35 mm film

Reply

  #1  
Old 04-03-09, 05:54 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
35 mm film

Anyone out there still shooting 35 mm film cameras? I gathered my thou$and+ camera equipment and tried to sell it on ebay. Couldn't even raise $200, so I pulled it.
2 Minolta XE7 bodies and assorted lenses, filters, etc. I loved working with it, and even did my own darkroom work for a while. So my wife insisted that I start it back up and take pictures for her newspaper articles and future book.
Really looking for a place to develop the film, return my negatives and put the images on a CD. Is that done? It would save me from having to take the positives and doing it myself.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-03-09, 07:16 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northwestern Ontario (Canada)
Posts: 549
Uhoh.. this doesnt bode well for me then..

Ive been sitting on my Nikon FE with bags of lenses and accessories, cause I had to send the body off to replace the FRE ring (i think it was called.. $100 repair anyhow..). If the whole lot isnt even worth $200 or such, I guess its gonna sit on the shelf till it gets pitched in the dump someday..

Shame..

I shelved it (was using the camera in manual mode w/o the FRE ring input) a long time ago when the wife bought me a nice Sony digital with a decent lens and ccd in it. Its only 3Megs, but its good.

Hard to get past the consumer driven drivel about Megapixels nowdays, seems to be all that ppl want.

I wonder if Minolta makes a SLR type digital (presumably with a decent sensor) that would match your lenses ?

You shouldnt have much trouble finding a pro shop to print and duplicate to cd. There's still a couple left in town here, and this is a small city.
 
  #3  
Old 04-03-09, 07:27 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,127
35 mm film

Chandler - Walgreens and WalMart process 35 mm and you pay a little extra and get the negatives in a CD. You lose a little quality, but they are still O.K. I usualy do not get them printed and just download the CD to my computer where I can sort and fix them up and then E-mail the shots I want printed and pick them up in a hour or two.

I have a Canon 630 (35 mm) with three great Canon EF lenses. I don't use too much because my Canon Powershot SD1000 (7.1 mp) is so compact and and easy to use.

My plan is to get a Canon 12 mp digital SLR body and use my auto lenses that will work on it. - This will be for the serious shooting. It is hard to beat my handy 7.1 mp Canon because it is always handy.

Many older lenses are still valuable if they are compatible with the the body you buy.

Dick
 
  #4  
Old 04-04-09, 01:07 PM
GregH's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 9,733
Canon FD lenses can be made to work but the optics will be bad and there will be no automatic functions.
Some Nikon film camera lenses will work on digital but not all.
Here is a chart for Nikon.

I stuck with Canon, primarily because of the luck I have had in the past but have had to shelve my old lenses as well.
Went the route of a Canon 40D because of the heavier more "pro like" body and the excellent sensor.

As far as digitizing film I thought I would be the last person to suggest this but I think you would be far better off in both image quality, ease of dealing with the images and cost if you stuck with digital.

You need a fairly good quality of image for publishing but a well taken picture with just about any digital is usually good enough.
What sorta pictures would you be taking for publication?
 
  #5  
Old 04-04-09, 02:53 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Greg, mostly plants, trees, bees, butterflies....you know, the goofy stuff. She writes weekly columns in our local paper called A Gardener's Notes, where she gives advice, tells how to do things, and includes pictures of ladybugs, or whatever the subject she is writing on. I can take good pictures with her Minolta DiMage, but it just doesn't have the feel of the XE7. I feel like I have a handful of camera with mine, and I don't have to wait for the electronics to zoom, meter and preview. I can do it alot faster with the XE7 because I have been doing it for 20 years with it.
And thanks all for the suggestions of the digital development. I'll try it and see. Dick, I agree with sorting through them. CVS can have them ready in an hour and I upload them from my house.
 
  #6  
Old 04-04-09, 06:02 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,127
If I have the time, I always prefer the weight and stability of a "real" camera. You do not just snap/shoot and run and I seem to get better photos with a heavier camera, especially with my 300 mm telephoto lens (and tripod).

I also have a Dimage digital, but use it rarely because it is an in-between thing. When I am at a family outing with grand kids and people everywhere, I always use my smaller digital and take bursts of 6 photos at a time and hope I can get something. Scenery. animals, flowers and buildings are something different where the stability and chance to think before before shooting is an asset.

It all depends on your needs and preferences.

Dick
 
  #7  
Old 04-04-09, 07:00 PM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 17,926
I feel your pain. I last shot film 10+ years ago and finally last year I finally sent my film gear to KEH and got about a hundred bucks.
 
  #8  
Old 04-04-09, 07:46 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Yeah, Dick, that's the beauty of a heavier film camera. You can bracket your shots. And that's why I don't want prints of all the pix. I can scan through the brackets and pick the best one for printing or sending via internet. One thing I like about the Dimage, is you can switch to either Shutter priority or Aperture priority.
Pilot Dane, ouch! I thought about giving it to a charity and taking a tax write off larger than any amount I could get for it on Ebay or elsewhere.
It's like a handful of gun, it just feels good to hold it and use it, so I guess I'll keep them.
 
