Turn back the clock: Film Cameras!

[RustBeltRaw]

The top brands are Nikon and Canon, and at the time I bought the Minolta, the prices for Nikons and Canons were much more expensive. But we're talking about today so buying a good Canon or Nikon shouldn't be hard on the wallet.

Since the look of a film shot doesn't depend on the camera body, I would agree that essentially any camera with a high-quality lens system will produce good results.

As for the arguments of film being costly compared to digital it's a moot point. Going digital at the start can be easy, with a point and shoot. But moving up to a Digital SLR will mean researching what brand, how many pixels , and there is the search for the lenses that will work best with your model DSLR.

I was considering going digital, priced the camera, found the two lenses that I would use, knowing that the spending would continue to "keep up" with the technology. I read a note on a web site concerning the choice of going digital and the writer made a point of explaining how the technology is changing so fast that buying the top of the line DSLR could be "old hat" in two or three years.

I'd say it's a case of picking your poison. Film has much higher running costs, digital has a higher (though dropping every day) cost of entry.

Storage for your work. If you want to just look at your work you will need equipment that will let you see your photos. A computer is generally used which means programs for your photos. Ask some of the digital shooters what "gear" they tote with them when going out to get some shots. You'll be wondering why so much extra little "do-dads" are needed. Extra batteries, a portable digital storage (hard drive) memory cards, they do get full and you will need to have an empty one.

I disagree on the storage front. Per photo, digital storage is far more compact. And you're trading the possibility of drive failure (easy to defend against with redundant drives) for finding a climate-controlled space. Even if you do, how many film photographers maintain backups of their negatives in separate locations?

Enjoy what you want to do, there are a lot film users out there and I don't think film will totally go away.

Agreed. I've started using and loving my dad's Zenza Bronica. A motor-drive medium format camera has serious gravitas, and with 12 shots per roll with $2 developing fees apiece, you'd better believe I slow down and shoot carefully. Shooting with it is improving my timing and reducing my chimping with digital.

[Andrew1]

In 35mm both a Nikon FM and F3 (still using) should be available for a good price. If I was looking for another the F5 would be my choice. There are lots of lenses around but by now people have given up offering many for sale. You may have to post some "wanted" ads. Lots of camera shops have some in their used section and may come with some sort of short warranty period as well.

[Shadowman]

Interesting but short article. Developing your own film, trendy perhaps, would be something I'd want to try using someone else's equipment.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...-in-five-years

[inkista]

You can develop B&W negative film with <$60 worth of gear & chemicals. That's the easy bit.

Changing bag: $20
Tank+reel: $25
D-76: $5
Fix: $5

It's the enlarger/wet darkroom required for prints that you'd need someone else's equipment for.

I'm just cracking up reading in that article that you can convert digital images to negatives and print them. It never occurred to me that someone would make a digital enlarger. Like digital Polaroid cameras, it seems so obvious in retrospect.