minutes in Connecticut.
Any way the when I did a lot of these jobs the court systems preferred 35mm.
We always kept them in the cruiser too injuries and accidents.
The attorney's don't have time to drive out the the tow companies to get these photos before they total or repair the car. About $200 - $300 to photo one car for 15 minutes in Connecticut.
Any way the when I did a lot of these jobs the court systems preferred 35mm.
We always kept them in the cruiser too injuries and accidents.
timcsaw
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 21,442
I still enjoy my Pentax K-1000 (it's a great cold weather camera). I also still use my Cannon A-1 quite a bit. I've found though, that if I really want to get back to basics I grab my Minolta Autocord L twin lens or Ricohflex Super... I love the 6x6cm format (zoom lenses? Who needs 'em when you have BIG negatives!!).
Got a real nice Olympus and a butt load of expensive lenses.....haven't used them in about 3 years since we got our Nikon digital. Feel kinda guilty sometimes with all that equipment (i.e. $) sitting there but it is hard to beat the convenience of digital these days with all of the photoshop type programs, etc.
The problem is that you are taking picture of YOUR children. Borrow some photogenic ones, and you won't have those problems.
I've just gotten an email that my above statement was not taken as a joke. I did not mean to offend anybody, especially not Powernoodle. I had no idea of any further significance of my statement beyond the seemingly harmless joke that I intended it to be.
I repeat, I did not intend to offend anybody, but only make a simple joke.
Back to film cameras.
Last edited:
Doesn't Olympus offer 4/3's converter mounts for their digital SLR's? I thought they did.
If they do indeed, that might alleviate some of your guilt. Their digital SLR's aren't the worst critters, in fact they have some really nice features.
Minolta X700 for me. I can't justify the expense of upgrading to a high-quality digital camera at this point, especially when film cameras and supplies are currently so inexpensive.
Also have Dad's old Minolta SR-T 102, although I don't use it.
My earliest 'real' camera was a Minolta XG-1.
-----------------
I used to shoot slide film, mostly Kodachrome 64. But I haven't seen slide film for sale in a long time, and scanning slides is a hassle. Now I just buy Gold 200 print film.
Also have Dad's old Minolta SR-T 102, although I don't use it.
My earliest 'real' camera was a Minolta XG-1.
-----------------
I used to shoot slide film, mostly Kodachrome 64. But I haven't seen slide film for sale in a long time, and scanning slides is a hassle. Now I just buy Gold 200 print film.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
I used to have a Nikon FE-2 and before that the manual FM2. I liked both and they were what tweaked my interest in photography. I loved using Velvia as well - there is just something about the greens in velvia that make it look lush. Also slide film was really what I enjoyed to shoot. Of course slide film, as everyone says, is getting harder and harder to develop and the cost keeps getting higher - both to purchase and to process and the wait times for processing increase. I used to be able to get over-night slide development, but now it is a minimum of a week where I live.
I switched over to a Nikon D50 two years ago. I had all the same trepedations as others here have indicated. I used to think taking several pictures was simply wasteful and 'a point and shoot' mentality. Now I realize the benefit - you can compose but also bracket shots without blowing an entire roll of film on two or three compositions. True, if you just randomly point your camera and take shots you will get crappy compositions - but increasing the capacity of your camera doesn't necessary follow this point. It is sort of like the guy with the single shot gun saying, all I need is one bullet. Well that same guy could take a 3 shot mag and shoot three deer without re-loading right?
Quality doesn't suffer and there isn't a real lag between pressing the trigger button and having the shot taken - this happens on cheapy point and shoots, but not a good digital SLR. I've had LCD slide shows and projection slide shows side by side at home and really it is hard to tell the difference. The slide film gets the edge a bit, but I suspect it is a better quality lamp on my slide projector compared to my LCD one. Grain is difficult to discern in either when shots are optimized (this is only with a 6 MP camera).
Instant transferance between camera and SD card, my computer has a built in SD slot, so all I have to do is pop out the SD card from the camera and plug it into the computer. This is cool - what is not to like about this. Actually I rarely use the LCD display on my camera - as it doesn't present the shot quite the same as on the computer - so I don't trust the LCD for making composition/exposure decisions.
Really - I don't see what is not to like about the digital photography phenomena. Even had two of my old FE-2 lens work perfectly fine on the D50. One manual lens doesen't seem to work with the light meter on the new D50. On my Nikon I can take over 1000 shots on a single battery charge provided I'm not using the built in flash. A spare battery cost me something like $60 and I never have to worry about battery failure on a trip. I don't even bother bringing my re-charger anymore with the two cells.
