35MM Camera's-Anyone use them anymore?

mrearlygold · May 21, 2011 4:15AM

What say you?

AngryTurtle · May 21, 2011 4:22AM

My last 35mm shot was circa 2003. I then bought a 3.5 megapixel camera, and have since moved up to cameras between 12 and 18 mp. 3.5 mp is really still good for most things.

MsMorrisine · May 21, 2011 4:24AM

I need a dSLR w/macro lens and stand.

We still have a 35mm film camera and use it, as well as the digital point-n-shoots.

drwstr123 · May 21, 2011 6:13AM

I've got a Nikon body with about 1 roll shot and haven't touched it in years.

messydesk · May 21, 2011 6:15AM

Mine is now a souvenir of the 22 years that I used it. Just checked and the battery (it's on its third) is still good.

LindeDad · May 21, 2011 6:30AM

Last time I used either the Pentax or the Olympus the kids were babies now the kids are having babies.

slipgate · May 21, 2011 6:57AM

I have a Nikon N55 almost new in the box that hasn't been touched in almost 5 years. I did remove the battery though!

Mission16 · May 21, 2011 7:40AM

Just a couple disposable ones that need to be shot up.

I really miss my Canon t50.

lcoopie · May 21, 2011 8:06AM

Link

ctf_error_coins · May 21, 2011 8:53AM

35mm film cameras are dead, period.

PinkFloyd · May 21, 2011 9:04AM

<< 35mm film cameras are dead, period. >>

I'd disagree. For coins, perhaps. But for other things, a good quality film shot can aesthetically look more pleasing than digital IMO. However, this is getting into the art realm. I'm not denying the high quality and instant results that digital gives.

ctf_error_coins · May 21, 2011 9:11AM

<< 

<< 35mm film cameras are dead, period. >>

I'd disagree. For coins, perhaps. But for other things, a good quality film shot can aesthetically look more pleasing than digital IMO. However, this is getting into the art realm. I'm not denying the high quality and instant results that digital gives. >>

I would still use 4x5 film for landscape photography altho I would love a 4x5 digital back.

As far as 35mm film verses a 35mm size digital SLR, well the digital sesnor now blows away film and they are only going to get better.

SaorAlba · May 21, 2011 9:15AM

Occasionally, I have a 35mm Nikon that I use rarely. I am currently looking to order some 60mm film for my 1915 Kodak brownie though, it was my great great grandmothers and is in perfect condition - in fact I have the original sales receipt and a lot of early photos that were taken with it.

Barry · May 21, 2011 9:35AM

I sold my Nikon SLR and lenses about 5 years ago.

In my office, had a polaroid camera attached to an ultrasound machine. Film for it is no longer made.

291fifth · May 21, 2011 9:51AM

I still use a Nikon F5 and FM2N for fine art photography. I use my Nikon D100 digital for eBay photos.

For anything important I like to have actual negatives.

thisnamztaken · May 21, 2011 9:55AM

I still have an Olympus SLR OM10 (or is it AE10?) stored away that I last used in the late 1980's.
Even older than that, I have a Ansco folding camera:

ElKevvo · May 21, 2011 10:34AM

I have a Pentax that I use occasionally just because I have a wide range of lenses for it. Just a couple of weeks ago a dad was taking photos of my son's team playing baseball with a 35 MM and I chatted with him about it. He used to be pretty heavy into photography and like the ability to set things to get what he wanted and was familiar with the stuff he had so he just has kept using it.

K

MaineJim · May 21, 2011 12:01PM

I have a draw full of them. It has been almost ten years since I used one. Good call on the batteries. I've tried selling them a couple times but couldn't stomach what I was offered. I guess it is time to just let them go as I know I'll never use them. I have a camcorder sitting next to them...

Maine_Jim

GAT · May 21, 2011 12:18PM

I own a Zeiss Ikon 35mm camera that I purchased at the Amsterdam airport 40 years ago. It takes beauiful pictures but I haven't used it in 20 years. Can you still purchase 35mm film?

ambro51 · May 21, 2011 12:19PM

35mm and film in general is dead. Kaput. driven out by the need for instant gratification and the fact that for the most part digital photography is free.

