35mm cameras - anyone still use?

[mcflurry]

With all the talk of Canon vs Nikon and 12mb digital SLRs, I was wondering if anyone still used the old fashioned 35mm film?

We borrowed my father's Pentax ME Superfor the weekend, which was last used back in about 1985, when it was all the rage

Assuming that the films we found are in date, the lenses all work, the pictures are lined up and the settings correct I will know in 2 weeks if I can take a reasonable picture with it

Roll on payday and the shiny Nikon can have my name on it

[Simpo Two]

I shot my last roll of film in 2004 - but it's easy to forget that silver-based photography lasted from about 1840 until the 21st century and therefore 99% of the world's great photos were taken with it.

Two weeks seems along time though!

[mcflurry]

Simpo Two said:

Two weeks seems along time though!

There aren't many decent "one hour photo" places left on the High Street, additionally Kodak are stopping production of their Kodachrome (a decent film is now about £6 for 24 shots).
Add on the same again for a decent developer and digital makes more sense IMHO...

Simpo Two said:

I shot my last roll of film in 2004

Sounds about the same here. I got a Kodak 3mp camera when they sold them for £100 instead of £330 as an error, so used the APS and 35mm less and less...

Edited by mcflurry on Sunday 5th July 22:47

[clonmult]

I've just put a roll of film (and a battery) in my (very old) Canon AE-1. 36 roll of film plus battery - £11!!! Its been priced out of the market.

Still reckon I'll get better pics out of that than the Sony A200, but as every day goes by I can see its more likely to be traded in towards some lenses. Sad days, but digital is just so much easier to work with. But I can't see the A200 working in another 30 years time as the AE-1 still is.

Wonder if the ex missus still has my old APS stuck in a drawer - the original Canon IXUS, truly excellent little camera, put in sterling service on our honeymoon back in Y2K, never missed a beat.

[smack]

EOS-1V which I use for B&W. Plus being the key buttons and functions are the same as 1D's, so I don't have to think when I use it as it is 2nd nature (and it makes different sounds)

[Famous Graham]

Canon A1 that I tend to use with slide film. Haven't for a while though, must get some more actually.

Got a lovely 85mm f/1.2 L lens for it

[Stickers]

clonmult said:

I've just put a roll of film (and a battery) in my (very old) Canon AE-1. 36 roll of film plus battery - £11!!! Its been priced out of the market.

Sadly, that's supply & demand I'm afraid.

[clonmult]

Stickers said:

clonmult said:

I've just put a roll of film (and a battery) in my (very old) Canon AE-1. 36 roll of film plus battery - £11!!! Its been priced out of the market.

Sadly, that's supply & demand I'm afraid.

Aye, it wasn't particularly surprising.

But with a decent film and lens, whats the current digital equivalent on resolution? Surely its 14+ mp? Maybe even as high as 20, depending on film, speed, grain, etc?

[Stickers]

clonmult said:

Stickers said:

clonmult said:

I've just put a roll of film (and a battery) in my (very old) Canon AE-1. 36 roll of film plus battery - £11!!! Its been priced out of the market.

Sadly, that's supply & demand I'm afraid.

Aye, it wasn't particularly surprising.

But with a decent film and lens, whats the current digital equivalent on resolution? Surely its 14+ mp? Maybe even as high as 20, depending on film, speed, grain, etc?

I starting off with an old (2nd hand) Nikon Coolscan, just as the first Canon digital camera backs were hitting the market @ stupid ££££'s.

I sold off most of my 35mm EOS's but kept some lenses & an EOS 5. I also have a Canon A1 along with all my original Canon FD lenses, including 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 200mm f2.8 & 300mm f4.

I still have the original Rolli twin lense reflex & meter, given to me aged 10 by my grandfather/tutor.

[GetCarter]

clonmult said:

But with a decent film and lens, whats the current digital equivalent on resolution? Surely its 14+ mp? Maybe even as high as 20, depending on film, speed, grain, etc?

Depends on how you transfer it. Done with the best equipment it's way more than that.

But megapixels are of course not the issue, it's the size of the sensor (which is why my 12 mp D3 produces much better photos than 12mp compacts - glass aside - 12mp on a compact is just a marketing thing!)

I had many film camera over the years - ending up with medium format and an F5 35mm.

Do I miss film? Do I fk!

[blueyonder]

Dug my old Olympus OM20 SLR out today and there was still a film in it....22 of the 24 exposures had been used but I have no idea what and when they were taken, must have been 7 or more years ago! Now I know film degenerates over time but I'm intrigued what the pics are so is it worth getting them developed or will the film just be shot?

Also where's the best place to get bog standard Kodak Gold Ultra film developed these days?

[mcflurry]

blueyonder said:

Also where's the best place to get bog standard Kodak Gold Ultra film developed these days?

I got mine done at Snappy snaps. They said if the film was no good then no charge

As it turned out the film was ok, even dated as manufactured in 1995, although it turned out expensive.

29 pictures were developed. Of those, about 10 were either blurry or the wrong light settings used. On a DSLR this wouldn't be an issue of course.
Anyway it cost £12.40 for development to 7x5", £4.99 for a new film, and £2.99 to scan onto cd. After 20 or so films at that price you could buy a Nikon D60 or Canon EOS 1000 outright

Here are a couple of example pictures from that 1984 camera
The scans were done at 300dpi so around 2100 x 1500 originally.
They are slightly out of aspect as the host has resized to 4/3