There really isn't any reason to buy a 35mm camera anymore...
I just did, but I'm weird. To each his own, but don't count film out yet. I do realize this forum is labeled "digital and video cameras" and its a tech forum so I expect a fully tech bias.
It's become niche thats for sure. Digital photos to me are just so boring.
Such a huge step back for point & shooters.
How so? I found with my kodak z812IS that out of the 150 or so pictures I'd take - I'd only get about 20 actual usable shots. The rest had blown out skies, underexposed midtones, wrong color casts, bad autofocus performance, terrible sharpness unless I tried really hard at getting the light of the scene right, etc.
With the wide latitude of film you don't need to worry as much about the light and sharpness. So out of 24 shots with a roll of film - I get 20 good pictures.
Same result. Now you do have to drive it to the minilab and pay, thats a big minus. But for the cost of a 35mm camera (oftentimes these days free, or very very cheap for something of extremely high quality) - vs the cost of a point and shoot and the need for a computer, etc. You spend the same amount of time in photoshop that you do taking in the film, and the digicam costs more to begin with, so you end up ahead after a couple of months with the digital camera.
I'm not advocating that everyone should use film, but its certainly still got some merits.
I don't know how many times I see inexperienced p&sers at the zoo or some gathering taking pics going "wait do it again that one was fuzzy", or "it didn't come out do it again".
The big problem I have with the p&s stuff is that the manufacturers force you to use a power hungry LCD and folks hold the camera at arms length, maximizing camera shake, and don't include even a smidgen of real choice in how the picture comes out. The "modes" (beach, indoors, portrait, landscape, etc) don't count. Sure automation is nice but I've yet to see any camera (even the oft lauded a590) come close to the results of someone who controls just the 3 big parameters, iso, shutter, aperture.
I'll get these up and tagged on Facebook in a couple days after they're developed and I'm finished scanning.
Takes an hour at the minilab, they often make simple scan CD's for you too in an hour.
Developing yourself takes about half an hour and if you scan the negatives you can have them up before your done in photoshop weeding through the rejects.
Just my 2 cents.
A good aps-c digital slr produces a better quality print than 35mm film will
That is subjective. There is a reason why every money-making wedding photographer, and the ones shooting the large yachts in my area for magazines still use 35mm or 120/220 film. The ones using digital beat them in quantity, but when it comes to quality - film still wins. I feel that the full frame stuff is just now catching up to the quality of 35mm and 120 film is a long way off.
Not to lose focus (clever pun lol) - I see what you want to do fetus, and thats a good choice for you, but not the only one.
Jk jk
Facebook
Twitter