I last took out my Leica IIIc a few months ago, felt totally 'wrong' with it...wanting to look in the screen, and see my image. They are dead dead dead.

Even worse, when you DO shoot a roll...chances are it lies around in a drawer. As to better...keep in mind all modern photofinishing of 35mm film creates a negative, which is then digitally scanned, and a computer makes your prints.

so, it gets ya one way or the other.

(Of course, NO form of photography is really dead, Daguerreotypes, Calotypes, Ambrotypes, Tintypes, all are still made. People still shoot 16 mm movie film, 127 film is coveted by its fans....even 110 Kodak cartridges...still used here and there)

Rob85635 · May 21, 2011 12:26PM

Minolta X700, assorted lenses, bag, cleaning supplies, accessories all collecting dust. Original purchase price for all the stuff over $1500 easy. I am eye-balling the Nikon 7000. Pricey, but nice.

ambro51 · May 21, 2011 12:29PM

It is sad too.... I have a full visoflex system for my Leica, and a copy stand for it.....the visoflex is pretty neat since it actually puts a mirror reflex viewing system, with a magnified ground glass...puts this in the film plane so it was state of the art for coin photgraphy about 1950 or so. It would do wonderful images...someday.......

OnWithTheHunt · May 21, 2011 2:13PM

Sold off almost all my 35mm bodies and lenses when I switched. Hung on to the Nikon FE-2 I used most along with a motor drive and a 105 mm. F2.5. lens (I wish the ones I have now were that sharp.) Every once in a while, when I have to move the whole rig off the shelf it's decorated ever since, I remember I still can't operate my digiltal SLR as smoothly.

photog · May 21, 2011 2:46PM

<< 35mm film cameras are dead, period. >>

No no no! Not in Portland, we're downright film snobs here! We pay good money for our cameras, our film, our prints, and we love them. And we aren't the only pocket of film nerds in the world, trust me. I just happened to land in a city full of photographers.

<< In my office, had a polaroid camera attached to an ultrasound machine. Film for it is no longer made. >>

I have a Polaroid back for my Mamiya RB67, and buy Fuji pull-apart film for it at a local shop, no problems. It's about $1.20-$1.50 a shot, depending on whether I get color or black and white. True, Polaroid instant is no longer made, but Fuji makes great replacement film.

<< As far as 35mm film verses a 35mm size digital SLR, well the digital sensor now blows away film and they are only going to get better. >>

Completely disagree. The crop sensors be absolute crap, frankly, especially in low situations. The colors rendered on a 35mm slide shot with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia simply cannot be reproduced with any sensor out there - I've seen it all attempted - from top of the line Canon to Nikon - the medium format digitals can't quite get there, either. True, you need a great scanner to translate that slide into a medium that's able to be shared, such as online or through prints, but I have 16x20s of scanned slides that look simply AMAZING. I'm not knocking digital - but there is an indefinable quality about film that makes some of us photographers a little weak in the knees and digital cannot mimic it, period. There is no grain effect out there that matches actual grain. Noise is disgusting - grain is sort of delicious. Digital has come a long way, but there's a reason many talented photographers continue to shoot film, and it's not just habit. There has been a distinct digital backlash in the last few years, actually. You can make any film shot digital by scanning - a digital photograph will never, ever be a negative. And don't get me started on the "black and white" that comes out of cameras or photoshop. It's just not remotely the same. The tones have never been accurately reproduced, any film photographer can back me on that one. You can come close, but it's just...not the same.

For shooting coins I wouldn't bother with film, especially if I couldn't print the images myself in a lab (and color is difficult to the point of being senseless at home) because even with a gray card or color balance card in the roll, the printer might choose to make something lighter, darker, or warmer, or cooler, and even the chemicals, depending on their age, can have an effect on the final print. (I ran a photo lab for nearly 5 years - trust me - prints from negatives are mighty subjective.)

