35mm still viable?

[Blackjack]

I'm looking to offload my pristine Canon EOS Rebel G and was wondering if its even worth trying to sell. I know everything is moving to digital nowadays (same reason i wanna sell my camera/lens). If i was to sell it, how much do you guys think it would go for?

 

[BillLeeLee]

What's the lens? If it's the standard kit lens I would imagine you'd get $50 - 100 selling the kit.

If you want to get a digital SLR, you can still use the same lens from the Rebel on the digital Canon SLRs.

 

[Blackjack]

Yea, its the standard lens, i wanted to get into photography at the time, but it never took off. Also I'm not looking for another SLR just something like a G10, not quite a pocket camera, but no interchangeable lenses.

 

[Lime]

i still shoot film. you can get some cash for that. 100 is more than 0. Someone will buy it. Student most likely.

 

[Mr. B]

If you're sticking with the Canon EF lens system and you find there's isn't much to be gained by selling it, why not hold on to it? It may come in handy as a backup camera or there may be some crazy reason you want to shoot film again.

After switching to digital a couple years ago I elected to hold on to my Olympus OM gear, partly because of emotional attachment and partly because it doesn't have much monetary value anymore... and the my Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 is just beautiful.

 

[Lime]

If you're sticking with the Canon EF lens system and you find there's isn't much to be gained by selling it, why not hold on to it? It may come in handy as a backup camera or there may be some crazy reason you want to shoot film again.

After switching to digital a couple years ago I elected to hold on to my Olympus OM gear, partly because of emotional attachment and partly because it doesn't have much monetary value anymore... and the my Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 is just beautiful.

the zuiko glass is fantastic. I have an OM-1D and i love it to death.

 

[VictorChan]

Last week I actually bought a Canon EOS 3 film body. The body must have been at least 10 year old but it looked as if it has never been heavily used at all. Shot a roll of color negatives. This is what I have found out. Unlike digital you can blow up the shot right in front of your monitor for all the shot's glory, the print from the negative is usually restricted to 4x6. For me that's very hard to get used to. If you want to enlarge, you have go another process. If you want the digital version of it, not sure why since you could do the same thing shooting digital, you have to go another process. More time and expense are needed to do what you normally would do shooting digital. When you shoot film, your white balance is fixed by the film. You can't or shouldn't be shooting a day light film in the indoor environment and vice versa. For me, shooting digital allows me to share my work with more people over the internet. Shooting film would restrict me to few people (parents and people at work).

BTW, I have returned the eos 3. After $15 at the photo lab and $3 for the film, I realized shooting film isn't right for me.

 

[Lime]

Serious? You are *not* restricted to 4x6's with 35mm film. you just need to scan them bigger/better.

Films not for everybody... But if you shoot Velvia, you'll know exactly what is so great about it

 

[Mr. B]

BTW, I have returned the eos 3. After $15 at the photo lab and $3 for the film, I realized shooting film isn't right for me.

I only quit film after calculating that it cost me about a quarter every time I pressed the shutter release. My current keeper rate is about 10% so... yeah.

 

[RagingSamster]

Film is what you use when you get good with a digital camera - I keep throwing away too many ones and zeros to use film effectively

 

[bobdole369]

the print from the negative is usually restricted to 4x6. For me that's very hard to get used to.

Absolutely incorrect. 35MM negatives can be increased to 8x10's, 11x17, whatever size you have paper and an enlarger for. Most estimates figure that a frame of 35mm contains about 20-25 Megapixels of data.

Go to a pro lab for this though - Walgreens and Ritz camera will not do it right.

Or you could get your own dedicated negative scanner.

My wife and I have been processing color (both C-41 and E-6(slide)) and B&W at home for a while now. It costs about $14 to get a 1 liter kit that contains enough chemicals to do about 12 rolls of 35mm.

Most places will do "develop only" - then you scan in the negs - costs about $2 per roll - so add the $3.50 of the film itself and you have roughly $5.50 for a roll of 24. Wow.. Still roughly a quarter per shot. Well if you develop yourself you can get it down to a cool $0.20 I guess.

After $15 at the photo lab and $3 for the film

Why in gods name would you spend $15 at the lab? Wow. Even with prints Walgreens runs their minilab for about $6/24.

