I went over to a digital compact camera a few years back and currently own a Panasonic TZ-2. But something is missing - I hanker after a good old fashioned 35mm SLR like I used to have. I'm put off buying a DSLR on cost and complexity. Should I buy a film camera or not? I've set my sights on possibly a Pentx P30.
What's holding me back is some advice I was given recently. I asked the question - I am an experienced digital camera user and am thinking of going back to 35mm film SLR. I'm taking a serious look at the Pentax P30. Does anyone have experience of this camera/or is still using one? and the relpy- If you are going back to film consider medium format. 35mm film looks particularly average after scanning.
I not interested in medium format and needed to know this becuase if I were to go back to film I would use a processing lab to take off the pictures and send them to me on a CD but I won't compromise on quality. If that advice is correct I will either keep the TZ-2 or move on to perhaps a four thirds system such as the Panasonic G1 range instead.
Does anyone have any advice htey can offer or experience of this - I'd appreicate any useful solutions.
|
I have an MZ5N I don't use - terrific 35mm film camera in it's price bracket. It has traditional style shutter speed and exposure compensation/film speed controls despite being electronic. Of course auto wind. I also have a K1000, which I imagine is more similar to the P30, though it has a mechanical rather than electronic shutter. The K1000 might be more the traditional thing if you can find a decent one. I don't know the P30 - is it K1000 level or a semi-pro thing?
I have tried scanning 35mm film - it works but I've been disappointed with the sharpness, dust blemishes etc. I didn't use a dedicated film scanner though, just a combination flatbed with a holder and a backlight in the lid
Going back to film does seem harder work than trying a digital SLR though - can you borrow one, or buy a modest one to try out? There really is no comparison with a compact camera like the TZ2 with its tiny sensor.
FWIW I use a Panasonic LX3 when out walking etc - no zoom to speak of, but a terrific wide angle and a significantly bigger sensor than the zoom compacts, so much better low light performance.
I think I've left film behind now. Shame as I loved using the MZ5N more than anything else, but digital is so much more convenient (and cheaper).
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 14:10
|
I've used TLRs and SLRs for around 50 or more years and last two film cameras were (are) an Pentax Spotmatic and a Nikon F401 body with a 28-200mm AF Tamron zoom (superb lens).
I've also had a digital 2MP Minolta E203 for around nine years which, thanks to a brilliant 3x zoom, produces remarkable A4 prints.
However, about nine months ago, I decided to obtain the DSLR equivalent of the Nikon and bought a Nikon D90 with the 18-105mm lens.
I'm very impressed, especially with the resolution, and don't think I would ever seriously go back to film, much as I love using it.
So why not nip into Jessops or friendly local photographic shop (take a memory card), try out various DSLRs to discover how they feel and handle and check out the memory card's contents on your computer back at home?
You might change your mind...:-)
|
|
You've just reminded me - I have a Pentax MESuper 35mm SLR - and bought some black and white film stock 2 years ago but I never got round to fiddling with it. I have a dedicated negative scanner - the end results are not as sharp as digital cameras but have a certain warmth to them. Maybe in the end it's down to personal preference and is a bit like the turntable arguments elsewhere....there is more of a skill to it than modern digital cameras and is certainly a cheap enough hobby..!
|
|
By all means try Jessops but they are hideously expensive compared to online sellers !
|
>> By all means try Jessops but they are hideously expensive compared to online sellers !>>
I did say "try out" - you don't have to buy from them..:-)
I bought my Nikon D90 from the same independent photographic shop I bought the earlier Nikon (back in 1993) and they were as competitive as anyone on-line for prices.
See:
www.wilkinson.co.uk/store/home.php
Last edited by: Stuartli on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 14:13
|
Don't! Get the panasonic FZ-45 bridge camera. It has lots of the features of the dslr without the trouble of changing lens. Zoom range is 24-600 mm Canon also do one which has an 800m ish top end. You can change it to manual if you want to set exposure manually but you can leave it in fully auto mode and let it work it out for you. I've had one of their bridge cameras for years and it's a peach. I've gone over to the dslr side now but the bridge is ideal just for knocking about as it has a decent zoom range and is much lighter to carry around. The 4/3rds aren't a great advantage over an slr. The bodies are slightly smaller but once you stick some of the lens on they're not much less cumbersome than an slr and if you have largeish hands then they're harder to use.
