We’ve booked a long weekend in morecambe (England) thur-mon
I’ve been trying to convince myself to try film
This is our first break without my son, so no once in a lifetime opportunities
Just me and my partner
Last winter I went through a phase of buying film bodies and 35mm film
Due to my poor eyesight I’ll be forced to take Auto focus, I do have diopters but I would still struggle to nail absolute focus.
At my disposal. I have
EOS 600
EOS 1
T90 & FD35/2
I have a enormous catalogue of EF glass
So, at the minute I’m erring towards the EOS600. It seems to work fine, not put a film through so can’t say for certain if the light seals are safe.
The eos1 is heavy and tbh I prefer the 600 viewfinder as it’s so big and bright in comparison
As for lenses I’m tempted to take primes, old arc drive primes I have 24,28,35,50,100,135 also a few arc zooms but being stuck with slow variable apertures and 200 iso Fuji film gives me goosebumps. I really only want to take two lenses
It’ll be just the random holiday snaps we all take
Pixelpuffin wrote:
We’ve booked a long weekend in morecambe (England) thur-mon
I’ve been trying to convince myself to try film
This is our first break without my son, so no once in a lifetime opportunities
Just me and my partner
Last winter I went through a phase of buying film bodies and 35mm film
Due to my poor eyesight I’ll be forced to take Auto focus, I do have diopters but I would still struggle to nail absolute focus.
At my disposal. I have
EOS 600
EOS 1
T90 & FD35/2
I have a enormous catalogue of EF glass
So, at the minute I’m erring towards the EOS600. It seems to work fine, not put a film through so can’t say for certain if the light seals are safe.
The eos1 is heavy and tbh I prefer the 600 viewfinder as it’s so big and bright in comparison
As for lenses I’m tempted to take primes, old arc drive primes I have 24,28,35,50,100,135 also a few arc zooms but being stuck with slow variable apertures and 200 iso Fuji film gives me goosebumps. I really only want to take two lenses
It’ll be just the random holiday snaps we all take
Same eyes forcing to move to AF here. I really like the EOS-1, but know nothing about the 600. Lenses 24 or 28, 50, and 135 would be my pics. Leave one on the camera so you only are really bringing is two extra (the 28 is so small you could consider it a body cap). Enjoy your vaca.
I would take the 600 with 40mm STM. Great combination. No need to worry about light seals, since it has a plastic back with a labrynth seal. There is no foam to disintegrate like earlier film cameras.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
We’ve booked a long weekend in morecambe (England) thur-mon
I’ve been trying to convince myself to try film
This is our first break without my son, so no once in a lifetime opportunities
Just me and my partner
Last winter I went through a phase of buying film bodies and 35mm film
Due to my poor eyesight I’ll be forced to take Auto focus, I do have diopters but I would still struggle to nail absolute focus.
At my disposal. I have
EOS 600
EOS 1
T90 & FD35/2
I have a enormous catalogue of EF glass
So, at the minute I’m erring towards the EOS600. It seems to work fine, not put a film through so can’t say for certain if the light seals are safe.
The eos1 is heavy and tbh I prefer the 600 viewfinder as it’s so big and bright in comparison
As for lenses I’m tempted to take primes, old arc drive primes I have 24,28,35,50,100,135 also a few arc zooms but being stuck with slow variable apertures and 200 iso Fuji film gives me goosebumps. I really only want to take two lenses
It’ll be just the random holiday snaps we all take
chez wrote:
What are you trying to get out of using film?
A bit snarky, but I actually agree with the question in this case. When I use or think about using film cameras, it’s because they offer a different user experience, including some nostalgia and the use of mechanical cameras. I have a collection of film cameras, some for casual use, most just for display, but none of them have AF or an autowinder (except a Contax G1). Those things would interfere with the very things I’d use a film camera for. And then I might as well use a digital camera.
johnvanr wrote:
A bit snarky, but I actually agree with the question in this case. When I use or think about using film cameras, it’s because they offer a different user experience, including some nostalgia and the use of mechanical cameras. I have a collection of film cameras, some for casual use, most just for display, but none of them have AF or an autowinder (except a Contax G1). Those things would interfere with the very things I’d use a film camera for. And then I might as well use a digital camera.
You might think differently if you had vision problems crop up. I was literally blind for 5 days last month. I'd rather keep shooting while I can than quit, because of an aesthetic that is a preference. Even with AF - there is a difference between film and digital. I like both, personally.
James Markus wrote:
You might think differently if you had vision problems crop up. I was literally blind for 5 days last month. I'd rather keep shooting while I can than quit, because of an aesthetic that is a preference. Even with AF - there is a difference between film and digital. I like both, personally.
I’m sorry to hear about your vision problems. I’d like to hear why you’d prefer film over digital if the cameras are virtually the same in terms of focusing, metering and film transport. Is it for the result or do you still feel the later generation of film cameras offer something unique compared to digital?
johnvanr wrote:
I’m sorry to hear about your vision problems. I’d like to hear why you’d prefer film over digital if the cameras are virtually the same in terms of focusing, metering and film transport. Is it for the result or do you still feel the later generation of film cameras offer something unique compared to digital?
It's a long long story, but I'll summarize it this way. I feel different using film. I started as a kid before AF existed, and souped film in my parents bathroom. When I shot for the newspaper I pushed them to go digital from the late 1980s until I ended up testing prototype digital cameras for Kodak, Nikon, and the Associated Press. I wanted out of the darkroom, because at that time my entire Thursday was souping film, printing, scanning, + filing - I hated it. I wanted to go from photoshoot to photoshoot like I did Monday - Wednesday & Fridays. So the press got one of the very first professional portable digital cameras - the NC2000AP. It was a trade off of compromise in quality, pov (due to the crop factor), and other concessions that made film vastly superior to digital - except speed or turn around time. So I ran both film and digital for about 10-15 years. Sold all my film gear between 2003-2005 - then found 8 crummy bulk loaded Tri-X rolls that were 20 years expired with nothing to shoot them. So I picked up a used Nikon FM with a broken light meter (actually for sale now), and the very first crank of the film advance was like I became a crack addict. The sound and feel of a mechanical camera again was like hearing Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto - magic. I still shoot different, but I have a different style and feel while doing so. Basically it is like asking which kid do I love the most - I love all my kids. I don't have favorites, I intend to keep going as long as I can.
James Markus wrote:
It's a long long story, but I'll summarize it this way. I feel different using film. I started as a kid before AF existed, and souped film in my parents bathroom. When I shot for the newspaper I pushed them to go digital from the late 1980s until I ended up testing prototype digital cameras for Kodak, Nikon, and the Associated Press. I wanted out of the darkroom, because at that time my entire Thursday was souping film, printing, scanning, + filing - I hated it. I wanted to go from photoshoot to photoshoot like I did Monday - Wednesday & Fridays. So the press got one of the very first professional portable digital cameras - the NC2000AP. It was a trade off of compromise in quality, pov (due to the crop factor), and other concessions that made film vastly superior to digital - except speed or turn around time. So I ran both film and digital for about 10-15 years. Sold all my film gear between 2003-2005 - then found 8 crummy bulk loaded Tri-X rolls that were 20 years expired with nothing to shoot them. So I picked up a used Nikon FM with a broken light meter (actually for sale now), and the very first crank of the film advance was like I became a crack addict. The sound and feel of a mechanical camera again was like hearing Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto - magic. I still shoot different, but I have a different style and feel while doing so. Basically it is like asking which kid do I love the most - I love all my kids. I don't have favorites, I intend to keep going as long as I can. ...Show more →
Sure, I can understand that. But you mention that crank of the film advance and the sound and feel of a mechanical camera. Those are exactly the things I described as my attraction to film cameras. Personally, I have no desire to own a Nikon F100 or F5 again, but I like handling older mechanical cameras.
johnvanr wrote:
Sure, I can understand that. But you mention that crank of the film advance and the sound and feel of a mechanical camera. Those are exactly the things I described as my attraction to film cameras. Personally, I have no desire to own a Nikon F100 or F5 again, but I like handling older mechanical cameras.
Well, I have plenty of mechanical cameras now. Less than two years ago I had zero. I don't even know How many I have. I must be on the spectrum - kind of like Doc Martin fixing clocks - I got into getting old broken mechanical cameras and restoring them. To take apart a Kodak Retina Reflex was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Folding cameras still amaze me - just love it when it is all fixed and you push one button and it snaps out ready to shoot 6x9, 6x6, or 6x4.5. When done, it can sit in your shirt pocket.Nobody does that today.
The truthful answer is, I honestly don’t know. It must be over 20yrs since I shot film, probably near 30 tbh.
Digital has come on leaps and bounds
I’m now a little curious as to what I will get. My biggest problem is the machine operator cancelling out my deliberate exposures. I prefer pictures slightly darker, under exposed as I find this often deepens the shadows and gives a more contrasty picture
However the cost of buying film and subsequent P&P is roughly £25 for 36exp.
That to me is crazy expensive and I’m having a real hard time trying to justify the cost
I went and fetched my canon M10 with 18-55 lens and I’m now seriously considering abandoning both film cameras and 6D/40stm and just taking the M10/18-55is
Modern image capture is simply too easy and too cheap these days - if you stay clear of the latest greatest fads that is.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
What do I hope to get out of using film??
The truthful answer is, I honestly don’t know. It must be over 20yrs since I shot film, probably near 30 tbh.
Digital has come on leaps and bounds
I’m now a little curious as to what I will get. My biggest problem is the machine operator cancelling out my deliberate exposures. I prefer pictures slightly darker, under exposed as I find this often deepens the shadows and gives a more contrasty picture
However the cost of buying film and subsequent P&P is roughly £25 for 36exp.
That to me is crazy expensive and I’m having a real hard time trying to justify the cost
I went and fetched my canon M10 with 18-55 lens and I’m now seriously considering abandoning both film cameras and 6D/40stm and just taking the M10/18-55is
Modern image capture is simply too easy and too cheap these days - if you stay clear of the latest greatest fads that is. ...Show more →
How much does the trip cost overall compared to the cost of 1-2 rolls of film? How much money do you spend on other sh.. things that you don’t really need?
Life is short, film is fun, why not shoot some film?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
What do I hope to get out of using film??
The truthful answer is, I honestly don’t know. It must be over 20yrs since I shot film, probably near 30 tbh.
Digital has come on leaps and bounds
I’m now a little curious as to what I will get. My biggest problem is the machine operator cancelling out my deliberate exposures. I prefer pictures slightly darker, under exposed as I find this often deepens the shadows and gives a more contrasty picture
However the cost of buying film and subsequent P&P is roughly £25 for 36exp.
That to me is crazy expensive and I’m having a real hard time trying to justify the cost
I went and fetched my canon M10 with 18-55 lens and I’m now seriously considering abandoning both film cameras and 6D/40stm and just taking the M10/18-55is
Modern image capture is simply too easy and too cheap these days - if you stay clear of the latest greatest fads that is. ...Show more →
Don’t forget if you want to view your negatives digitally and share them with others…you’ll have to get them scanned and processed. Another cost.
If you want to shoot film, I would say it depends on what this trip really is for. If it’s really photocentric and then bring several primes so you have a choice. If the trip is really like a vacation and you just want to capture some memories I would go for one body, whichever you like and one lens. I would personally prefer a prime likely a 35mm, or perhaps 28 or 50mm if you have preference. This is for the experience of sticking to one focal length and maximizing it. If you really need more range then a zoom and just use 400 speed film so as to not worry about slower lenses. I found that carrying a bunch of lenses you end up never having to time to change lenses and use them all, and it becomes inconvenient if the sole purpose is not photography. A fast prime like a 35 1.4 with 400 speed film really covers almost all lighting indoor and outdoor. It’s very versatile.
If you don't know why you want to try film and find the cost too much...well, don't. You seem to like the simplicty of the M-10? Good, just go with it. Or maybe just take the phone, you say this is your first break without your son, well...enjoy that and leave the cameras behind.
If you are looking to be convinced to shoot film, don’t do it.
You’ve already said how much you like the way digital looks and how cheap it is.
Go through the film images thread. Lots of random pics of pretty much everything and anything. Lots of variation in style, ‘quality’ etc. If none of that appeals enough to you to make you want to take film pics, then just use your digital camera.
My problem is I have no vices whatsoever
Don’t drink, smoke, gamble,
Don’t follow fashion, don’t do drugs, never ever eat out or eat takeaways
Never really use my (old) car (walk everywhere)
Hence I don’t spend money, so the notion of blowing £20-25 on 36 shots and being at the mercy of the p&p machine operator is akin to playing Russian roulette to me.
However, the cameras and film are all sat idly by. So I might as well shoot one roll…
I've always used film. I tried a couple of digital cameras but never fully embraced the digital experience. In 2012, I bought a used Plustek 7600i scanner for a hundred bucks. I used it on and off for several years but developing and scanning a roll from one of the local labs was about twelve usd. In late 2018 I was less than satisfied with the scans from the lab and felt I could do better at home. Bought a dark tent, a tank, some developing chemicals and twenty rolls of TMax 400 and started developing my own B&W for the first time in years. The Plustek was fine but it was better part of an afternoon to scan a roll. Then I started exploring the option of using a digital camera for the capture and conversion software for the positive. First was a battered Sony A5100 I bought for $150, added a Alzo copy stand from Amazon and some holders from Lomo. It was much faster than the Plustek and the results were good. The gear has evolved over the years. The A5100 was sold and an A7II bought from B&H at a blowout price in 2020 served for the next few years. The 55 Micro-Nikkor made way for the autofocus FE90 and I began adding Negative Supply pieces. I have spent a fair amount of money upgrading my camera scanning setup but less than the price of a M11. I can switch between carriers for 120 or 135 in a few minutes. The A7CII is tethered to the computer and clicking the mouse completes the capture and imports it into Lightroom where I convert it with Negative Lab Pro.
Film isn't for everyone. There's no changing the ISO between frames and there is the limited exposure range. No doubt there is so much digital photography has made image making easier and expanded the range of what is possible but there is still the magic of pulling a roll of negatives out of a tank and seeing your work for the first time.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
My problem is I have no vices whatsoever
Don’t drink, smoke, gamble,
Don’t follow fashion, don’t do drugs, never ever eat out or eat takeaways
Never really use my (old) car (walk everywhere)
Hence I don’t spend money, so the notion of blowing £20-25 on 36 shots and being at the mercy of the p&p machine operator is akin to playing Russian roulette to me.
However, the cameras and film are all sat idly by. So I might as well shoot one roll…
Live a little….as they say 🤣👍🏻
It’s not too late to start. You have a weekend alone after all. Is prostitution legal in England?
I don’t know the area and in fact my only trip to England was 13 years ago to Manchester and Blackpool with no photos to show for it. If your destination is special and not often visited I would bring familiar gear so not to risk missing any photos. Why not bring both film and digital gear? Sometimes I’d bring a Leica M2 with color film with my M11M for roadtrips.
A roll or couple rolls not gonna cost your leg, you never know if you like it or not unless you try it.
Enjoy the trip and not force yourself to shoot.
