Film SLRs before DSLRs (for a n00b)

[Designer Dale]

AGREED!

When I went to Penn State years back I had a photography class where I wasn't allowed to use my Canon 20D since they wanted us to use film and learn all about the history of photography...

Um..ok that stuff has its place but it should be up to the student to research. No wonder kids come out of college unprepared, there is too much focus on the "old ways" of doing things and not enough focus on new, cutting edge technology that employers are after.

Ooops enough of that tangent. I eventually won my argument that film was dead and we should be using current technology and learning an all digital workflow so I got to use my 20D

I have a photography degree from Ohio University during the "Film Era". First year students were required to use large format film cameras from the school lab to eliminate any technical advantage that the well-heeled guys and gals with top flight Nikon and Hasselblads had. It put all of us on the same plane. During my last year they made the incoming students build pinhole cameras from cardboard boxes. Forced everyone to focus on framing and composition.

With all of that said, I wouldn't really recommend a film camera for learning photography outside of school.

Dale

 

[HBOC]

usually for the Velvia slides, I will buy the Fuji mailers from B&H. They are waay cheaper than the local place, plus Fuji develops it (in Phoenix). Turn around isn't that long (anything longer than digital is a long time, however), and I have never had a problem with them.

There is a local pro place that still has a large selection of film in a refrigerated room. They also develop it, although I haven't used them.

 

[Mumstalker]

You mexican and from guanajuato mate? I'm from Irapuato. I used an Old Canon A1. And i got Pro image films from Sam's club for 100 pesos a pack of five. Also, i took my films to develop there, and for 30 pesos, they would develop them and scan all my 5 rolls. now, i was using the old Canon because i was saving for a digital FF

 

[DavidChavez]

You mexican and from guanajuato mate? I'm from Irapuato. I used an Old Canon A1. And i got Pro image films from Sam's club for 100 pesos a pack of five. Also, i took my films to develop there, and for 30 pesos, they would develop them and scan all my 5 rolls. now, i was using the old Canon because i was saving for a digital FF

Hey? Cómo sabes dónde vivo? Acaso me espías? Es bueno encontrar gente que vive cerca

Anyway, this is an english spoken forum, so...
I'll try in Sam's. In Guanajuato MacroFoto still alive, so there I'll can print my old rolls and get new ones.

Again, film photos is a sub-hobby of photography hobby. Not using forever.

 

[Mumstalker]

Hey? Cómo sabes dónde vivo? Acaso me espías? Es bueno encontrar gente que vive cerca

Anyway, this is an english spoken forum, so...
I'll try in Sam's. In Guanajuato MacroFoto still alive, so there I'll can print my old rolls and get new ones.

Again, film photos is a sub-hobby of photography hobby. Not using forever.

Your Flickr mate, .

I like Sam's club since the prices are dirt cheap. Now, about the Holga, i believe it's a 120mm Camera, and it will be a tad harder to get the film.

 

[Edge100]

But really, digital is better 99% of the time. What do you see 99% of people using?

Do you REALLY believe that argument? Do you use a Mac? Do 99% of computer users use Macs?

Now, I agree with you; full frame digital is better than 135 film, if only because of its low price and convenience vs. film. There's no longer any good reason, other than nostalgia, to shoot 135 film; IMHO, this has been the case since at least the release of the Canon 1DsII and its 16MP FF sensor.

Medium format film and larger is a completely different ballgame. A 60MP H4D MF camera will run you $40,000. OR, you could pick up a 503CW for $2300 (or a used Hassy for even less). How much MF film could you shoot for the difference?

When people say "film", then typically mean 135 film. There's a whole other world of film, though.

 

[luminosity]

There's no longer any good reason, other than nostalgia, to shoot 135 film; IMHO, this has been the case since at least the release of the Canon 1DsII and its 16MP FF sensor.

Again, some people (like me) very much like and sometimes prefer the organic look of film to digital. Certainly that is almost always true for me when it comes to B/W photography. Slide film is beautiful when done right, and even print film can look good sometimes.