Having spent time scanning in film negs it is a PITA. Dust and crud and hair ruins most pictures. Digital is streets ahead. At 100% crop you have jaggy edges which isn't quite as nice as the way film grain looks close up. It will also be expensive to have the films scanned at any decent resolution.
|
Review here of the FZ-45 jobbie - looks arf decent!
www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/panasonic-dmc-fz45.cfm
|
I had my own dark room & used to develope all my own film & prints but not anymore. TBH you can't beat digital.
I make do with one of these and have to say it takes extremely sharp pictures & is so easy to use.
www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/panasonic-dmc-tz10.cfm
At least it fits in a pocket
|
>>Zoom range is 24-600 mm Canon also do one which has an 800m ish top end>>
That's the equivalent of a 36-900mm film zoom lens. Apart from the fact that the image quality suffers with many cheaper SLRs (lens built to a price), how do you manage to keep the camera still/steady if using the top zoom lengths even with image stabilisation?
|
|
A Monopod and a fast shutter speed
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 23:19
|
|
Where do you find to a mythical greek one legged dwarf ?
|
|
That's already 35mm equivalent (panasonic is 24x zoom and I think canon is 32x) and most bridges have stabilization built in so it is less of a problem. Many also now have correction for lens distortion too :-)
|
>> Many also now have correction for lens distortion too :-)
Even some DSLR lenses have built in correction for lens distortion. On lenses that can be used on film SLRs as well the lens needs to be as near to perfect at both ends of the zoom scale. On an all digital camera there is nothing wrong with correcting for known lens distortions - why spend extra on building a lens with spot on optics throughout the range when simple corrections in the camera can sort them.
They also store info about the lens in RAW files so programs that process the RAW files can also correct for lens distortion.
|
If you were asking the question what system produces the absolute best image quality I guess that it would still be film. If the absolute best image quality was your priority then you would then be looking at a medium format camera at least since 35mm image quality is inferior
However you are talking about scanned images then so you might as well start with a digital image in the first place. To be honest for 99% of photographers digital photography has so many advantages that any theoretical disadvantages of image quality are immaterial
|
"cost and complexity." ?? Well cost is subjective You can get a Nikon D3000 & lens for £350 at Argos or £370 at Dabs if Rattle has put you off Argos.
As for complexity, I have a D60 and it's easy peasy - honest. Put it into Auto mode if you want, or use Aperture or Speed priority. Personally I prefer to use manual and under expose a little. The Nikon really is a friendly, easy to use camera.
John
|
"..You can get a Nikon D3000 & lens for £350 at Argos.."
End of line stock, now superceded by the D3100:
www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/
|
Your mad.
35mm film is dying, Good 35mm cameras cost the same as DSLR's, getting prints made will become difficult and expensive.
choosing from the plethora of good DSLR's should be your only question.
|
WOW, Such interest in my dilema.
I think the concensus is that I will stick to digital otherwise as I feared I will be disappointed with film. Perhaps I will pop into my local Jessops and test out a few DSLR's to see what they're like. My brother recently bought a Samsung GX10 on Ebay quite cheaply and seems to have good value for his money. I 've had some good results with the TZ-2 - as you can see here
www.flickr.com/photos/21180986@N07/
I bought it for just £99 on a run out deal about 3 years ago.
|
|
My nephew is on a Photo-Journalism course - part of his first year was using film cameras as well as developing and printing photos...I may power up my Pentax and try to remember what box the films went in later...
|
|
the only time buying and using a film camera makes sense these days is if you develop your own film.
|
|
I found a shoe box full of undeveloped but exposed reels of 35mm film recently. Must be years if not decades old. Probably spoiled but I'm mildly curious to know what elements of my past are recorded on them. Bit nervous of finding out to be truthful.
|
|
Go for it they can be fun !
|
Yeah maybe. Trouble is, I had a bit too much fun back along...