I own, and regularly use, a Nikon F5 I paid $2,169 for in 1999, a Nikon F from 1969, a Pentax ZX-50 (I have great lenses for it), a Lomo Fisheye, a 1966 Mamiya/Sekor 35mm converted to a peephole camera, a Zero Image Pinhole camera, a Holga, a Mamiya RB67 with 120 and Polaroid backs (I use both), and have a 1954 Land Camera being converted to a 6x10 medium format. I LOVE film. I have friends who still only shoot film weddings. I only stopped shooting weddings exclusively on film about five years ago myself, though we still bring film cameras with us. And yes, I shoot digitally in my studio as well as the office, but I always have at least one film camera on me whenever I travel. When I shoot a wedding in Zion National Park next month, I'm going to be a like a pack-mule with all my gear, and it will be WORTH it to have film from the trash-the-dress shoot in The Subway.

Digital is instant gratification, film is a process that you never really fall out of love with. I get giddy when I pick up a roll of film at my local trusted lab - the big tube, unrolling my giant medium format slide film, poring over it, or my roll of 35mm negatives (which I can read very well and know instantly if any of them are "the" shot I was hoping for), and I race home to scan the negs/slides. I use digital AND film at most events I attend. Some of my most amazing photos were taken with film, even recently. When you have a knack for it, when you know what sort of film to use, what sort of exposure to go for, how your particular body and lens talk to each other, you can make amazing things come out of your film camera, things that just have a quality about them that digital can't reproduce. There is a reliability in my gear. Yes, something could go wrong at the lab and the film could be lost forever, but a card could be corrupt, a back up file could be lost, there are horror stories of all kinds out there for any camera or output you could imagine.

In truth, there's a time and a place for everything. There are lazy mornings shooting with film, there are crazy parties passing around a digital point and shoot, there are also crazy parties passing around a fisheye film camera, and lazy hikes to secluded places with just a digital camera and a snack. Film isn't going away, despite all the doomsday predictions of the last decade. I can buy film easily and it's affordable, and have reliable labs within miles of my home. I can also buy huge bulk selections of film through great places online, in fact, sometimes my photographer friends and pool our Adorama purchases together and split shipping. Many still develop their black and white at home.

I'm not afraid to be a film-defender, and I know many, many others. I know amazing digital photographers, too, but dare I say a good number of them wouldn't know how to get an image right "in the camera" and rely so heavily on post-processing in Photoshop as to be a bit of a joke. Talented artists? Certainly. Photographers? Eh. I'm more impressed by a mind-blowing slide than a heavily processed, HDR landscape any day!

Raybo · May 21, 2011 3:17PM

Film will never die IMHO.
Digital can come close to reproducing the texture but it will never be spot on.

I still have my K1000 and a few rolls of film that I use on occasion.

Raybo · May 21, 2011 3:20PM

BTW,

I always shoot Jpeg with my DSLR, PP is for those that can't get it right the first time.

morgandollar1878 · May 21, 2011 3:27PM

I still have my Nikon 8008s, and it works perfectly.

rmpsrpms · May 21, 2011 11:41PM

Sounds a lot like the CD vs LP debates that still continue to this day.

I was never a 35mm guy. I hated the time it took to process them. I hated the uncertainty of whether I got the shot I wanted, or was the moment lost forever. You have to know what you are doing with film a lot more than with digital, which can be a lot of trial and error and you get to know what you're doing a lot faster with immediate feedback. Mistakes are more forgiving and can be corrected.

All that said, I am a big analog guy and still listen to my LP collection, and of course using vacuum tube amplification. So I'm with you guys who can't break from the past.

