My next question will be about typewriters at this rate.
May 7, 2012 6:52 AM Subscribe
Speaking of camera repair - is it worth getting my old-school 35mm camera repaired? Or are reports of film's demise exaggerated?
Inspired by today's question from Styxno, which I've followed as I too have a camera in need of repair -- the old 35mm I got years ago, and which got some shutter issues after it fell off the hood of a car in 2001. I haven't had the funds to fix it until now, and have made do with a cheap digital.
But I'm wondering whether now, since digital is the thing and since film is on the way out, whether it's even worth repairing. I've found places that develop film, but is film a dying enough breed that I'm not even going to find film cartridges about for much longer? Am I better off just saving up for a really good digital?
thanks!
Inspired by today's question from Styxno, which I've followed as I too have a camera in need of repair -- the old 35mm I got years ago, and which got some shutter issues after it fell off the hood of a car in 2001. I haven't had the funds to fix it until now, and have made do with a cheap digital.
But I'm wondering whether now, since digital is the thing and since film is on the way out, whether it's even worth repairing. I've found places that develop film, but is film a dying enough breed that I'm not even going to find film cartridges about for much longer? Am I better off just saving up for a really good digital?
thanks!
is it worth getting my old-school 35mm camera repaired
Probably not. Ebay has tons of nice 35mm film cameras for cheap. For example, here's a search for Canon AE-1s. They are wonderful cameras.
Am I better off just saving up for a really good digital?
If you love photography, a good digital SLR will be a joy. I've loved photography for over 35 years, and having a digital SLR was a revelation.
However, before I could afford a digital SLR, I kept shooting with my film cameras and had my film processed and scanned to CDs. Costco does this for about $5, but there are countless other places that do the same. I could then edit the images and order prints of just what I wanted.
posted by The Deej at 7:20 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
Probably not. Ebay has tons of nice 35mm film cameras for cheap. For example, here's a search for Canon AE-1s. They are wonderful cameras.
Am I better off just saving up for a really good digital?
If you love photography, a good digital SLR will be a joy. I've loved photography for over 35 years, and having a digital SLR was a revelation.
However, before I could afford a digital SLR, I kept shooting with my film cameras and had my film processed and scanned to CDs. Costco does this for about $5, but there are countless other places that do the same. I could then edit the images and order prints of just what I wanted.
posted by The Deej at 7:20 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
Film is dying. If film were a person it would have 2 years to live. Maybe it proves everyone wrong and holds on for a while, but I wouldn't count on it. Medium and large format will probably be around for longer, but 35mm is kind of a dinosaur. You'll be able to process 35mm in specialty labs for a long time but as far as walking into a CVS and buying a roll of film and then dropping it off without sending it to Montana or something? Those days are soon to be over.
Image quality wise, IMO, your average 35mm camera will still take better pictures than your standard point and shoot digital camera. A digital SLR, however, will produce better images than 35mm. You will also probably use it much more. I know I do. So if you're interested in more serious photography save up for an DSLR. They're great. If you just want to be able to take nice snapshots with some texture I'd get an old 35mm on ebay and use it for another couple of years.
posted by nathancaswell at 8:18 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
Image quality wise, IMO, your average 35mm camera will still take better pictures than your standard point and shoot digital camera. A digital SLR, however, will produce better images than 35mm. You will also probably use it much more. I know I do. So if you're interested in more serious photography save up for an DSLR. They're great. If you just want to be able to take nice snapshots with some texture I'd get an old 35mm on ebay and use it for another couple of years.
posted by nathancaswell at 8:18 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
As someone with a much-loved 35mm, I definitely think film is going to be harder and harder to find (and probably more expensive) over the next, say, ten years, and the trend is definitely toward better and smaller digital cameras. The various mirrorless systems (e.g., Micro 4/3) are very attractive, although I'm pretty sure they require a whole new system of lenses to what you may already have.
I think the answer here is more about what you want out of photography, though. If you're shooting regularly and love the look of film and are getting good prints and doing things that you're not sure you can do with digital, it might be worth spending a bit on a repair or a used film body off of eBay or wherever. And stockpiling your favorite films if you can.
If you're not attached to the aesthetics of film as such but still taking artistic photos, or making big prints (say, larger than 8x10"), maybe look into a digital SLR that can take your existing lenses. (You will want to look into this, but I think Canon's EOS lenses are compatible with I think all of their digital SLRs; I think all of Nikon's lenses and bodies are intercompatible; the Sony alpha series takes Minolta lenses; and so on.)
