Educate me on film roll SLR's.

..

You probably mean a 35mm SLR.

This thread is pretty exhaustive.

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=99205

I shoot only film and think it's totally worth it. In fact, I just bought my 8th film camera this evening.

It's tricky - image quality of current digital SLRs in pretty much all respects surpasses film, prices have fallen to the point where they're relatively affordable, you get instant results whilst you're learning and processing images doesn't have the costs of film.

Having said that whilst largely being a digital user I still load up an old film camera periodically, because I like the character of some films and can still get good results. Film cameras are available secondhand for ridiculously low prices.

In terms of quality the differences between the better brands isn't that great, much of it's personal preference. I've been a Nikon user for years and wouldn't hesitate to recommend them - other users might have different preferences. I like the fact that I can use my 1970's lenses on both my 1977 Nikon FE and my 2008 D700, some manufacturers don't offer that level of compatibility.

I'm no expert, far from it, but I'll tell you my experience, FWIW.

I have both an original Nikon F film camera from 1968 and a Nikon D40 from ~2007. I piddled around with the F for a few years. I never took any classes or anything, and I got OK at using it, but it was a massive pain **********. Developing rolls was expensive, and developers these days are so bad that the photos would often come back overexposed or underexposed. The film itself was expensive and bulky. It was also terribly inconvenient - I'd find myself in the middle of shooting a group portrait or series of something and find it was time for a new roll, which in the field is a tremendous hassle, even when you get pretty good at it.

I buckled and went in on a digital SLR, and man am I ever happy I did. Not dealing with film is incredibly freeing, and though you have some upfront costs, you're not bleeding every time you need film or developing services. Seeing your shots right away is infinitely more educational than working with film, where unless you're keeping a shot-by-shot log of your settings, you're not learning anything at all except that your photos got exposed incorrectly. Being able to take three shots of the same thing ensures Auntie Edna's eyes weren't closed. You can browse your photos more quickly and more conveniently on a computer, and select the ones you want to keep more easily.

Though I'm not an expert, someday I think I'd like to go back to film for the rawer experience, and perhaps to play around with black-and-white and developing film myself. But for the beginning photographer wanting to take good photos and learn the art, having tried both myself, I would never, ever recommend film. Especially with how far Digital SLRs have come down in price - they're even a better deal at this point.

I would recommend a Nikon for the very reason ManofKent mentioned. Nikon has used the same lens mount since 1959, so any Nikkor lens ever made can be used with film cameras as well as most of their DSLRs. This would offer you the most versatility if you finally decide you want to shoot both film and digital.

Doing so makes sense for several reasons. With digital, you can be on a very fast learning curve and then apply what you've learned to film, shooting much more selectively. Film can be easily digitized and then uploaded to the internet or cheaply printed. It is also a longer-lasting medium, since it is not subject to hard drive crashes or file corruption. Of course, slides and negatives can get scratched or destroyed in various ways and their quality can depend on the quality of the processing available. The biggest difference, though, is that film forces you to slow down and shoot more deliberately. This can push your photographic skills to a new level.

In any case, film takes discipline and patience, but these pay dividends in the long run.

Let's not get too carried away with the Nikon lenses, now. Remember, merk is a noob.

Merk - the lens MOUNT is the same, so yes, the lenses will fit.

Whether or not they will sync up with your meter or autofocus is a COMPLETELY different matter.

Originally Posted by Douglas

Click to expand...

Let's not get too carried away with the Nikon lenses, now. Remember, merk is a noob.

Merk - the lens MOUNT is the same, so yes, the lenses will fit.

Whether or not they will sync up with your meter or autofocus is a COMPLETELY different matter.

Good point

I heard that films sucks so bad, they're even cancelling kodachrome!

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

I heard that films sucks so bad, they're even cancelling kodachrome!

snap!

right now, film is better. digital is cheaper. as a beginner i say shoot digital until your images actually merit the cost of shooting film and having it drum scanned for large prints.

I have an F2 and what has been so great is the fact that you can buy these awesome lenses for under $100 or even $50. I even got a Tokina 17mm wide angle lens for just over $100. You can buy film in bulk on eBay and it will cost about $2 each for most film. I get my film developed at Wal-Mart for $2 a roll with an index card and then scan them in using an Epson 4490. The one thing that is annoying about development at Wal-mart and other stores is that they may scratch your negatives.

It is definitely takes much longer and in the long run is more expensive (short-run not neccesarily so), but whenever I am taking pictures for fun, I will always take them with a film camera.

right now, film is better.

Click to expand...

In terms of superiority, you've got the exposure latitude of negative film in film's favor, but I rarely encounter situations where that was an issue (you have to be a hell of a printer to take advantage of the full latitude of film and paper).

I love the look of Tri-X, but I'm not sure you can simply call it 'better' (and high-ISO B&W digital images tend to have rather pleasing 'grain' in my experience).

I used to love printing 4x5 and 6x6 color negs and printing them through my school's RA-4 machine - I never thought I'd match the glossy Fuji Crystal Archive paper's color palette, but I'm getting closer.

as a beginner i say shoot digital until your images actually merit the cost of shooting film and having it drum scanned for large prints.

Click to expand...

Much as I love my toy cameras and square format and Tri-X and miss the magic of seeing a print come up in Dektol, I'll never miss the bullshit involved in scanning film.

Given room to play and experiment, I'll print traditionally. But if the output and editing media is going to be digital, film has no place in the chain.

Originally Posted by milosz

Click to expand...

In terms of superiority, you've got the exposure latitude of negative film in film's favor, but I rarely encounter situations where that was an issue (you have to be a hell of a printer to take advantage of the full latitude of film and paper).

I love the look of Tri-X, but I'm not sure you can simply call it 'better' (and high-ISO B&W digital images tend to have rather pleasing 'grain' in my experience).

I used to love printing 4x5 and 6x6 color negs and printing them through my school's RA-4 machine - I never thought I'd match the glossy Fuji Crystal Archive paper's color palette, but I'm getting closer.


Much as I love my toy cameras and square format and Tri-X and miss the magic of seeing a print come up in Dektol, I'll never miss the bullshit involved in scanning film.

Given room to play and experiment, I'll print traditionally. But if the output and editing media is going to be digital, film has no place in the chain.

here in l.a. it's close to impossible to find anyone printing color film traditionally. b&w is a different story.

if we are talking 35mm vs digital slr, the film will have more resolution if scanned well. i know you can up-res in photoshop, but you can up-res a scanned file as well, so the film still has the edge. if a client wants a 4000x6000 file, i'd prefer a scanned slide to something up-res'd from a digital slr.

if we are talking digital mf versus mf film, using film can end up less expensive, depending on the situation, gives higher i.s.o. capability, and will still give higher resolution. you can get over 8000x8000 real pixels from a 6x6 slide. the only issue is convenience.

i don't know what you mean by 'bullshit' with scanning film. just hand it to the lab and say 'scan this for me.'

..

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

I heard that films sucks so bad, they're even cancelling kodachrome!

I hear digital sucks so bad that they're still trying to come up with a software to make it look as good as Kodachrome has for the past 74 years.