The one weird thing is the 1.5x magnification factor of focal length in digital SLR. So this seems to help (I know not in resolution of the lens it is actually a crop) on the long focal lengths. For example a 300 mm focal length in digital has the same view in the viewfinder as a 450 mm length. This really sucks at the short end though. For landscape, my absolute favorite lens was an 24 mm - it gave me enough wide angle without distortion. To get the same view finder in digital I have to mount a 16 mm lens which is more costly. This is the one thing I really had to re-learn in digital photography. My concept of being able to simply know which focal length to use for a given field of view had to be re-learned.
Finally - super bonus of digital. The ability to switch the effective ISO setting from shot to shot. Just like film, cranking up the ISO gives you more grain, but the digital ISO really is well matched to our expectations of ISO/light configurations in terms of shutter/f-stop combos needed to make the shot. It is pretty darn awesome to be able to crank the iso down to 100 on a tripod shot, then spot some moving critters up ahead and re-set the iso to 800 for the action.
Prices are coming down at a very fast rate. Yes, you can get a used film SLR for far cheaper. However, when I bought my FM2 the body alone it was $600 and entirely equivalent to the body of an SLR today. Also, a big step up from the 1980's F-series cameras are the matrix metering or ability to switch to spot metering and autofocus capabilities. Again, I thought these were fluff but now have come to enjoy them. The autofocus works very well except at low light conditions or under some low contrast conditions where I need to shut it off and focus manually. This has nothing to do with digital - just improvements in camera technology over that of the 80's.
The body of my D50 is more plasticy then my FE-2, but it is metal re-inforced and the ergonimcs are actually much better. I do miss the 'depth of field' button missing on the D50, but available on the higher end D80 camera.
Sorry - to rain on the film nostalgia. I fully agree that equal quality shots are possible in a very cheap film-SLR configuration. However, for myself I have come to really appreciate all those bells and whistles that I had once thought were superfluous.
Hey Glockman99 - one of my favorite combos on my FE-2 and FM-2 was the 50 mm 1.4f coupled with a 2x/macro coupler. This made a great 2.8 portrait lens and worked awesome with macro. You can pick up the 50 mm 1.4f for about $35 - and it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses - be sure to get one of these, you will love the speed when you need it!
I switched over to a Nikon D50 two years ago. I had all the same trepedations as others here have indicated. I used to think taking several pictures was simply wasteful and 'a point and shoot' mentality. Now I realize the benefit - you can compose but also bracket shots without blowing an entire roll of film on two or three compositions. True, if you just randomly point your camera and take shots you will get crappy compositions - but increasing the capacity of your camera doesn't necessary follow this point. It is sort of like the guy with the single shot gun saying, all I need is one bullet. Well that same guy could take a 3 shot mag and shoot three deer without re-loading right?
Quality doesn't suffer and there isn't a real lag between pressing the trigger button and having the shot taken - this happens on cheapy point and shoots, but not a good digital SLR. I've had LCD slide shows and projection slide shows side by side at home and really it is hard to tell the difference. The slide film gets the edge a bit, but I suspect it is a better quality lamp on my slide projector compared to my LCD one. Grain is difficult to discern in either when shots are optimized (this is only with a 6 MP camera).
Instant transferance between camera and SD card, my computer has a built in SD slot, so all I have to do is pop out the SD card from the camera and plug it into the computer. This is cool - what is not to like about this. Actually I rarely use the LCD display on my camera - as it doesn't present the shot quite the same as on the computer - so I don't trust the LCD for making composition/exposure decisions.
Really - I don't see what is not to like about the digital photography phenomena. Even had two of my old FE-2 lens work perfectly fine on the D50. One manual lens doesen't seem to work with the light meter on the new D50. On my Nikon I can take over 1000 shots on a single battery charge provided I'm not using the built in flash. A spare battery cost me something like $60 and I never have to worry about battery failure on a trip. I don't even bother bringing my re-charger anymore with the two cells.
The one weird thing is the 1.5x magnification factor of focal length in digital SLR. So this seems to help (I know not in resolution of the lens it is actually a crop) on the long focal lengths. For example a 300 mm focal length in digital has the same view in the viewfinder as a 450 mm length. This really sucks at the short end though. For landscape, my absolute favorite lens was an 24 mm - it gave me enough wide angle without distortion. To get the same view finder in digital I have to mount a 16 mm lens which is more costly. This is the one thing I really had to re-learn in digital photography. My concept of being able to simply know which focal length to use for a given field of view had to be re-learned.
