Is 35mm Obsolete?

[Anteaus]

This is the thread that won't end. 35mm film has it's purpose but for the average joe it is economically disadvantageous to choose a film platform over a digital platform. The question isn't about quality but money. The whole point of this thread is for the OP to buy a starter camera for his wife. If any of you are like me it took hundreds to thousands of exposures before I became a really competent photographer in full manual. I can't even fathom what the film and processing costs would have been to get to that point with a film SLR. Anyone who would recommend a film SLR to a brand new photographer is just nuts when a inexpensive DSLR can be a far more economical training tool. I'm sure many of you started multiple decades ago when film SLR was all their was, but times have changed.

After that then the medium snobbiness can start, but let's just keep this focused on the OP.

 

[Zenmervolt]

normally, I take it to my lab, and they process the photos. Since Kodachrome is out (my last fav) eckta and velvia has been my new faves... I've yet to find something on digital that comes out as well as how they come out, even color corrected and balanced. VSCO does a decent job, but cannot recover highlights as well as film does.

Besides, photography is a really subjective field: some people purposely add "grain" to their digital photos to emulate the "feel" of iso 3200 B&W. B&W, nothing can touch film. Silver just look amazing...

You're talking about recovery range and shooting slides? I love, love, LOVE my Velvia and Provia, but you just can't seriously talk about exposure latitude and slide film in the same sentence. Print film is orders of magnitude more forgiving of exposure error when developing and in my experience a decent DSLR (meaning just about anything currently on the market from Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, or Canon) has slightly less than print film but still much more than slides.

Basically, with slides if you're off by more than maybe a half-stop on your exposure, you're not going to recover the shot.

For the OP: There's no reason now to start off with film unless you have a specific reason that you want to play with film. Any DSLR from Canon/Nikon from the past 5 years will give you much more flexibility than a film SLR and you'll get access to a huge lens base. Personally, I was a Minolta guy with film (I still love my old 35mm Maxxum 7) so I ended up in the Sony camp. The cameras are still great, but the availability of used lenses is rather less than Canon/Nikon.

I still think that Sony had the best implementation of live view in SLRs and their newer lower-end SLT cameras are very, very nice for beginners, but I can completely understand the draw of the lens base that Canon/Nikon boasts. None of the major brands have meaningful technical flaws so I'd look mostly to lens availability (if that's a concern) and, even moreso, to how the camera feels in your hands. I went with Minolta because I liked the way their cameras handled. Other people prefer Canon or Nikon. But always play a bit with the individual camera.

ZV

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Let's play along.

A random picture that I took a few weeks back. Canon 5D MKII & 70-200L f/4 IS.

I took this picture in Costa Rica using the Canon S95.

I really like the S95 pool shot. The S95 is the camera I always have with me and is my most used camera.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

35mm film has it's purpose but for the average joe it is economically disadvantageous to choose a film platform over a digital platform. The question isn't about quality but money

If you've been around any of the guys in the lomography movement, the energy is incredible. It reminds me of how I felt back in the '80s with my AE-1, but most of these guys are using plastic "toy" cameras...and seem to be having a ton of fun!

Here are some off the lomography facebook page:

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Let's compare...This is "chart" of mine camera

I'm pretty satisfied considering I'm an amateur and photo hobbyist...

Now, post your "chart"...not someone else, but YOURS - YOUR OWN Photo's...taken by camera you have...

And we might have something to compare...

OK Gint, here is a "chart" (i.e. photo) taken with my old D200 and the 18-70 kit lens wide-open. It was a quick snap in my back yard, with my camera in some goofball setup from shooting the night before. Technically, there is a ton wrong - but I still like the shot. How exactly would this "chart" help someone looking for technical information on either the D200 or the 18-70 kit lens?

 

[iGas]

If you've been around any of the guys in the lomography movement, the energy is incredible. It reminds me of how I felt back in the '80s with my AE-1, but most of these guys are using plastic "toy" cameras...and seem to be having a ton of fun!

Here are some off the lomography facebook page:

Holga 6x6 was the camera to have in my area/era. However, I prefer Olympus/Canon/Nikon 35mm, or Mamiya/Bronica/Pentax 6x6/6x7/645 at that time. I also played around with 4x5 & 8x10 glass plates, cyanotype and pinhole camera (the largest was 40x60" @ f/128).