And of all the responses so far, this is my favorite:

"I get giddy when I pick up a roll of film at my local trusted lab - the big tube, unrolling my giant medium format slide film, poring over it, or my roll of 35mm negatives (which I can read very well and know instantly if any of them are "the" shot I was hoping for), and I race home to scan the negs/slides."

astrorat · May 22, 2011 12:06AM

What is this "film" you speak of?

ricko · May 22, 2011 12:11AM

These cameras are one of the most common things found at yard/garage sales now. Trouble is, the sellers still think they have value and price them accordingly - so no one buys them and they go back in the house to gather more dust. Cheers, RickO

photog · May 22, 2011 3:18AM

Of course I get giddy and race home to scan them, so I can post them online! I don't bother paying the lab to do what I can do at home.

But you're right, if you aren't danged sure you know what you're doing, you've missed it. But the same could be said of a digital camera - if your focus or exposure is off, it will always be off. You can push an image digitally but it's going to deteriorate, just like dodging and burning an image in the darkroom isn't going to replace detail that doesn't exist on the negative. A bad photo will always be a bad photo - whether on a CF card or a negative.

PS- you're correct that some cameras hold little to no value, but plenty do, depending on the market. A medium format I paid $200 for in NH sells for $600+ here in Portland, OR. My F5 body still sells at $600 or more; the original F from 1969 is still worth an easy $100; the 1966 Mamiya/Sekor is a $5 camera, the Pinhole is a $200 camera, the Pentax is a $50 camera; many cameras that take defunct film, like old Argus TLRs and Brownies are only $5-$10 junkers that look cool on your shelf. The value is very much in the usability of the camera.

mrearlygold · May 22, 2011 3:24AM

Ahhh but can you image coins as good with a 35MM ?

photog · May 22, 2011 3:53AM

That's why I stated, "For shooting coins I wouldn't bother with film, especially if I couldn't print the images myself in a lab (and color is difficult to the point of being senseless at home) because even with a gray card or color balance card in the roll, the printer might choose to make something lighter, darker, or warmer, or cooler, and even the chemicals, depending on their age, can have an effect on the final print."

There were some amazing film coin photographers - but I think any of us who shoot coins for a living are glad to have digital. It's faster, simpler, and you can instantly adjust your lighting for the results you need, plus it's easy to control your white balance.

ambro51 · May 22, 2011 3:55AM

The huge gorilla in the room currently with "photography as we know it' is that we are now relying on electronic storage and display of data, which THROUGH HISTORY has shown itself constantly in flux and technology turning over on a generational basis.

There is no guarantee of in fact NO HOPE that a digital image you make this afternoon will be in existence in any way shape or form easily available in fifty years.

photog · May 22, 2011 4:03AM

<< The huge gorilla in the room currently with "photography as we know it' is that we are now relying on electronic storage and display of data, which THROUGH HISTORY has shown itself constantly in flux and technology turning over on a generational basis.

There is no guarantee of in fact NO HOPE that a digital image you make this afternoon will be in existence in any way shape or form easily available in fifty years. >>

You are totally correct. My RAW files are adobe DNG format, which in theory will remain readable for some time, and we all hope jpg will stick around, but even then...storage is a whole other ballgame. I read recently in Rolling Stone about a ton of artists who have lost master recordings from the 80s because the digital files were unreadable or deteriorated. The Cult's album Love stands out in my mind as an album whose original recordings are virtually non-existent.

Zoins · May 22, 2011 4:07AM

From my perspective, it's quite likely digital images taken today will be easily accessible and usable fifty years from now. However, the future format may not be a format used today, but one that is easily converted to. Today, there are many applications that can easily convert one type of digital image data to another and I expect this to remain the case in the future.

For storage, media can degrade or fail so it is beneficial to periodically validate your files and have multiple backups. One way to do this is to use a RAID at home or store it in the cloud where multiple copies are saved. For example, Amazon S3 will store your data in 3 different locations. The nice thing about digital files is that the copies will be perfect duplicates.

With digital files, these issues can be easily mitigated with a little bit of planning.

ambro51 · May 22, 2011 4:18AM

gotta love paper prints.

I pull out the ones from Mom and Dad...childhood, camping, class trips....all priceless.

and, I dont have to convert anything.

