where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
If you can do your own B&W go for it. I just set up my old lab and will be shooting a few rolls per month. Just picked up an old mint FA. I still have a 15mm f3.5 AIs, 16mm AI'd f3.5, 28 f2.8 AIs, 50mm f1.4 AIs and a 105mm f2.5 AIs that have been dust collectors. I hope my eyes can still focus manually.
framer
SkintBrit said:
I just thought a spare emergency body for £200, and the fact that I would be able to use it without having to buy any new "hardware" sounded quite appealing?
Assuming you are experienced in shooting film that makes a lot more sense
The only reason I can think were film might be better than digital, is infrared
Even then, I am not sure if IR Ektachrome is still available
Get an old medium format rig if you really want to get something from film that you aren't getting from your present digital setup. My Hassy gets way more use than my F100 ever does. Even a cheap TLR will be more fun, IMO.
I really love my olympus OM-2. Gorgeous (huge) viewfinder image, pretty intelligent metering system, great ergonomics and feel...hasn't been used at all for 5 years. I'm never going back, but I was never so attached to film, either.
I'm glad I didn't really get into photography until digital so I could put the money into gear upfront and then learn when the cost per shot was nil.
Thanks for being my conscience guys, seems like the consensus of opinion is, although many of you have fond memories of your film days, you're all very happy to be shooting digital now. Does anyone have a "feeling" on how long standard 35mm film will be available? Presumably unless there's a revival, manufactures will stop making it at some point?
SkintBrit said:
Thanks for being my conscience guys, seems like the consensus of opinion is, although many of you have fond memories of your film days, you're all very happy to be shooting digital now. Does anyone have a "feeling" on how long standard 35mm film will be available? Presumably unless there's a revival, manufactures will stop making it at some point?
Kodak would probably go out of business first before film goes away. The rate at which Kodak is doing, it's not good. I heard that 35mm film projectors in movie theaters might be gone by 2015, and Kodak depends on that for its bread and butter.
In that case, Fuji would probably pick up on the slack.
Terrible how Kodak failed to diversify their products, even when they pioneered digital sensors.
I'm not sure I'd be too concerned about film going away. The decrease in sales is largely due to amateurs and consumers using digital instead of color negatives. There is still a significant "die-hard" segment who will stick with B&W or slides, and that probably isn't going away, particularly B&W. And if there is a market for a product, someone will make it- for instance, Ilford just recently (relatively speaking) introduced a new B&W printing paper and continues to make sheet film available in very odd sizes.
Exactly. Ilford will keep on rocking for some time to come. My freezer has a dedicated shelf of PANF 50! And some old Velvia too! :]
gelu88 said:
As you dont have a FX camera you might be better off getting the 17-55 2.8 instead. It has the same focal range as a 24-70 on FX and costs half as much.
The wide end is the problem with DX bodies. The 24-70mm on DX is roughly equivalent to 35-105mm on FX which is not bad, but probably not wide enough for getting in close with bands & such. I don't have the lens you recommend, but have seen images taken with it and they were quite sharp. I agree that it is pretty much a DX equivalent of the 24-70mm. OK it only goes to about 27 or 28mm, but the OP could purchase an additional wide DX lens with the money "left over" from not purchasing the 24-70mm.
That said, the 24-70mm is a great lens if the OP plans to move to an FX body any time soon.
You must log in to post.