 

[iGas]

I really like the S95 pool shot. The S95 is the camera I always have with me and is my most used camera.

Thanks, I love the S95 too and I use it just as much or more than my 5D MKII.

 

[Graze]

You mean the guy at Walgreens Photoshops your pics

LOL. There is not reason the what picture would come out "incredible" just because they were taken with a 35mm
I have seen enough bad photography on a fullframe DSLR.

 

[Eug]

For the entry level, and most advanced amateurs, 35 mm film is completely obsolete.

I have several cameras, including 35 mm, and even medium format, and I almost never ever use my film cameras. The range just isn't there, and more important, it costs a sheetload to get anything developed. Furthermore, we live in a digital age, and it's a major PITA to get anything off film and onto your computer properly... or else it's just more costly. In essence, 35 mm is a complete waste of time and money, unless you're looking for some very specific aspects of film and you're a dedicated hobbyist or a pro.

I won't claim to be great photographer, but I am a pragmatic one. Digital is way more convenient, and a heluvalot cheaper.

About the only issue I can really think of is the sensor size vs. 35 mm film size issue. A 35 mm size digital sensor is not cheap... but then again that's changing too. My suggestion is to get a decent crop camera in digital, and then switch to full frame if necessary later on. Don't waste your money and her time on film.

Ironically, the only film camera I'd probably use is my ancient and crappy Rollei knockoff twin-lens reflex Yashica medium format camera. I just like it. Or maybe I'd try out a holga or something. I won't be using my 35 mm SLRs though.

---

I will admit I did think more about my shots when I used film, but because I'm not really a great photographer, I'd still take 24 shots and get only a couple of usable shots. I'd bracket, which would mean a shot might have 3-5 shots, 2-4 of which would be wasted. That gets mighty expensive on film, plus you'd have to wait several days for your results. With digital, you have the results 10 seconds later, ready to be edited on your computer if desired. And don't even bother mentioning sports photography. Extremely difficult to do effectively with film for a beginner on a budget.

 

[iGas]

For the entry level, and most advanced amateurs, 35 mm film is completely obsolete.

I have several cameras, including 35 mm, and even medium format, and I almost never ever use my film cameras. The range just isn't there, and more important, it costs a sheetload to get anything developed. Furthermore, we live in a digital age, and it's a major PITA to get anything off film and onto your computer properly... or else it's just more costly. In essence, 35 mm is a complete waste of time and money, unless you're looking for some very specific aspects of film and you're a dedicated hobbyist or a pro.

I won't claim to be great photographer, but I am a pragmatic one. Digital is way more convenient, and a heluvalot cheaper.

About the only issue I can really think of is the sensor size vs. 35 mm film size issue. A 35 mm size digital sensor is not cheap... but then again that's changing too. My suggestion is to get a decent crop camera in digital, and then switch to full frame if necessary later on. Don't waste your money and her time on film.

Ironically, the only film camera I'd probably use is my ancient and crappy Rollei knockoff twin-lens reflex Yashica medium format camera. I just like it. Or maybe I'd try out a holga or something. I won't be using my 35 mm SLRs though.

---

I will admit I did think more about my shots when I used film, but because I'm not really a great photographer, I'd still take 24 shots and get only a couple of usable shots. I'd bracket, which would mean a shot might have 3-5 shots, 2-4 of which would be wasted. That gets mighty expensive on film, plus you'd have to wait several days for your results. With digital, you have the results 10 seconds later, ready to be edited on your computer if desired. And don't even bother mentioning sports photography. Extremely difficult to do effectively with film for a beginner on a budget.

The magic is in the darkroom. I spend endless amount of my awaking time in the darkroom when I was shooting with 35mm and medium format, and now it is so quick to dodge & burn with computer. And, the best is that I do not need to waste weeks of time and boxes of papers just to get a print just right.

<-- donated 3 enlargers as well as tanks/drums/trays (up to 30x40) for Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, and many gallons of chemical for B&W/Cibachrome when I gave up 35mm/medium/large format more than a decade ago.

 

[Gintaras]

I really like the S95 pool shot. The S95 is the camera I always have with me and is my most used camera.

JohnnyRebel,

2 or 3 years ago you've been heavily participating in Photography forum while you haven't even had any camera...I remember pics you taken with a borrowed camera...
I remember you wanted to spend ~$600 on a couple days of Nikon photo classes...Did it happen?
Did you finally bought a camera?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

JohnnyRebel,

2 or 3 years ago you've been heavily participating in Photography forum while you haven't even had any camera...I remember pics you taken with a borrowed camera...
I remember you wanted to spend ~$600 on a couple days of Nikon photo classes...Did it happen?
Did you finally bought a camera?

What you remember was me having some fun at your expense. I made a bunch of ridiculous statements in response to some ridiculous sounding things you said at the time.

Oh, the "borrowed camera" thing was for one particular shot. I was making a point about interesting shots taken on generic p&s cameras. Here is that photo:

No, I didn't make it to the Nikon School in Atlanta but plan to go next Spring. Thanks for asking!

Here is the camera I said was "my camera" (shot with my D7000 & 24mm f/2.8 lens) after you asked if I even had a camera:

Since you responded to my S95 comment, I'll include a spontaneous snap from that camera taken one Sunday after church, playing around with fill flash:

All these shots are jpeg images straight out of the camera, FWIW.

JR

 

[Gintaras]

What you remember was me having some fun at your expense. I made a bunch of ridiculous statements in response to some ridiculous sounding things you said at the time.

I did the same - to have some fun at your expense and of expense of others...Why those fools even get mad at me?

Fair?

What "wheels" are you taking? You were gone for some time, I guess, you were in some kind of rehabilitation facility....

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I did the same - to have some fun at your expense and of expense of others...Why those fools even get mad at me?

Fair?

What "wheels" are you taking? You were gone for some time, I guess, you were in some kind of rehabilitation facility....

You are a sad, strange little man...

 

[alkemyst]

I did the same - to have some fun at your expense and of expense of others...Why those fools even get mad at me?

Fair?

What "wheels" are you taking? You were gone for some time, I guess, you were in some kind of rehabilitation facility....

Not cool to troll DVC.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Not cool to troll DVC.

Say what?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Not cool to troll DVC

Sorry if I contributed to this by responding to Gints verbage.

 

[Gintaras]

Not cool to troll DVC.

Do I troll? I might...The World recently turned upside down....

JohnnyRebel - is a cool, very nice guy...who could even dare to call him a troll? he's a big and happy guy

Am I a small, sad guy...a troll....

 

[alkemyst]

carry on...esp now DVC joined the fray.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

carry on...esp now DVC joined the fray.

Only because you brought me up - no idea why you did, because I wasn't involved at all in that discussion. My only participation in this thread was to offer substantive input at the very beginning.

 

[alkemyst]

Only because you brought me up - no idea why you did, because I wasn't involved at all in that discussion. My only participation in this thread was to offer substantive input at the very beginning.

Digital and Video Cameras.

Sorry if you got amped up over that.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Do I troll? I might...The World recently turned upside down....

JohnnyRebel - is a cool, very nice guy...who could even dare to call him a troll? he's a big and happy guy

Am I a small, sad guy...a troll....

Now you're making sense....

 

[Syborg1211]

Let's compare...This is "chart" of mine camera

I'm pretty satisfied considering I'm an amateur and photo hobbyist...

Now, post your "chart"...not someone else, but YOURS - YOUR OWN Photo's...taken by camera you have...

And we might have something to compare...

Here you go, bud:

My "Chart"

Higher place than any of your challenge finishes... now, what exactly did that prove? I'm thinking nothing relevant to this thread or forum, but you can tell me why you requested it now.


PS - Sorry for reviving a very derailed thread, but it took me a while to make the chart that Gint requested.

 

[Gintaras]

Here you go, bud:

My "Chart"

Higher place than any of your challenge finishes... now, what exactly did that prove? I'm thinking nothing relevant to this thread or forum, but you can tell me why you requested it now.


PS - Sorry for reviving a very derailed thread, but it took me a while to make the chart that Gint requested.

Congrats buddy...for loosing sleep over this...trying hard...

3-4 places up - good achievements...

However...it isnt' a sport....who's faster...etc...etc....

Geez...kindergarten....

 

[jpeyton]

It's not dead, but film will now and forever be a niche item.

The spirit of film lives on, if the design and image processing direction of Olympus and Fuji are any indication.