PS In praise of the 35 mm camera, my first one was a Rollei B35, which was a very very small full frame 35mm camera about the size of a cigarette pack. It had a pull out 40mm lens and made pin sharp images. Only thing you had to remember was you HAD to extend the lens before you wound the film (If you didnt you ruined the camera).

Zoins · May 22, 2011 4:25AM

Paper prints are a great way to share

I used to develop a bit of 35mm and one of the nice things was assembling and sharing photo albums. However, developing film was costly and was one of the drivers for switching to digital. With digital, I review first and only develop the ones I like using an online service or a B&M. Pre-selecting the shots to be developed reduces the costs substantially. These services use photographic paper for prints but I'm not sure if how the quality compares. Of course, you can make reprints at will.

I've also had poster size prints done which hang on my walls for a nice touch.

For your walls, you also have the option of printing them on canvas to simulate art work which I have yet to try but anticipate doing.

Zoins · May 22, 2011 4:40AM

BTW, for many types of photography, I don't believe digital is anywhere close to film; however, it is good for many convenience type photos.

A while back, I read that theoretically you need 75 megapixels or so to simulate a 35mm negative; and digital sensors are having problems at their current limits.

If you want to see what one professional photographer thinks is the best camera, swing by Michael Fatali's gallery if you're ever by Zion National Park. That's the camera he uses for his professional photos. It uses 8.5"x11" negatives.

ctf_error_coins · May 22, 2011 5:13AM

<< If you want to see what one professional photographer thinks is the best camera, swing by Michael Fatali's gallery if you're ever by Zion National Park. That's the camera he uses for his professional photos. It uses 8.5"x11" negatives.>>

LOL, this guy Fatali (whom I've met out in the field) has a very BAD rep, not a very good example

READ

I have shot 4x5 film for 30 years. I still like film better for that size format. A high end digital sensor would be very nice if I could justify the expense which I can not. BUT, when it comes to 35mm format, Film can't compete with digital. No way.

Zoins · May 22, 2011 5:22AM

<< 

<< If you want to see what one professional photographer thinks is the best camera, swing by Michael Fatali's gallery if you're ever by Zion National Park. That's the camera he uses for his professional photos. It uses 8.5"x11" negatives. >>

LOL, this guy Fatali (whom I've met out in the field) has a very BAD rep, not a very good example

READ

I have shot 4x5 film for 30 years. I still like film better for that size format. A high end digital sensor would be very nice if I could justify the expense which I can not. BUT, when it comes to 35mm format, Film can't compete with digital. No way. >>

I never read that but that is desecration! Good to know that about him.

Did you run into him taking landscapes in Southern Utah?

ctf_error_coins · May 22, 2011 5:35AM

<< 

<< 

<< If you want to see what one professional photographer thinks is the best camera, swing by Michael Fatali's gallery if you're ever by Zion National Park. That's the camera he uses for his professional photos. It uses 8.5"x11" negatives. >>

LOL, this guy Fatali (whom I've met out in the field) has a very BAD rep, not a very good example

READ

I have shot 4x5 film for 30 years. I still like film better for that size format. A high end digital sensor would be very nice if I could justify the expense which I can not. BUT, when it comes to 35mm format, Film can't compete with digital. No way. >>

I never read that but that is desecration! Good to know that about him.

Did you run into him taking landscapes in Southern Utah? >>

Yes I did, in fact it was the same place I ran into David Muench for the first time

Zoins · May 22, 2011 5:59AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< If you want to see what one professional photographer thinks is the best camera, swing by Michael Fatali's gallery if you're ever by Zion National Park. That's the camera he uses for his professional photos. It uses 8.5"x11" negatives. >>

LOL, this guy Fatali (whom I've met out in the field) has a very BAD rep, not a very good example

READ

I have shot 4x5 film for 30 years. I still like film better for that size format. A high end digital sensor would be very nice if I could justify the expense which I can not. BUT, when it comes to 35mm format, Film can't compete with digital. No way. >>

I never read that but that is desecration! Good to know that about him.