If it's not so much a hobby or art as it is just wanting a decent camera for pictures of friends and family and vacation photos and so on, there are a lot of very nice and versatile and reasonably affordable digitals in the compact form factor which might do, say, 95%-to-100% of everything you want a camera for, and may be within your budget.
posted by gauche at 8:20 AM on May 7, 2012
I think the answer here is more about what you want out of photography, though. If you're shooting regularly and love the look of film and are getting good prints and doing things that you're not sure you can do with digital, it might be worth spending a bit on a repair or a used film body off of eBay or wherever. And stockpiling your favorite films if you can.
If you're not attached to the aesthetics of film as such but still taking artistic photos, or making big prints (say, larger than 8x10"), maybe look into a digital SLR that can take your existing lenses. (You will want to look into this, but I think Canon's EOS lenses are compatible with I think all of their digital SLRs; I think all of Nikon's lenses and bodies are intercompatible; the Sony alpha series takes Minolta lenses; and so on.)
If it's not so much a hobby or art as it is just wanting a decent camera for pictures of friends and family and vacation photos and so on, there are a lot of very nice and versatile and reasonably affordable digitals in the compact form factor which might do, say, 95%-to-100% of everything you want a camera for, and may be within your budget.
posted by gauche at 8:20 AM on May 7, 2012
Medium and large format will probably be around for longer, but 35mm is kind of a dinosaur.
This.
If one was really committed to film as an artistic medium, I would suggest going to medium format cameras nowadays. It makes a great old-timey hobby, especially if you do your own developing.
posted by fairmettle at 8:22 AM on May 7, 2012
This.
If one was really committed to film as an artistic medium, I would suggest going to medium format cameras nowadays. It makes a great old-timey hobby, especially if you do your own developing.
posted by fairmettle at 8:22 AM on May 7, 2012
More information is needed, what kind of film camera is it? Getting the shutter overhauled on an M6 will cost a fraction what a replacement body would cost. A Canon 1V goes for north of $500 used on keh. If you've got a body that's worth $100 or less, I wouldn't bother to repair it, but it depends on the body you have.
(I don't think film is dead, I'd be surprised if I still can't get my E6 done in NY with same day turn around for less than ten of today's dollars in a decade. YMMV.)
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:23 AM on May 7, 2012
(I don't think film is dead, I'd be surprised if I still can't get my E6 done in NY with same day turn around for less than ten of today's dollars in a decade. YMMV.)
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:23 AM on May 7, 2012
Response by poster: Answers to a few questions that have come up:
1. No idea what kind of camera it is; my parents got it for me at Sears back in....1988.
2. I did at one point know how to develop my own film, and have a friend who could walk me through the refresher course (he even has his own equipment as he's more of a professional). But even he's switched over to digital.
3. Really, I just want something better than the thing I have which doesn't really do well with low light and has a battery life shorter than a mayfly. Not really a professional, I'm somewhere between "snapshot" and "hobbyist".
I've tried two different POS digitals now and not been really happy with either; I miss being able to play with the lens apertures. Would an SLR work for me, then, more so than fixing the old beast?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:29 AM on May 7, 2012
1. No idea what kind of camera it is; my parents got it for me at Sears back in....1988.
2. I did at one point know how to develop my own film, and have a friend who could walk me through the refresher course (he even has his own equipment as he's more of a professional). But even he's switched over to digital.
3. Really, I just want something better than the thing I have which doesn't really do well with low light and has a battery life shorter than a mayfly. Not really a professional, I'm somewhere between "snapshot" and "hobbyist".
I've tried two different POS digitals now and not been really happy with either; I miss being able to play with the lens apertures. Would an SLR work for me, then, more so than fixing the old beast?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:29 AM on May 7, 2012
I've tried two different POS digitals now and not been really happy with either; I miss being able to play with the lens apertures. Would an SLR work for me, then, more so than fixing the old beast?
I'm pretty sure it would. You're in New York, take a trip to B&H and play around with some of the DSLRs and see what you think.
posted by nathancaswell at 8:36 AM on May 7, 2012
I'm pretty sure it would. You're in New York, take a trip to B&H and play around with some of the DSLRs and see what you think.
posted by nathancaswell at 8:36 AM on May 7, 2012
From your uses, I'd look into the digital compacts. Many of them have some sort of aperture priority mode so that you can play with depth of field. If you're less price-sensitive and want to take more than just snapshots, consider a mirrorless interchangeable lens setup or an SLR.
Low-light is the bane of all photographers, unfortunately, and the built-in flash on any compact is going to be terrible. Some compacts have a flash shoe, which can help (although that's another accessory to buy and carry around). The best setup for low-light is going to be a tripod and a really fast lens (aperture under f/2) and a bounce flash if you're indoors -- I don't know your budget, but these things are expensive and bulky.
One thing to remember about most compacts (and many interchangeable lenses) is that they are fast when wide-open, but as you zoom in they let in less and less light. On the lens this is expressed as something like F/2-5.6, which means that you can open up to f/2 at the widest zoom, but zoomed in it will only open it up to f/5.6.
Does your camera have a detachable lens, or is it all one piece? If it's all one piece, unless it's a surprisingly good camera (e.g., it says "Leica" on it) it's probably not worth repairing.
posted by gauche at 8:54 AM on May 7, 2012
Low-light is the bane of all photographers, unfortunately, and the built-in flash on any compact is going to be terrible. Some compacts have a flash shoe, which can help (although that's another accessory to buy and carry around). The best setup for low-light is going to be a tripod and a really fast lens (aperture under f/2) and a bounce flash if you're indoors -- I don't know your budget, but these things are expensive and bulky.
One thing to remember about most compacts (and many interchangeable lenses) is that they are fast when wide-open, but as you zoom in they let in less and less light. On the lens this is expressed as something like F/2-5.6, which means that you can open up to f/2 at the widest zoom, but zoomed in it will only open it up to f/5.6.
Does your camera have a detachable lens, or is it all one piece? If it's all one piece, unless it's a surprisingly good camera (e.g., it says "Leica" on it) it's probably not worth repairing.
posted by gauche at 8:54 AM on May 7, 2012
Based on your followup, I'd guess it would cost more to repair than its worth. Get thee to B&H and try out a DSLR and some of the more advanced hybrids such as the Canon G12 and the micro four-thirds (and other EVIL) cameras since those will give you control over exposure (ISO. shutter, aperture) and allow for varying degrees of manual focus.
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:54 AM on May 7, 2012
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:54 AM on May 7, 2012
I agree with nathancaswell's assessment. 35mm has no real future, though Medium and Large Format will stick around much longer due to the fine art photography niche.
That being said, and to give you an example: I have an old Olympus OM-1 That I picked up on eBay with some lenses for $75, and am planning to get it "refurbished". There's only one shop that still does it and will probably end up costing me an extra $150, but here's the reason I'm going to do it: because sometimes you need to practice with a manual tool.
For me, it's not really about the image quality or the texture of film. Although I do love the crunch of film grain, you can actually simulate that pretty well with software. No, there has to be something more to justify using an old, non-digital camera. Something that new technology can't really give you.
It's about the limitations that force you to become more efficient, more...mindful of the image taking process.
Lacking the modern conveniences of live view, autofocus, exposure compensation, on-the-fly ISO changes, I'm forced to consider each shot carefully. I have to take measurements, pay attention to the analog light meter (or use a handheld one) and judge more with my own eyes. I take notes for each shot; it's a continuous learning process, a self-imposed discipline.
It is a slower process and you miss a lot of shots so I don't use my film camera all the time, but when I want to just get into the craft of photography, I'll grab my film camera, head up the canyon for a day and just wander around. I may only take a dozen shots for the entire day, where if I'd had my digital camera I would have come home with hundreds.
It's a very zen-like experience. Not for everybody and not for all situations, but that to me is the real value of an old film camera.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:03 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
That being said, and to give you an example: I have an old Olympus OM-1 That I picked up on eBay with some lenses for $75, and am planning to get it "refurbished". There's only one shop that still does it and will probably end up costing me an extra $150, but here's the reason I'm going to do it: because sometimes you need to practice with a manual tool.
For me, it's not really about the image quality or the texture of film. Although I do love the crunch of film grain, you can actually simulate that pretty well with software. No, there has to be something more to justify using an old, non-digital camera. Something that new technology can't really give you.
It's about the limitations that force you to become more efficient, more...mindful of the image taking process.
Lacking the modern conveniences of live view, autofocus, exposure compensation, on-the-fly ISO changes, I'm forced to consider each shot carefully. I have to take measurements, pay attention to the analog light meter (or use a handheld one) and judge more with my own eyes. I take notes for each shot; it's a continuous learning process, a self-imposed discipline.
It is a slower process and you miss a lot of shots so I don't use my film camera all the time, but when I want to just get into the craft of photography, I'll grab my film camera, head up the canyon for a day and just wander around. I may only take a dozen shots for the entire day, where if I'd had my digital camera I would have come home with hundreds.