:-)
|
>> I found a shoe box full of undeveloped but exposed reels of 35mm film recently.
>> Must be years if not decades old. Probably spoiled but I'm mildly curious to know
>> what elements of my past are recorded on them. Bit nervous of finding out to
>> be truthful.
>>
Remember what happened to Gary Glitter, Humph...;-)
|
|
Went to see him once at Shepton Mallet. Appropos of nothing really. It was a work's outing.
|
|
He would have had rather bigger shoe boxes one would guess...
|
There's lots of bargains about if you are determined to go for film. Last year I bought a mint Canon AE1 Program and Speedlite (for my son) at a car boot sale here for five euros.
That did seem exceptional, I have to say.
Ps: I've just been 'timed out' of this site for the first time ever after about five minutes. Please don't tell me we are going back to the bad old days...
|
I used film SLRs for 25 years, latterly a Pentax MZ5n with an older SF7 for backup. I think I've put about 3 films through them since I switched to a digital bridge camera - Panasonic FZ20.
I've scanned 6000+ 35mm negatives, it is tricky getting anything like a decent scan.
I always found darkroom work an utter ballache, digital is soooo much easier, at pretty much no cost for extra exposures, live historgam, ISO chnage per frame, yada yada.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 17:35
|
Like PU, I have an ME Super somewhere, and an MX but have not touched them since I went to digital (with a little Ixus) some years ago. I sometimes get the ME out and think "must finish that film" and there is no doubt that an SLR film camera is a a lovely bit of machinery but I still have to finish that film!
I have a pretty cheap bridge camera now, (Fuji S5700) and I have no doubt that there are far superior cameras, but for my uses - happy holiday snaps, a few pictures of birds (no, the feathered kind BBD!) close-ups of flowers, insects etc it is more than adequate. It has a 10x optical zoom and macro facility and I don't have to carry around a bag full of big lenses.
Can't see me going back to film but have my eye on a nice Panasonic bridge camera!
|
|
Went looking for something else and "found" an old Olympus Trip film camera that was bought to go to the US in 1994 - it was rendered obsolete in 2001 by the purchase of my first digital camera (A Kodak) - opened it up and guess what, no film but the Duracell batteries (exp date Jul 2000) still had enough juice to power up the motor and flash - that is pretty amazing - must have been untouched for over ten years...
|
Because the original poster wants the pictures in digital form, then I cannot see the point of using a film SLR. As Zero points out, at some time in the future processing film is going to be difficult and is already expensive.
With DSLRs starting from around £300 with a kit lens then I'd not bother. I've not looked up the film SLR model you're after so don't know if it would be brand new or second hand. When our son did photography at A level we found it difficult to find a cheapish SLR too.
I think I'd find the extra to get a DSLR. But if you're serious about photos then maybe not the cheapest. The cost of having digital photos will soon repay you because you're not paying to have 35mm film developed nor buying the film to begin with.
Maybe I should advertise my DSLR on ebay ;-) I might not use it much now I have a Panasonic Micro four thirds camera.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 18:26
|
Be clear about what you want the camera for. The most serious photographer I know has a Nikon D3S DSLR (has to be Nikon for him because he has a lifetime's collection of lenses) and a Canon S90 high quality compact.
The interesting thing is that the D3S, although a £3000+ camera (before lenses) has only 12m pixels. The S90 has only 10m, despite being a £300+ compact with a zoom of only 3.8x. The pixel race is over for now where quality is the objective.
Why doesn't the S90 have a much bigger zoom like the Panasonic FZ40/45? Because it would be too big. Despite a lower pixel count, the sensor is larger (half the pixel density) so the lens and the camera would have to me much bigger. So zoominess is traded off for compactness and quality.
But if you need a big zoom, superzooms like the FZ40/45 are amazing. The trade-offs are that you are less likely to have it with you than a compact, and the quality will be lower than even an entry level SLR (more so in low light) and for that matter lower than a high end compact like the Canon S90/95 or the Lumix LX3 or the newer LX5. But bang for buck the FZ40/45 can't be faulted. To cover that range with a DSLR would cost you maybe 10 times the price.
I'm not a serious photographer though I take a lot of pictures. As well as an LX3, I have a Panasonic FZ20 (an early superzoom from 2004) and an early entry level Pentax DSLR (I have a load of Pentax lenses). I plan to update the DSLR which is OK but acting up a bit. The LX3 is wonderful despite lack of any real zoom (max 60mm equivalent) which is its main critical limitation.
What I'm saying is you need 3 cameras if you want to do everything ;-) If I could only have one, at a realistic price, I'd go for the quality compact and sacrifice the long zoom - but that's me.
www.dpreview.com is good.
PS - if you do decide you want an MZ5N....
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 19:21
|
|
I used film for year, refusing to go digital, then 5 years ago I gave in. Film is such a pain. And even using a top of the line film scanner, I get better results from a Nikon D200 - only 10 million pixies - I get much better results than I ever did with film. Digital has better dynamic range (highlights do not burnn out so easily, shadows have more detail), more detail and greater convenience. There is no film canister to drop into a bog or stream, or get lost in the post, or be destroyed when the Kodak processing machine breaks. I've had all of those happen to me. And film gets scratches and dust. If you want convenience, I think you can get printers that print direct from the flash card. The big names all produce nice APS size sensor cameras at modest prices and decent enough kit lenses. I'd try and go for mid range zoom myself, but that's my bias.
|
I was a bit like you. Bought my dream slr - minolta dynax 7 in 2006 refusing to go properly digital. Then bought my bridge not long after and hardly used the dynax which is a crime. Also spent a fortune on a minolta scanner which I've scanned in a dozen films maybe.
A lot of the little dye sub printers support pictbridge so you can print straight off the camera. I know my canon selphy thing does. Discovered photobox not long after buying that and realised it was much cheaper to upload to them rather than printing with the selphy.
But triple backup your photos if you go digital!! A hd loss would be a disaster as it means everything is gone forever.
With auto HDR on a lot of newish DSLRs I don't think dynamic range is anywhere near the issue that it is made out to be. The latest ones are streets ahead of film in many ways as realistically you just don't actually manage to get all the detail out of film regardless of its theoretical abilities.
I wish someone had invented a digital back that would fit the dynax. It has so many features that were lacking on anything but £3k dslrs until recently.
|
>> But triple backup your photos if you go digital!! A hd loss would be a
>> disaster as it means everything is gone forever.
Good point. I back up to twin hard drives in the room, and one in another room. Ideally off site is better in case of fire, but then again did anyone ever backup slides/negatives?
I have had huge problems with internal hard drives crashing, due to the PC overheating. Hard drives generate too much heat and IMO external ones are safer, especially since PCs clog up with fluff and really need cleaning from time to time.
|
Having spent all my working life designing electronic thingies, plus being sat in front of a computer most of the time, I find working with film of great therapeutic value. I have the drawing/painting ability of a three year old, and find that darkroom work gives me at least some measure of manual creativity - without the aid of a computer.
In fairly regular use are:
Cambo Legend monorail 4x5
Wista Field 4x5
De Vere whole plate monorail
Mamiya Press Super 23 (2 off)
Mamiya Universal Press
A 6x9 cherrywood field camera (make forgotten!)
Voigtlander Bessa II
Mamiya RB67 (3 off)
Mamiya 645 1000s
Canon T90 (3 off)
Canon EF
Canon FTb
Canon A-1
Pentax Spotmatic
Pentax Spotmatic II
Pentax Spotmatic F
Pentax Spotmatic ESII
Pentax MX
Canon Canonet 17
And 'a few' lenses....
Just a couple of enlargers:
Durst Laborator L1200
Durst M800
I also tend to see things in black and white :-)
|
|
My 35mm film stock is black and white as well - There is some perverse pleasure in not being like everyone else....
|
I think "special" is the acceptable term PU. Nothing to be ashamed of...
:-)
|
|
My social worker did say I was special.
|
I'm thinking of buying a film camera again - Manatee