  #9  
Old 04-14-09, 08:53 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: texas
Posts: 57
I think I would sell what I could and invest in a digital SLR. Is your film camera an autofocus camera? If they are you can use them on the current Sony dSLR. Either way, if they are not autofocus and can get 200 for your camera and lenses, you could invest in a used Sony or Minolta with lens for about 350 to 400. If course it won't be the best lens out there, but it works good. My lenses cost more than my camera body brand new.
 
  #10  
Old 04-14-09, 02:52 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I would really rather take the camera equipment, put it in front of a steam roller, and flatten it out, and totally destroy it before I would sell it for $200. Sorry, does not compute. Unless you invest $1200 or more in a digital SLR, you can't compare the pictures you take with film and the equipment I have. As I said earlier, I have a great DSLR in the DiMage. Of course not the quality of a higher end slr, but only a fraction of the cost, too.
When film cameras were the best way to do things, you didn't compromise on quality. You spent money on equipment. Of course there's not much of a market for it, now, so that is why I will keep it and use it. I just can't bring myself to throw away, or give away several thousand dollars worth of equipment.
 
  #11  
Old 04-14-09, 03:34 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,018
Whatever is old..will be new again. Now, if it was a 50 y/o Leica...you could prob get your money out of it.
 
  #12  
Old 04-14-09, 03:49 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
They (2) are Minolta XE-7's based on the Leica design. Highly rated at the time, and unsurpassed in the Minolta slr's since. Titanium blade shutters instead of a cloth shutter.
Maybe someday......
 
  #13  
Old 04-14-09, 04:20 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,018
Ever see how much an original Brownie, or jeez..even the Kodak colapsible cameras (what the heck were they called?) go for now?

Just hang around another 50 years...or give it to your kids as an "investment", and spend all your cash...HA! That'll teach 'em.
 
  #14  
Old 04-14-09, 04:35 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
I keep dreaming that someone will come up with a conversion to upgrade my old minolta to digital on the inside. Just have to keep dreaming.

Bud
 
  #15  
Old 04-14-09, 06:10 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 6,127
I remember where there were few Asian companies that were making cheaper copies on the Leica, Zeiss/Contax and Rollei cameras. They made a lot of improvements to equal or surpass the European "cream of the crop". The new names of these Asian companies are Canon and Nikon. - Times certainly change and some fall by the wayside or change their markets.

Mosy recent (last 10 years or so) automatic lenses originally made for film cameras will fit and work with the same brands in a digital body. That is the case of a my collection of Canon EF lenses.

One drawback with the older lenses is that they do not have the image stabilization of the "new" lenses. Unless you are shooting fast action like a basketball game, the good older lenses are equal in general terms. This is especially true if you have a heavier stable body coupled with a substantial lens. If you are going telephoto, you should really use a tripod and thinck about what you are shooting.

Dick
 
  #16  
Old 04-14-09, 07:20 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northwestern Ontario (Canada)
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by Gunguy45 View Post
Ever see how much an original Brownie, or jeez..even the Kodak colapsible cameras (what the heck were they called?) go for now?
I have a Brownie in its package still with a (used) flashcube.. lol. Also a Kodak 1A (or was is A1) accordion camera. Havent thought of looking the Brownie up, but last time we looked the 1A up on ebay, they werent going for that much yet. ($50 ?)
I thought I had the gold mine..<sigh>.. Maybe one of my boys will cash it in.
 
  #17  
Old 04-15-09, 06:24 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,018
Guess I was mistaken about the Brownie...but I meant the old ones in the wood box, no flash. Guess they made so many, they aren't really worth anything after all.

Funny...the folding camera I was thinking of was an SX70, and there's a couple of them listed for over $100....wierd.
 
  #18  
Old 04-15-09, 07:47 AM
Beachboy's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Kansas
Posts: 735
I'm kind in the same boat with 35mm equipment. I've got a Nikon EM and a Pentax K1000 with telephoto lens. Since acquiring those, I've switched over to digital, mostly fairly inexpensive point and shoot cameras, which work just fine for most of my casual photography. And I DO like not having to wait until all 24 35mm pics are taken before I can view my older pics. Sometimes it would take two or three Christmas get-togethers before I had the 35mm film fully exposed... With no kids or pets anymore, I find I don't take as many pics as I used to. But I still hate having that nice 35mm equipment around just gathering dust, but like some of you others have said, I'm not going to sell it at fire-sale prices either. Oh yeah, anybody know what to do with a couple of nice Polaroid autofocus instant cameras?
 
  #19  
Old 04-15-09, 04:04 PM
GregH's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 9,733
Uses for a Polaroid instant camera?.........If it is an SX 70 you are in luck!
That wedge shape when closed would fit perfectly under a door to hold it open.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Yous sound about my age and I too feel the pain........but,
today, the quality of digital cameras and the price you pay for them is in the range of what you would have paid for a good film camera "back in the day".

When digital cameras came on the scene they looked like a good replacement for film ............until I compared the price of the camera to the quality of the image.
Around the year 2000 my son borrowed a Sony Mavica from his employer for me to try but the images on a computer screen were horrendous.
This camera has a 640 x 480 pixel sensor which is about 1/3 of a MP and at the time sold for around $1500.00.


Image courtesy of digicamhistory.com


Today the technology and price have come pretty close to what a decent film outfit use to cost.

The unfortunate part is all that much of that nice old vintage glass will not really work very well on a digital.........................Anyone interested in some Canon FD lenses?
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes