Its a shame, I have a fairly decent film SLR (Canon EOS 10s) camera.
And, of course, unless you don’t have a computer at home, its kinda primitive — and costly ---- not to use a digital camera.
I keep looking at ebay and such places, and I see I won’t get hardly anything for my film camera.
Does anyone still prefer a film camera? Do any professionals use them … is there any advantages to film.
Is there anyone like me here who has a nice film camera, but is straining to buy a nice digital SLR? I’m at that point where I am kinda proud of my little layout and want to take some photos. I’m a novice photographer.
hi,
I use both film and digital. For model RR stuff its almost all difital because I honestaly dont have much to show off yet. For lots of other things I still used my film camera. I have a Nikon F2S, and I love it. I use both it and my digital for real train photography. While i love the convenience of my digital, I still can shoot a lot better with my F2. I also really like the way that slides turn out. I think they end up with much better color than prints or digital… just me though.
Digital cameras have made film equitment prices go way down. Its kinda sad. I am planing on getting a DSLR if i get a job this summer, if not I may be able to scrape together enough money to get a cheeper one anyways. If i get one it will replace my current digital camera and my F2 in some uses, but I’ll still be luging that F2 around often enough.
~matt
O, take a roll of carefully crafted pictures of your layout, get the prints AND a CD made at the drug store/photo finisher, and then you will have both formats. You could even post the digital ones here through a webhost.
I’ve never been able to get decent photos of models while using film, and so I never really pursued it. Now that I have a digital, I’ve taken thousands of images of my and other’s modeling efforts, including over 400 on a single engine superdetailing project alone! Now that I’m getting good with it, I’m planning on upgrading to a 8+ meg digital SLR and start writing a few articles. I would have NEVER done that if I was locked into film photography.
Do I still use film? Not much. I’ve still got an 8mm videocamera that I use regularly, and I bring my Canon and Nikon film SLRs on trips with me just in case my digital craps out on me, but I haven’t used a single frame of film in well over a year. The only time I can see using film (for now) is if I decided to chase a fantrip: the lag time on my HP 945 is too slow for more than 3-4 shots in a row, wheras with my film, I can burn through 32 frames in about 13 seconds. Once I pick up a high-quality digital SLR that doesn’t have that problem, I’ll probably donate my film stuff to a museum somewhere.
I use both , digital and 35mm. If its just for fun or convenience, I use my digital, it fits in my glovebox or my shirt pocket. I also have a Canon AE-1 with an assortment of lenses for real keeper pictures or anything I might want to submit for publication.
The magazines want 35mm slide (preferred) or 8 megapixel files for print, my current digital is only 2.5 megs, fine for my uses. I’m not ready to spend the huge bucks yet!!![;)]
I intended to keep using my Canon film cameras (EOS Elan IIe & 7e) when I first got into digital, but they quickly became sidelined even with point and shoot digitals. I was shooting more and enjoying the photos more because there wasn’t any cost to them, taking many more than I would have with film. When I got my first Digital Rebel I hadn’t used either film camera for about a year and a half. Then on to a Rebel XT, and I finally bit the bullet and sold my film cameras. Of course my lenses still fit the digital cameras, so I wasn’t totally rid of the equipment.
I’ve had several articles published with my digital images, and I’m quite pleased with the cameras - I also have two small point and shoot digitals that I carry around with me most of the time.
When I’d shoot model photos with my film cameras, one roll of 36 exposure slide film (Ektachrome 64T) would cost me about $27.00 including processing. No such costs with digital, and instant feedback! I also share quite a bit of my social photos - at train shows, family events, etc., through online albums. With family spread around the country quite a bit, this is a great way to share photos. I know I certainly wouldn’t send them all color prints!
I exclusively use film, partially because I’d rather buy a pair of Stewart FP7s than a digital camera, and partly beacause I know how. Set 'er up on a tripod, set the f stop as low as possible, and keep the shutter open for 20-30 seconds…
Works like a charm, my photos look great!
I am a bit of a film zealot, actually, and I firmly believe that slides are the ebst media out there for many purposes! But the patience…I’m still waiting for a print to come back of a picture I took over a month ago!
I use a Pentax K1000 as a carry-around camera for railfanning and documenting scenes/ structures/ equipment I might want to model… also for color slides for “serious” stuff like submitting for publication.
