F5 is a great camera. For three fiddy you can't go wrong. The camera has amazing metering and delivers superb results on Velvia. Bit of a tank for a film camera though!
For the person who asked about G lenses the answer is yes, it has electronic aperture control just like the modern DSLR's. Don't use DX lenses though!
James R wrote:
OK, I'll give you that film isn't dead; but, it is on life support. The number of users is way down. There are fewer quality photographic labs. The big problem is that Canon and Nikon are not producing film cameras. Those F3s and F5s are the end of the line.
Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander all make nice compact rangefinders. The lenses are all compatible with each other too!
I bought the Nikon F6 2 years, its awesome. Any of the wireless lighting system, VR lenses etc, all work perfectly on the F6.
So instead of buying a D2X which I'd be looking to replace buy now if playing the digital game, I bought a 200mm f/2 VR instead. And this year, instead of the D3 (I've already got full frame), I'll buy the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4. Might seem crazy to spend $6k on a lens, but it won't depreciate like a DSLR will!!
Film leaves alot of money aside for lenses...
Daniel.
PS. Kenny Rockwell has just gone back to film himself at the moment!
KenRockwell's latest film blogs Remember digital LED watches of the 1970s, and those stupid digital speedometers in 1980s cars? People got tired of them after a decade, and went back to analog hands.
Sure, digital cameras were popular in the beginning of the 2000s, but will anyone still be using them in 2018? We'll see
Steve Perry wrote:
Film is dead as far as I'm concerned.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is the cost of film and processing. Over the last year or so, I've shot around 18,000 images with my digital cameras (I burn though memory on wildlife).
How many of those were keepers? How many did you bother to print and get framed? and How many hours did it take you to delete all of the duds?
Unless your a pro, and take genuine photo's all day every day, the $$ savings for digital just dont stack up. DSLR's get replaced every few years, and they don't hold their value.
Compare that to the 8 year release cycles for the F4 -> F5 -> F6, and many people would skip an upgrade.. thats alot of digital camera's in 16 years!!!
Wouldn't say its dead. I am justing getting into it and I like it. USed to say cost (film, developing) but I'll say its worth it.
Off my test roll to test my used camera when I got it, I got some keepers. To me getting that shot in film is soooo much more worth it. Film there is no chimping, there is no photochoppery. The shot is all you. Your handling of the camera with no mulligans. The few keeper shots I got, just seemed better than my fixes in camera for the shots I do on digital (the good shot usually has 2-3 sibilings it doesn't know about lol) .
wjlapier wrote:
Sneg--I think your situation is more unique than you know.
I live in a small town ( 50K people ) and we have a Walgreens and Walmart. If I want negs develop I go to Walgreens--they do a great job and I've never encountered the issues you have. If I want Kodachrome developed I go to Walmart and they ship it to Dwaynes and I get it back in about two weeks. All my Fuji slides go to a Fuji developer--I use mailers. So, by your reasoning, I don't find film dead.
But to the OP--congrats on the D700. I don't own one, but the clean high ISO is very tempting as I do shoot alot of indoor sports and would be happy to go even higher than 3200!
My wife shoots almost exclusively film, refusing to get in on the "digital revolution" that is no longer in its infancy. Whether it will die out or not is probably more a factor of if there are places to develop the film, as many have stated. I still use the F5 from time to time, though it has been a bit since I pulled it out. Every time I do mate the F5 up with Velvia (my weapon of choice) I come away very impressed.
If you really want a film camera, what about the EOS 1V (or whatever it is called.) Unless it is more to use the 14-24 lens, the Canon film camera might work well with the rest of your Canon lenses - I'm assuming that they kept the same mount for the full frame cameras like Nikon did for their entire line. Then those low-light primes could be used with film too. High ISO in film is not likely to be as good as in digital with the latest releases - at least I don't remember it ever being as good as digital is now- so those low light primes could really be useful depending on what you are shooting.
I will say I really like those low ISO films though.
SnaggS wrote:
How many of those were keepers? How many did you bother to print and get framed? and How many hours did it take you to delete all of the duds?
Unless your a pro, and take genuine photo's all day every day, the $$ savings for digital just dont stack up. DSLR's get replaced every few years, and they don't hold their value.
Compare that to the 8 year release cycles for the F4 -> F5 -> F6, and many people would skip an upgrade.. thats alot of digital camera's in 16 years!!!
Daniel.
When it comes to wildlife, I get MORE keepers with digital than with film simply because I can afford to shoot more. On a 36 exposure basis, my keeper rate is probably about the same.
I'm not new to this and just spouting off - I used to shoot a lot of film too - I have used quite a few of the film cameras mentioned here. I think my fav was my old FM, but used a lot of 8008s and N90s too. Truth is, with wildlife, it sometimes takes a few frames to get it the best shot. You can try to be conservative, or you can get the shot.
As for other subjects, I used to shoot for magazines, calendars - basically stock stuff. When I shot slide film, I would use a TON of film on a single subject. First, I wanted in-camera dupes - and I wanted enough that I could send out multiple submissions with them. Since I was shooting slide film, I would bracket too - for a single landscape scene, I would easily shoot a roll of 36 (with 8-10 keepers) - now I shoot 3 -5 frames of a single comp at a few different exposures.
So, for me, the difference is dramatic. Digital is a HUGE savings for me. If you want to shoot film, that's cool too. It's a hobby and nothing wrong with it. Nothing like a roll of B&W, then developing it in your darkroom - been there, done that. For my serious stuff, digital is the only option as far as I'm concerned.
Film is a niche market. And Digital is clearly better for some uses (Like any sort of high-volume shooting and most low-light work).
It's not dead, it's not going to die. yeah, modern minilab prints suck. This is because they use crappy scanners and print crappy scans digitally (any modern minilab uses digital printing). Get the negs processed and scan yourself. Heck, you don't even need a lab for B&W.
Film can be distinctly cheaper for the average shooter. Price a new D700 vs a new F6, then price colour film in bulk. At $2-3/roll for processing (I pay $3CDN) how much can you shoot for the price difference? Quite a lot. And that's comparing a new, very high end film SLR to a similar DSLR. Now make the comparison of an F100 vs a D300. Or an FE2 (available under $100) vs said D300.