Did you run into him taking landscapes in Southern Utah? >>

Yes I did, in fact it was the same place I ran into David Muench for the first time

>>

Sounds like a good trip. Hope you got some great shots!

MikeInFL · May 22, 2011 6:00AM

I've been 100% digital since 2001.

ambro51 · May 22, 2011 6:08AM

I think for coin photography, if you wanted to go 'retro" with your image technique, a square format may be worth considering. Best here (and almost only is 2 1/4" format, which is 120 roll fill (or 220 which is the same but without the paper backer, more exposures). This film is available in all types, from color print to ektachrome slide and traditional black and white. A quality camera is the Hasselblad, a single lens reflex viewing camera,and using a close up lens, on a copy stand, with proper lighting, cable release and a bit of experience, amazing images could be produced.

Ektachrome film can capture colors like no other. I would say that in the hand so of a good photographer those toner Morgan dollars would bounce like never before

photog · May 22, 2011 8:57AM

I think you'd find very few people willing to drop $600 on a Hasselblad to experiment with film coin photography.

Related, an old item I own, is a coin camera that used to belong to Bill Fivaz, that my father picked up for me several years ago, I believe at the ANA Summer Seminar. This is a camera made for photographing coins and stamps. This baby is essentially its own ring flash/light box that takes 127 film, color or black and white.

It's about 10x10x8 in size, and there's a slide that fits inside, one side has a black square (for shooting stamps, to get the contrast of the edges) and the other side has a white square, center your coin on it and you have the perfect background.

This is basically a really crappy Brownie imitation glued (crooked you might notice) onto a homemade box for a specific purpose. I have never actually used it myself, as I don't have any of the correct film nor have I ever cut any down or tried modifying this to take 35 in any way.

Knowing what I do, I'm guessing it's pretty much set up to take photos that are in focus when an item is very flat, and laying on the insert, meaning it would be useless for other items, like jewelry, and the square on the insert implies the item also has to be small. No big medals for this beast.

It actually has a functioning shutter, it operates with one of those switches you see. One switch controls B+W or color settings (there appears to be a gel inside for color film), one turns the bulb on and off, and the other, when you flip it, briefly opens the shutter. There is no way to keep it open longer without taking the mechanism all apart.

It's really...pretty obsolete, pretty useless for most anything other than its intended application, and yet I wouldn't get rid of it.

Obsolete Coin Camera

291fifth · May 22, 2011 9:23AM

<< The huge gorilla in the room currently with "photography as we know it' is that we are now relying on electronic storage and display of data, which THROUGH HISTORY has shown itself constantly in flux and technology turning over on a generational basis.

There is no guarantee of in fact NO HOPE that a digital image you make this afternoon will be in existence in any way shape or form easily available in fifty years. >>

Fifty years, try ten years. Always make hard copies of important photos.

mgoodm3 · May 22, 2011 9:23AM

I haven't ever shot coins with anything other than digital. When you see all of the wild colors of artistic photography, while they do look good, they are a bit overdone when compared to reality. That kinda of representation doens't work well for coins. As opposed to landscapes, coins cease to look good when the colors are amped up. For me, coin images work best when they are deadly accurate. Digital does a good job with "accurate".

adamlaneus · May 22, 2011 9:28AM

Slide film also does an excellent job with accuracy. The enhancements you mention are generally done with post-processing.

But film is not convenient for coin photography. Especially when you fail to get the focal plane square with the coin and realize this many days later when the film comes back.
When there is plenty of light available, especially outdoors, I still like to use slide film. But I am happy with what digital sensors can do too, especially for challenging photos where film would be iffy.

Digital sensors also have a dust issue. So for bad environments, a film camera is still good. Cheap too. Because nobody wants 'em.

ambro51 · May 22, 2011 9:57AM

Well, a lot of people are taking pictures now who werent when the price of film and developing was a hinderance

adamlaneus · May 22, 2011 10:03AM

oh man i miss kodachrome. im old.

35MM Camera's-Anyone use them anymore?

Comments

Leave a Comment