For trading and posting on-line, I have the gosh-awfulest system. I have a $4000 broadcast television camera bought for a TV show I was going to produce but it went bust and I did too.
I can’t afford to buy new $200 batteries to lug the thing around, but I use the AC adapter to power the the thing for shooting digital video of little models. Upload a video clip to computer. Freeze it in my Premiere editing program to get a still picture. Crop or manipulate the image in Photoshop. And email to a friend or upload to railimages to post on this site or elsewhere.
I was taking pics with my old 35 mm Zenit camera yesterday !! I love being able to shoot digital pics but to get the close-up ability etc. on a digital is (from what I understand) a pretty expensive proposition. I use my wife’s digital camera for ‘real’ train pics, still getting used to the delay though.
I hardly use my Pentex MX or Nikon N2000 - The Nikon bodies go for $50-$100 on eBay(if you can get that much). Most of my current photography is with a Powershot A95(my son’s camera). For eBay, I use a cheap computer cam(takes super model photos on my desktop for things like eBay).
My digital camera is a nice 5 megapixel one, but it is still fundamentally a snapshot camera. The flash is built-in, and there is no tripod mount. For the closeup photography on my layout, I find the flash on the camera is overkill and does not return true colors very well. On the other hand, with no tripod it’s tricky to work with just room lighting. As an amateur, I don’t have a bunch of professional photo floods lying around, either.
Mostly, I just live with the shortcomings of the digital camera to gain the turnaround time and cost advantages. I have used my old SLR for some of my favorite shots, though.
Still film here. I can’t get the results I want with a digital camera that is in the price range I’m prepared to pay. When digital SLR that can use my existing lenses gets below $500 I’ll jump on board. My son has a 4MP point and shoot digital that I use occasionally.
I don’t have a digital SLR with changeable lenses. I have a Kodak EasyShare digital. The maximum f-stop is only f-5.5. Not that good for model photography. I have more control of the depth of field with my film SLR camera. It has a lens with an f-stop of 22 which is better for model photography. The higher the number the depth of field (smaller the aprature) the sharper the focus between what’s in front of the camera, the subject and behind the subject. A pinhole lens is f-90 or higher but they’re expensive.
The digital is good for setting up the shot and judging lighting. Lighting position and intensity is the tricky part. Shadows are a pain to deal with. It’d be great to shoot everything outdoors.
Most point and shoot digital cameras have a close up mode that allows you to get in close enough for model photography. Digital SLRs can also focus farily close with the lenses that come with them - see the following HO scene, taken with my Digital Rebel XT and it’s standard 18-55mm lens:
You can get in close with most cameras using add-on close up lenses that screw onto the front of the lens just like filters. A set of 3 is around $35.00, not overly expensive.
The use of a Depth of Field program like Helicon Focus makes the digital camera great.
A practice picture with Helicon Focus and an under $200 refurbished Konica Minolta Z20 (Click on Image to enlarge)
The price of digital camera is made up by the cost of the images. I know I couldn’t afford to take pictures for my website with film. Digital makes it so that one is losing money not taking pictures. As far as 8 meg pictures I was told by a professional; that is why you have Photoshop, you can jazz a 5 meg to 8 .
Well I dont think film is bad, but the market is dead for film. Sorry about your luck with selling your camera’s. I have a Nikon and a Komica-Minolta or however you spell it that are excellent camera’s that use film that I purchased… wait no I didnt even buy them, they were given to me. See how dead the market is?? But I have 3 digital cameras and love them ALL!
I still use film (slides) when i take trackside pictures, but use digital too. I got a Canon EOS when they came out, and loved it since. Last year I got a Canon G6, and love that too. The difference is not I shoot everything at any time. I do not have to worry about lost film. And I sometimes take multiple pictures, just in case. The bad ones get tossed in the Recycle Bin. One thing to remember is that digital is not as fast as film (yet), but it is getting there. For us with a budget, those Digital cameras will take a while to be affordable. It used to be the megapixels, no more; now it is the speed of the chip to process the image and store it in memory.
I have an Olympus OM4 w/ 35-200mm Tokina lense. If Olympus comes out with a DSLR that will accept my lense, I’ll switch. Until then, I’ll stay with film. Processing a roll of film at Wally-World only costs about $3, and the film itself isn’t very expensive either.