If you want the digital version of it, not sure why since you could do the same thing shooting digital,

A lot of folks would disagree - myself included. Digital lacks dynamic range. I've yet to see a camera - besides the new canon 5dmk2 that comes close to 35mm in DR. Film adds character, mood, and a lot of "oomph" to your photos.

You can bring your film pics quite easily into the digital world with a negative scanner. Even a normal scanner will let you bring your prints in.

When you shoot film, your white balance is fixed by the film. You can't or shouldn't be shooting a day light film in the indoor environment and vice versa.

Absolutely true, but if you scan the negative you can fix the color shift - which is a lot less pronounced in film, than say having your digital in the wrong mode.

I started with film when I was a kid, didn't do much with it, got re-interested and bought a kodak point and shoot - then my wife upgraded and gave me her 350d (digital rebel xt). Thats when things got good. Now as I look back over the past couple weeks I've taken more pics with her old rebel 2000 and my Diana F+ and even some with her Holga than anything else. I even have a 30 year old canonet rangefinder coming I just picked up off ebay for $33. I fully expect that that will become my daily shooter.

 

[skyline889]

4x6?? On what planet. I've enlarged my B&Ws to 12x18 (Cropped edges) and they are still look great. I'm not a big fan of shooting film for color shots since I've never been able to get the colors as they look on the film or slide but for me B&W still makes 35mm a viable format. Anyone who has never gone through the pain of developing and enlarging prints can't truly appreciate the ease of a DSLR. I'm sure there are also a lot of photo students in high school looking for cheap 35mm cameras as most schools still require 35mm SLRs for intro classes.

 

[VictorChan]

Absolutely incorrect. 35MM negatives can be increased to 8x10's, 11x17, whatever size you have paper and an enlarger for. Most estimates figure that a frame of 35mm contains about 20-25 Megapixels of data.

Go to a pro lab for this though - Walgreens and Ritz camera will not do it right.

Or you could get your own dedicated negative scanner.

My wife and I have been processing color (both C-41 and E-6(slide)) and B&W at home for a while now. It costs about $14 to get a 1 liter kit that contains enough chemicals to do about 12 rolls of 35mm.

Most places will do "develop only" - then you scan in the negs - costs about $2 per roll - so add the $3.50 of the film itself and you have roughly $5.50 for a roll of 24. Wow.. Still roughly a quarter per shot. Well if you develop yourself you can get it down to a cool $0.20 I guess.



Why in gods name would you spend $15 at the lab? Wow. Even with prints Walgreens runs their minilab for about $6/24.



A lot of folks would disagree - myself included. Digital lacks dynamic range. I've yet to see a camera - besides the new canon 5dmk2 that comes close to 35mm in DR. Film adds character, mood, and a lot of "oomph" to your photos.

You can bring your film pics quite easily into the digital world with a negative scanner. Even a normal scanner will let you bring your prints in.

Absolutely true, but if you scan the negative you can fix the color shift - which is a lot less pronounced in film, than say having your digital in the wrong mode.

I started with film when I was a kid, didn't do much with it, got re-interested and bought a kodak point and shoot - then my wife upgraded and gave me her 350d (digital rebel xt). Thats when things got good. Now as I look back over the past couple weeks I've taken more pics with her old rebel 2000 and my Diana F+ and even some with her Holga than anything else. I even have a 30 year old canonet rangefinder coming I just picked up off ebay for $33. I fully expect that that will become my daily shooter.

I know I could get the enlarged prints but it costs extra money on top of your standard 4x6. One expense on top of another. I developed that roll at Ritz camera in NYC upper west side == expensive. Yes, I know I can have the negatives scanned but if I want good result I have to fork out a $600+ scanner. I am shooting a 1dmarkII. I just don't see why I would devote the time and extra expenses to shoot films and to have color negatives converted to digital. I could do all that with my 1dmarkII with excellent results.

 

[bobdole369]

if I want good result I have to fork out a $600+ scanner

Actually its more like $1500.

However I've had good results for non-saleable 120 and 35mm with a $150 Epson Perfection V500.

I see the difference between film and digital as similar to vinyl vs compact disc, or tube amp vs. transistors. Each has its strengths, each has its weaknesses - of course digital will win the war. Actually maybe even throw a "CD vs. mp3" in there as well.

Excellent camera you have there, I wish you luck with it. maybe one day....