It's a very zen-like experience. Not for everybody and not for all situations, but that to me is the real value of an old film camera.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:03 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
If it's a major brand 35mm and you have multiple lenses for it, you might look at a nice used digital that will take the same lenses. I recently picked up a Nikon D50 in really nice condition for $100. Sure, it's "only" 6.1MP, but it takes great photos and I've got a nice collection of lenses for it. 35mm is dead; find a nice used DSLR and go nuts. The great thing about digital is that you can shoot and shoot and shoot (last Christmas morning, I took 400-some-odd shots of the kids opening their presents, using the auto-sequence-shot mode to catch that one frame where their expression is just perfect!) and sort through them to find the ones you want to save or print. Just like your 35mm, you can take really nice photos with a DSLR, but without the cost-burden of film and developing.
posted by xedrik at 9:24 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by xedrik at 9:24 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
+1 for not worth the money to repair an old 35mm from sears.
As for a new DSLR, you've already got the advice to get to your local camera shop (not a big box store) and try out a handful of different cameras. When considering the different types my advice is to pick what feels great in your hands and consider full costs of upgrading lenses etc. as well. When comparing similar models between the main brands (Sony, Nikon, Canon) you'll find very negligible differences in image quality between the actual cameras; especially Sony and Nikkon as Sony makes the image sensors for Nikkon. Buy the body that has the features you want now and don't worry about future proofing the body. My favourite piece of advice that I received when deciding on cameras was that good, high quality lenses are an investment that will last your lifetime. The electronic body is an expense, like a computer, that will be obsolete by next year.
If you're on a tight budget, check out lenses and overall systems at a photo store and buy a 2 or 3 year old body for dirt cheap on craigslist. Then get a REALLY nice lens for it, an old(er) body with a great lens will take a WAY better picture than a new body with a crappy lens.
posted by Beacon Inbound at 10:28 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
As for a new DSLR, you've already got the advice to get to your local camera shop (not a big box store) and try out a handful of different cameras. When considering the different types my advice is to pick what feels great in your hands and consider full costs of upgrading lenses etc. as well. When comparing similar models between the main brands (Sony, Nikon, Canon) you'll find very negligible differences in image quality between the actual cameras; especially Sony and Nikkon as Sony makes the image sensors for Nikkon. Buy the body that has the features you want now and don't worry about future proofing the body. My favourite piece of advice that I received when deciding on cameras was that good, high quality lenses are an investment that will last your lifetime. The electronic body is an expense, like a computer, that will be obsolete by next year.
If you're on a tight budget, check out lenses and overall systems at a photo store and buy a 2 or 3 year old body for dirt cheap on craigslist. Then get a REALLY nice lens for it, an old(er) body with a great lens will take a WAY better picture than a new body with a crappy lens.
posted by Beacon Inbound at 10:28 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
Low-light is the bane of all photographers, unfortunately,
Not anymore
Also, professional-level flash photography is not (always) difficult and it doesn't cost much (money in terms of equipment).
posted by magullo at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
Not anymore
Also, professional-level flash photography is not (always) difficult and it doesn't cost much (money in terms of equipment).
posted by magullo at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]
If you're not set on an SLR system, you might enjoy some of the compact 1970s rangefinders with fast lenses, possibly the best example of which is the Canon Canonet QL17*. Fixed, fast lens, mostly-metal body, auto exposure.
Often you can pick these up at a used-camera shop for $50-80 in good working condition. The meters on some have failed, so ensure the shopkeep tests/demos the auto shutter for you— and time the long speeds with your watch.
If you do go manual AE SLR, my recommendations are the Nikon F3, Canon AE-1 or A-1, and Olympus OM-2 or OM-4.
*Some others being the Minolta Hi-Matic and Yashica Electro 35.
posted by a halcyon day at 8:14 AM on May 8, 2012
Often you can pick these up at a used-camera shop for $50-80 in good working condition. The meters on some have failed, so ensure the shopkeep tests/demos the auto shutter for you— and time the long speeds with your watch.
If you do go manual AE SLR, my recommendations are the Nikon F3, Canon AE-1 or A-1, and Olympus OM-2 or OM-4.
*Some others being the Minolta Hi-Matic and Yashica Electro 35.
posted by a halcyon day at 8:14 AM on May 8, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
I'd get another (new or used) film camera to replace it. These days folks are parting with perfectly good film cameras because they want digital cameras.
Film is still around although you may need to go to a formal photography shop to get a good selection.
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 7:01 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]