Does anybody still shoot 35mm film?

[Hitcher]

If so, you may be interested, or know somebody who may be interested in this bargain offering.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=200963879

[Nasty]

Bloody hell they all look in mint condition .... :)

[ynot slow]

Some bloody good filim cameras out there,my Canon EOS has 80-200mm and 30-70mm lens',bought from cashies Wanganui 5 years ago,put a few films through it and still going good.Think it cost me $150 at the time,with canon bag and all instruction manuals etc.

Got a friend who is in the bussiness selling and taking portraits at the time to get an idea of it's cost,as he said about $1800 or so new and worth what ever you wish to pay for it,sad thing he said was due to digital cameras these models are deemed past it,but as he saw they take great pics.

Good thing is I can buy a Canon EOS digital outfit,and use my lens' although need to allow for settings etc being different.

[Motu]

Kinda like when CD's came out - vinyl was going to the tip for free.There must be some real bargains in 35mm format.I had a lot of gear based around a couple of old Russian Zenit bodies,full manual,they had a Pentax screw mount,so I picked up lots of obsolete lenses etc.Had an enlarger,all the dark room stuff....the whole works.35mm was still the in thing then,but by using an old system gear was dirt cheap.I gave it all away....now I could get top quality gear even cheaper than dirt cheap.

[Mully]

Owmuchizzit?

[Swoop]

Holy snapping turtle shit!

I have almost exactly the same setup sitting here.
X-500 + Minolta 50mm. Sigma lenses. 70-210mm & 28mm wide angle. 2x Tele. Motorwind.

Small world.
Scary...

[MsKABC]

Holy snapping turtle shit!

I have almost exactly the same setup sitting here.
X-500 + Minolta 50mm. Sigma lenses. 70-210mm & 28mm wide angle. 2x Tele. Motorwind.

Small world.
Scary...

You're not in trouble at home then? Maybe check your cupboards, LOL

[Swoop]

You're not in trouble at home then? Maybe check your cupboards, LOL
That thought had crossed my mind, but the cupboard is not bare...

[MsKABC]

That thought had crossed my mind, but the cupboard is not bare...


That's good, glad to hear it ;)

[Hitcher]

The Motor Drive 1 unit is an absolute peach. There's times I've wished I had the optional bulk back unit, as a 36 roll at three frames a second is only 12 three-second bursts...

The Rokkor 25-85mm zoom is an exquisite lump of glass, with a lovely progressive action.

[Swoop]

The Motor Drive 1 unit is an absolute peach.
Single, 2.5 & 3.5 fps if my memory is accurate.

Just had a quick look. Does anyone need a roll of Fuji 200asa 24 exposure film? Expiry date of 1996!
Be in quick.

[Hitcher]

Single, 2.5 & 3.5 fps if my memory is accurate.

You know you want it...

[Swoop]

You know you want it...
Too late.
If, however, you would like a nice matching unit that could be used as bookends...

[vifferman]

Good luck selling that, Hitcher! :niceone:
I've been tempted several times to sell my Canon Eos 1000F-n, but I'd get so little for it that it just seems worngA. :( It cost me around $900, then I bought a 300mm zoom lens for it, and some other bits'n'pieces, and the most I'm likely to get is maybe $50, which wouldn't even cover the cost of the PL filter.

[imdying]

Yeah, got an old Pentax MF... it's old, but still shoots a nice picture. 1/2000th shutter speed is the biggest thing it has going for it I guess... makes a nice click too though :yes:

[Hitcher]

I've been tempted several times to sell my Canon Eos 1000F-n, but I'd get so little for it that it just seems worngA. :( It cost me around $900, then I bought a 300mm zoom lens for it, and some other bits'n'pieces, and the most I'm likely to get is maybe $50, which wouldn't even cover the cost of the PL filter.

I don't even want to add up how much all of that stuff cost. I could have saved some cash at the time by doing the Sigma/Vivitar thing, but I've always had a soft spot for Rokkor lenses.

[Finn]

How many megapixels Hitcher?

[imdying]

Well, it's about 36x24mm of film area, so with a 9600dpi film scanner, that's about 123 or your new fangled megapixels.

[bungbung]

Well, it's about 36x24mm of film area, so with a 9600dpi film scanner, that's about 123 or your new fangled megapixels.

9600dpi = 243840 points per mm.
You'll be scanning a whole lot of grain there, a good lens/film combo might resolve 100 lines/mm, for which you need to scan at twice the rate, minimum.

That's 200 points/mm or 5080dpi, close enough to 35 megapixels

[Beemer]

I've still got my Nikon F5. Haven't used it for years as I have the equivalent in digital now, but can't bear to part with it yet. Cost me about $4500 for the body alone when I bought it, so it would make me cry to see what it would be worth now.

[imdying]

That's dots per inch though, not dots per square inch, right?

(((36 / 25.4) * 9600) * ((24 / 25.4) * 9600)) / 1000000 ?

[riffer]

Still got a vast Olympus OM collection.

I shudder to think what I've spent on it. :mellow:

[bungbung]

My point is while you can scan film at 9600dpi, there isn't extra (useful) information past 5000dpi. (for a std 35mm camera/lens/film combo)

[riffer]

How many megapixels Hitcher?


Pffft. I've got a 450 megapixel camera at work (http://www.hmif.co.nz/450MBHead.html).

Beat that.

[bungbung]

I've still got my Nikon F5. Haven't used it for years as I have the equivalent in digital now, but can't bear to part with it yet. Cost me about $4500 for the body alone when I bought it, so it would make me cry to see what it would be worth now.

Same, but F4

[Beemer]

I always swore I'd never to go the dark (digital) side, but then they started making really good digital cameras and I was forced to eat my words!

But I still love the F5, despite its incredible weight (about 1.5kg without a lens). I should buy a roll of film (while I still can) and get out there and start shooting! I may start with small children, I LOVE the idea of shooting them!

[SPman]

I know a few small children that could do with shooting............

I picked up a Dynax 7000i with Rokkor 28-105 & 100-300 zoom lens and minolta electronic flash 3 or 4 yrs ago for $180! Had to replace my old SRT101 after it decided to retire itself after 30 hard yrs use. The receipts were for $2400!

Still a place for 35mm I reckon - its good to get them out and use every now and then, it's just that, for everyday use, a digital is so convenient......

Question, who is the largest manufacturer of cameras in the world, today?

[Stirts]

Question, who is the largest manufacturer of cameras in the world, today?

I wouldn't be suprised if it was Nokia!

EDIT: Well there you go.....I JUST GOOGLED THIS QUESTION AND IT SEEMS IT IS TRUE!
please tell me my google search is wrong!!!!

[Forest]

I've still got my Nikon F5. Haven't used it for years as I have the equivalent in digital now, but can't bear to part with it yet. Cost me about $4500 for the body alone when I bought it, so it would make me cry to see what it would be worth now.

There's no equivalent to the F5 in digital. I can't think of a DSLR that would be strong enough to beat another person to death! :yes:

If your F5 is in "as new" condition with box and manual, you would get about $800-1,000 for the body. A well-used body would be worth around $550-700.

[SPman]

I wouldn't be suprised if it was Nokia!
Indeed, it is!

[Forest]

I don't even want to add up how much all of that stuff cost. I could have saved some cash at the time by doing the Sigma/Vivitar thing, but I've always had a soft spot for Rokkor lenses.

Not sure if you are aware of it, but Sony bought out the Minolta camera division a few years ago.

All of your Rokkor lenses will work perfectly fine on the latest Sony DSLR cameras like the Alpha A700/A800/A900 (as will all Minolta A-mount lenses).

[imdying]

I can't think of a DSLR that would be strong enough to beat another person to death!Yikes, not your typical selling point :eek:

[xwhatsit]

I've fiddled with film cameras when I was a child -- seeing the sort of price this gear goes for, and seeing the results, I'm actually quite tempted to get something for cheap. How practical is film though, actually? I know it costs lots of money to get developed and buy the film; does that mean taking photos has to be a luxury?

[imdying]

It means you don't waste your time taking crappy photos like you wouldn't think twice about with digital. Thus your composition and framing attention to detail goes up.

[bungbung]

There's no equivalent to the F5 in digital. I can't think of a DSLR that would be strong enough to beat another person to death! :yes:

If your F5 is in "as new" condition with box and manual, you would get about $800-1,000 for the body. A well-used body would be worth around $550-700.

I've got a D2x and a D3, they are at least as big and butch as a F4 or F5.

[bungbung]

It means you don't waste your time taking crappy photos like you wouldn't think twice about with digital. Thus your composition and framing attention to detail goes up.

In saying that for beginner use, feedback from experimentation suffers from the processing delay, and perhaps less willingness to try due to the cost involved.

I haven't bought film for a long time, but 24 exp 100 cheapo color film and d+p for $10 will total $15 per 24 frames.

[Paulo]

I've fiddled with film cameras when I was a child -- seeing the sort of price this gear goes for, and seeing the results, I'm actually quite tempted to get something for cheap. How practical is film though, actually? I know it costs lots of money to get developed and buy the film; does that mean taking photos has to be a luxury?

I shoot medium format so I get 10 shots per roll, but becuase i'm thinking before shooting I have a much higher "keeper" count than snapping away on a digi without thinking first. There is a load of good quality 35mm film gear available for a bargain, Yes you have to pay for developing and scanning but IMHO the look of film is still better than digital.

(We still shoot 35mm film for most of the movie projects I work on ) why? becasue the tonal range is still superior to anything the "RED" camera or HD can offer.

[Stirts]

How practical is film though, actually? I know it costs lots of money to get developed and buy the film; does that mean taking photos has to be a luxury?

Yes it can be costly. But there are ways around this. You can get your film "developed only" for about $5 and most Photographic labs now print a thumbnail as part of this service.

This still enables you to view your shots without the full cost of a development and print.


the look of film is still better than digital.

I concur!!!

From the excitement and expectations you have when you load film in your camera to the anticipation of getting those awesome photographs in your hot little hand is unbeatable!!

[Beemer]

There's no equivalent to the F5 in digital. I can't think of a DSLR that would be strong enough to beat another person to death! :yes:

If your F5 is in "as new" condition with box and manual, you would get about $800-1,000 for the body. A well-used body would be worth around $550-700.

You're right there. I still have the boxes, manuals, plastic bags, soft bags, etc from every piece of camera equipment I've ever bought! The F5 is in great condition but it has covered many, many car rallies (like the Rally of NZ) - that's the main reason I got it, because it was so rugged and watertight. I wrecked two 90X models (think that's what they were) first before moving to the F5. Never had any problems with it, they were built to last.

[Fooman]

Not sure if you are aware of it, but Sony bought out the Minolta camera division a few years ago.

All of your Rokkor lenses will work perfectly fine on the latest Sony DSLR cameras like the Alpha A700/A800/A900 (as will all Minolta A-mount lenses).

The Minolta autofocus mount lenses will (mostly) work on on the Sony DSLRS, but the Rokker lenses were for the Minolta manual focus cameras. There was a 3rd party adapter that uses a optical element to adapt the different register difference (distance between lens mount and sensor/film) as well as the different mount, but focusing at infinity was lost.

Rokker was the marking name for the early and middle years of the Minolta manual focus system - it was dropped for the last few years of MD lenses (about from 1981ish onwards). The AF lens mount was introduced in 85.

Cheers,
FM

[pete376403]

Pffft. I've got a 450 megapixel camera at work (http://www.hmif.co.nz/450MBHead.html).

Beat that.

I can't but these guys can...http://www.gigapxl.org/

[riffer]

I can't but these guys can...http://www.gigapxl.org/

Doesn't count if you don't have it at your disposal Pete.

[Big Dave]

>>the look of film is still better than digital.<<

Not if you view the results through an invoice.

Film anywhere in the mass reproduction process - camera or printer's plate - is now a hindrance.


Conversely Fine art remains fine art and the shizzle sticks are cheapo

[xwhatsit]

Yes it can be costly. But there are ways around this. You can get your film "developed only" for about $5
Ah, thanks for that little tidbit, I never thought of that. I've got a reasonable scanner kicking around as a hand-me-down (parallel port, believe it or not, I love `old crap' which is actually good crap that people don't want any more -- why I'm posting in this thread).

Hmm well I'll keep my eyes open then.

[Forest]

The Minolta autofocus mount lenses will (mostly) work on on the Sony DSLRS, but the Rokker lenses were for the Minolta manual focus cameras. There was a 3rd party adapter that uses a optical element to adapt the different register difference (distance between lens mount and sensor/film) as well as the different mount, but focusing at infinity was lost.

Rokker was the marking name for the early and middle years of the Minolta manual focus system - it was dropped for the last few years of MD lenses (about from 1981ish onwards). The AF lens mount was introduced in 85.

Cheers,
FM

You are quite right. They won't work on an AF body without a teleconvertor mount.

Apologies for the brain fart!

[Forest]

I can't but these guys can...http://www.gigapxl.org/

The Gigapxl project actually uses film based cameras.

They shoot onto 9"x18" film which is then scanned and printed digitally.

[Hitcher]

Whoar! A set of new batteries in the camera and in the motor drive unit and it runs like a new one! I've been ratting around trying to find a roll of 35mm to run through it for old times' sake...

And there's some buying interest on the auction too. Goodness me!