 

[Edge100]

There's no longer any good reason, other than nostalgia, to shoot 135 film; IMHO, this has been the case since at least the release of the Canon 1DsII and its 16MP FF sensor.

Again, some people (like me) very much like and sometimes prefer the organic look of film to digital. Certainly that is almost always true for me when it comes to B/W photography. Slide film is beautiful when done right, and even print film can look good sometimes.

Yes, slide film is beautiful when done right.

However, given the fact that I can approximate the look of good slide film to a very high degree (not trying to say digital + PS = film, per se) AND given the relative costs of FF digital vs. slide film over time, to me the balance has now swung definitively to the digital side.

Again, not to say that film is useless, and there certainly is an "organic" feel you can get from film that is difficult to get from many digital cameras. But the differences are now very, very small, and probably not worth the cost for most people.

This doesn't apply to MF and larger, of course.

 

[luminosity]

You're looking at it from a "what is best" angle, and I'm not looking at it that way at all. I like the way film looks. Period. I think I'll always like the way film looks and will continue to use it as long as it is available.

There is a very marked difference between digital B/W and silver B/W, and I've not seen anything that comes remotely close. One is made out of chemicals and the other isn't, and the differing looks follow accordingly.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Definitely only use film after youve already learned how to be a good photographer witha DSLR. Theres nothing better for learning than a DSLR and probably nothing worse than a regular SLR. Film is a horrible horrible horrible way to learn photography, it makes it so much more difficult and delays your improvement by a great deal, not to mention its very expensive. I cant tell you how much I hated film when going through photography class, the amount of progress I and my classmates made during the semester was absolutely pathetic compared to other classes. Digital on the other hand allows you to experiment and learn as much as you want at a fast rate, its the perfect learning tool.

Film should be reserved as an "advanced" form of photography, beginners should stay away.

 

[Edge100]

You're looking at it from a "what is best" angle, and I'm not looking at it that way at all. I like the way film looks. Period. I think I'll always like the way film looks and will continue to use it as long as it is available.

There is a very marked difference between digital B/W and silver B/W, and I've not seen anything that comes remotely close. One is made out of chemicals and the other isn't, and the differing looks follow accordingly.

I understand, and obviously if you like the look of film, then keep using it. We're all trying to replicate that look anyway, so why not shoot with the real thing, right?

My point is merely that the decision to shoot 35mm film vs. digital is no longer one made by virtue of digital's inability to take acceptable photographs (or even to very closely approximate the look of film). If it's a stylistic choice, then so be it. But the old arguments against digital just don't apply anymore.

I used to be a sound recordist, and the same argument was being had a few years ago with digital/Pro Tools vs. analog tape. In the mid-to-late '90s, there was no doubt that digital audio recording just couldn't deliver the warmth and intimacy of 2" analog tape; the A/D converters just weren't up to it. Sure, tape cost a lot more and was WAY less convenient, but it was also straight up better quality. The same thing can no longer be said; modern Pro Tools HD systems and high quality plugins sound every bit as good as tape; not identical, mind you, but of equivalent quality. Add to that the ease of editing and mixing digitally, and you have a system that is in every way preferable to analog, with an exception for those people, like yourself, who want the specific subjective qualities that analog tape (or film) impart.

My point is merely that digital cameras (or Pro Tools rigs) are now capable of making final products that are of the same quality as film (or tape), and that the significant trade-offs of 35mm film no longer justify its use for most people.

 

[Edge100]

Definitely only use film after youve already learned how to be a good photographer witha DSLR. Theres nothing better for learning than a DSLR and probably nothing worse than a regular SLR. Film is a horrible horrible horrible way to learn photography, it makes it so much more difficult and delays your improvement by a great deal, not to mention its very expensive. I cant tell you how much I hated film when going through photography class, the amount of progress I and my classmates made during the semester was absolutely pathetic compared to other classes. Digital on the other hand allows you to experiment and learn as much as you want at a fast rate, its the perfect learning tool.

Film should be reserved as an "advanced" form of photography, beginners should stay away.

I completely agree with you, though one could, I suppose, look at it from the other side; if you can make consistently good exposures with slide film on a manual focus SLR, a DSLR will be a piece of cake to master.

 

[Angelo95210]

Making film picture is more expensive, but SLR are so cheap now it compensates easily I think. I still like to use my old Minolta with BW film, no hassle with the technology just focus on the image.

 

[stainlessliquid]

I completely agree with you, though one could, I suppose, look at it from the other side; if you can make consistently good exposures with slide film on a manual focus SLR, a DSLR will be a piece of cake to master.

But I would bet money that the person who starts out on a DSLR gets good at both DSLR and reg SLR long before the person starting out with an SLR ever gets good at just the SLR.

 

[Policar]

Now, I agree with you; full frame digital is better than 135 film, if only because of its low price and convenience vs. film.

That's all it boils down to. Would you really recommend to a beginner, whose reference point is a cell phone, buying a Hasselblad 503 as a first camera? Digital SLRs are easier to use and produce technically better (though aesthetically different) images than 135 film, which is much harder to use and get processed and scanned. Digital SLRs remain the best "all purpose" cameras by far. Enjoy the Hasselblad, though! I am more than a little jealous.

Let's get past the film-vs-digital pissing match and send our OP to dpreview.com to research dSLRs and appropriate lenses (hint: the lumix is probably nice, but not a real dSLR). If his high school offers a film photography class, he can learn to shoot film there or buy an old film SLR used later.

And I do think digital black and white is relatively awful, but I'm sick of this discussion, to be honest.

 

[Edge100]

Making film picture is more expensive, but SLR are so cheap now it compensates easily I think. I still like to use my old Minolta with BW film, no hassle with the technology just focus on the image.

Lets say I gave you a Canon 1V SLR for free, and I go out and buy a new Canon 5DmkII for $2500. We both use identical EOS lenses, and shoot 1000 frames per month, for one year (12,000 exposures total) me on my 5DII, you with Ilford Delta 100, which runs $5.31 per 36 exp roll at B&H, and $16 per roll to process at same. Actually, $16 seems a bit stiff, so let's call it $10 per roll to develop.

We assume that I already have a computer, but that I have to pay $280 for Lightroom. The lenses are a wash, because we both need those (and they're identical).

I have spent the following:

$2500 - 5DmkII
$280 - Lightroom

TOTAL = $2780 for 12,000 exposures.

You have spent:

$1770 - film ($5.31/36*12,000)
$3333 - developing

TOTAL = $5103 for 12,000 exposures.

So even with a free pro-grade camera, you still spent nearly twice what I did in the first year of ownership. And guess what? My next year of ownership (and all subsequent years) are free. You will continue to pay $5103 every year. Even if you learned to process the film at home, there would be the cost of the equipment (enlarger, chemicals, paper, etc).

Film is great and all, but the low price of SLRs does not compensate for the huge cost of film and especially of processing.

 

[Edge100]

That's all it boils down to. Would you really recommend to a beginner, whose reference point is a cell phone, buying a Hasselblad 503 as a first camera? Digital SLRs are easier to use and produce technically better (though aesthetically different) images than 135 film, which is much harder to use and get processed and scanned. Digital SLRs remain the best "all purpose" cameras by far. Enjoy the Hasselblad, though! I am more than a little jealous.

Let's get past the film-vs-digital pissing match and send our OP to dpreview.com to research dSLRs and appropriate lenses (hint: the lumix is probably nice, but not a real dSLR). If his high school offers a film photography class, he can learn to shoot film there or buy an old film SLR used later.

And I do think digital black and white is relatively awful, but I'm sick of this discussion, to be honest.

I'm not defending film; I shoot 100% digital, and I'm never going back.

But just saying "digital > film" without qualifying what we mean is misleading.

 

[leighonigar]

Lets say I gave you a Canon 1V SLR for free, and I go out and buy a new Canon 5DmkII for $2500. We both use identical EOS lenses, and shoot 1000 frames per month, for one year (12,000 exposures total) me on my 5DII, you with Ilford Delta 100, which runs $5.31 per 36 exp roll at B&H, and $16 per roll to process at same. Actually, $16 seems a bit stiff, so let's call it $10 per roll to develop.

We assume that I already have a computer, but that I have to pay $280 for Lightroom. The lenses are a wash, because we both need those (and they're identical).

I have spent the following:

$2500 - 5DmkII
$280 - Lightroom

TOTAL = $2780 for 12,000 exposures.

You have spent:

$1770 - film ($5.31/36*12,000)
$3333 - developing

TOTAL = $5103 for 12,000 exposures.

So even with a free pro-grade camera, you still spent nearly twice what I did in the first year of ownership. And guess what? My next year of ownership (and all subsequent years) are free. You will continue to pay $5103 every year. Even if you learned to process the film at home, there would be the cost of the equipment (enlarger, chemicals, paper, etc).

Film is great and all, but the low price of SLRs does not compensate for the huge cost of film and especially of processing.

Y'know, some people choose film because they don't want to shoot 12000 photos a year, and equally, a lot of people appreciate the way that film having a cost places value on the photograph, it slows them down and makes them more considered.

I don't know anyone that shot 6 rolls of film a week as a hobbyist, actually. Not all the time anyway.

 

[Policar]

But just saying "digital > film" without qualifying what we mean is misleading.

If he were looking to shoot square format black and white and spend $3,000 I would have certainly recommended a Hasselblad or Rollei.

My answer was in the context of his post (unlike virtually every other answer here). Let's end this nonsense and actually help this guy out.

 

[Edge100]

If he were looking to shoot square format black and white and spend $3,000 I would have certainly recommended a Hasselblad or Rollei.

My answer was in the context of his post (unlike virtually every other answer here). Let's end this nonsense and actually help this guy out.

Ok.

99% of people shoot digital. Therefore digital is better.

Is that ok, or is it perhaps better to have a more nuanced discussion of the issue? (Recalling that this is almost verbatim what you wrote above...)

I would not recommend a film SLR for a new photographer; I would recommend an entry-level DSLR coupled to a fast prime. The reasons for this are two fold; first, it is expensive and inefficient to learn on film; second, unless you have a specific preference for the esthetic quality of specific types of film, modern digital SLRs produce output that is every bit as good as film. Learn on a prime so that you learn to see compositions and don't allow the lens do the work for you.

As far as the general question of digital vs. film; it's complicated.

Better?

 

[Policar]

In the context of his question, my original answer was fine: get what you like most, but chances are, you'll like digital, as most people in your position do. Re-read what I wrote.

Your answer is okay, too. (But why recommend a fast prime? You don't know what his subject matter is. Lens selection is a far more nuanced than choosing a DSLR vs an SLR.)

Look, he's a fourteen year old kid who wants a new camera as an upgrade from a camera phone. It seems pretty likely digital is the best solution for that. He also specified that he's choosing between a DSLR and an SLR and, as you mentioned, DSLRs generally beat 135 film.

Could I have gotten more technical? Sure, but it wouldn't have changed the gist of my answer, it just would have confused things, as this whole subsequent pissing match is doing. I came here to offer advice; even if it's not perfect, it's better than coming here to pick a fight based solely on inane literalism. Fwiw, your advice is not so great either; again, I disagree with the fast prime worship. Digital cameras are so fast now and with so little noise at high ISOs you can get by quite well with an IS superzoom unless you do ultra-low light photography or need shallow focus for portraiture, etc. A single focal length, by contrast, is very limiting. One nice prime and a superzoom is a potent combo, though.

And this will throw you for a loop: except for snapshots I post online for like selling on ebay, I only shoot film, 6x7 and 4x5.

 

[Edge100]

Y'know, some people choose film because they don't want to shoot 12000 photos a year, and equally, a lot of people appreciate the way that film having a cost places value on the photograph, it slows them down and makes them more considered.

I don't know anyone that shot 6 rolls of film a week as a hobbyist, actually. Not all the time anyway.

That wasn't the argument that I was refuting. The original argument was that the low cost of the film SLR itself could make up the cost difference with digital. That is clearly not the case.

Even 72 exposures of film per week, at $15.31 per 36 exposures including film and developing, runs $1592 per year, which is about 60% of the cost of my 5DII and Lightroom. By the end of year two, I've spent far less.

The SLR itself is virtually meaningless when it comes to the total cost of shooting film.

 

[Edge100]

In the context of his question, my original answer was fine: get what you like most, but chances are, you'll like digital, as most people in your position do. Re-read what I wrote.

I did. I'm standing by my interpretation. You were making an argumentum ad populum error. The fact that digital is more popular than film is not in the least an argument that digital is better than film.

Your answer is okay, too. (But why recommend a fast prime? You don't know what his subject matter is. Lens selection is a far more nuanced than choosing a DSLR vs an SLR.)

What type of photography are fast primes not appropriate for? Sports? Portraits? Landscapes? All of these can be shot with primes. My advice is that a prime helps the user to learn to frame compositions more effectively than zooms. They help the user to learn about perspective. Nothing against zooms, though. But my advice would still be to at least have one fast prime in your bag to learn basic skills with.

Look, he's a fourteen year old kid who wants a new camera as an upgrade from a camera phone. It seems pretty likely digital is the best solution for that. He also specified that he's choosing between a DSLR and an SLR and, as you mentioned, DSLRs generally beat 135 film.

Yep; they do.

Could I have gotten more technical? Sure, but it wouldn't have changed the gist of my answer, it just would have confused things, as this whole subsequent pissing match is doing. I came here to offer advice; even if it's not perfect, it's better than coming here to pick a fight. Your advice is not so great either; again, I disagree with the fast prime worship.

No one's picking a fight. Why is giving a nuanced answer to a complex question so wrong?

And this will throw you for a loop: except for snapshots I post online, I only shoot film, 6x7 and 4x5.

And I'm sure you shoot these formats because the quality of the end product is both superior to and different than 135 film or FF digital.

 

[Policar]

You're a nightmare of literalism, dude. I've got better things to do than deal with this. Everyone else is trying to give broad advice and you're calling them out on not being specific or literal enough. You're missing the forest for the trees. I stick by what I wrote: if you're a hobbyist, what you enjoy shooting most is what's best. And 99% of hobbyists enjoy shooting digital so chances are you will, too. That's all.

And if you were a 14 year old kid would you want to carry a dozen heavy, expensive primes around? No. A zoom or two is a much better option in like reality. In theory the primes are great, though, and maybe for you they are. If he later finds out he prefers primes, he can buy some, too.

We're suggesting ways to get into photography, you're trying to tear apart our arguments with technical specificities and like a borderline spreadsheet outlining the cost of film. We all know film costs more to shoot, but since some of us actually shoot it we also know we'll take way fewer shots with it. This is a hobby, and as such, doesn't really need a cost/benefit analysis applied to it in order to be "fun."

For what it's worth, I like how 120 looks more than digital, but the main reason I shoot it is because I think it's more fun. I think DSLRs have complicated menus and too much automation; I'd rather use a spot meter and set the shutter speed and aperture myself. Image quality is secondary to that, to be honest.

 

[Bodhi395]

Lots of discussion here.

I think this argument of whether old technologies are as good as modern digital technologies has been going on in many fields in the last 20 or 30 years. Some people swear that old records sound better than precisely engineered CDs. Alot of people love reading paper books, others are starting to love ebooks. There are writers that still love writing novels with pen and paper, others swear by their laptop computer.

There's no settling the argument, and its really a person's own preference.

Eventually most old technologies will die out, or at least become such a niche that they are effectively died out. But as long as people have access to them, some people will love them and use them. If you want to be at the forefront of things, the newest technology is for you, and I'd recommend you learn digital photography. If you like old things, and are retro, go with film.

Film to me is a more contemplative way to shoot photos, as it takes more time, and you have to really focus on each individual photo. Its not just going out and shooting a thousand photos and deleting 2/3rds and having instant gratification in seeing the photos. Some people like that though, and some don't.

To each his own.