Finally - super bonus of digital. The ability to switch the effective ISO setting from shot to shot. Just like film, cranking up the ISO gives you more grain, but the digital ISO really is well matched to our expectations of ISO/light configurations in terms of shutter/f-stop combos needed to make the shot. It is pretty darn awesome to be able to crank the iso down to 100 on a tripod shot, then spot some moving critters up ahead and re-set the iso to 800 for the action.
Prices are coming down at a very fast rate. Yes, you can get a used film SLR for far cheaper. However, when I bought my FM2 the body alone it was $600 and entirely equivalent to the body of an SLR today. Also, a big step up from the 1980's F-series cameras are the matrix metering or ability to switch to spot metering and autofocus capabilities. Again, I thought these were fluff but now have come to enjoy them. The autofocus works very well except at low light conditions or under some low contrast conditions where I need to shut it off and focus manually. This has nothing to do with digital - just improvements in camera technology over that of the 80's.
The body of my D50 is more plasticy then my FE-2, but it is metal re-inforced and the ergonimcs are actually much better. I do miss the 'depth of field' button missing on the D50, but available on the higher end D80 camera.
Sorry - to rain on the film nostalgia. I fully agree that equal quality shots are possible in a very cheap film-SLR configuration. However, for myself I have come to really appreciate all those bells and whistles that I had once thought were superfluous.
Hey Glockman99 - one of my favorite combos on my FE-2 and FM-2 was the 50 mm 1.4f coupled with a 2x/macro coupler. This made a great 2.8 portrait lens and worked awesome with macro. You can pick up the 50 mm 1.4f for about $35 - and it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses - be sure to get one of these, you will love the speed when you need it!
timcsaw
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 21,442
I have to be "in the mood" to grab a film camera... A digital SLR is my main tool (shoot, review shot, keep it/delete it, shoot again... instant gratification!:thumbup
. THEN I get to do the photoshop "darkroom" work sans the smell of chemicals!
. THEN I get to do the photoshop "darkroom" work sans the smell of chemicals!
glockman99
RIP Dann, you were a good guy.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2000
- Messages
- 21,269
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,911
PLEASE let me know where I can get a Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens for $35...I'll be all-over that like "white on rice".
Pick up about 10 for me while you're there!
We need a "favorite lens" thread. That one would be in it a lot, I bet.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,576
Pick up about 10 for me while you're there!
We need a "favorite lens" thread. That one would be in it a lot, I bet.
Mine is the Canon 1.4f 50 mm S.S.C. A great lens.
peter
bladefixation2
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,391
mines the Canon 17-40 F4 L I hardly ever use another lens.
Absintheur
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 3,280
I still use the Minolta I bought when I was in the military in the early 80's, but I do like the instant results of the digital as well. If I need pics fast I reach for the digital but I do prefer the 35mm for most outdoor photos.
Daniel
Gold Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 3,929
I still use a Canon 7e and a Nikon FM3A on occasion. I still think that film gives better photos than digital.
I really like using the FM3A. It seems to put you more in touch with the craft.
Mostly use a Canon 20D due to quicker results and immediate feedback, but it still doesn't have the special feel of taking the photo and then waiting for the results. Digital is a hell of a lot cheaper and in reality, more forgiving.
I really like using the FM3A. It seems to put you more in touch with the craft.
Mostly use a Canon 20D due to quicker results and immediate feedback, but it still doesn't have the special feel of taking the photo and then waiting for the results. Digital is a hell of a lot cheaper and in reality, more forgiving.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
PLEASE let me know where I can get a Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens for $35...I'll be all-over that like "white on rice".
My mistake - I guess they go more for like $150 used, although there were a couple dubious ones on sleezybay for $50. I guess I should of types 50 mm 1.8f and I would have been closer to the mark. Still the f1.8 is a great lens, but I like my 1.4 a little better
I started with a Minolta SRT 101. I traded this for a Canon AE-1P. I was recently given a Nikon F with the F Tn view finder. I have had a little trouble getting this camera back up and running, but seem to have solved the problems. There is just something about film camera's that does not translate to digital. The old Nikon has a needle at the top of the view finder. You have to manualy set the film speed, The F stop of the lens, the shutter speed, and the aperature opening, and then focus the lens. What a hoot in todays point and shoot view of photography.
Last edited: