Does anybody still shoot 35mm film?

[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

[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!

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!

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.

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!