You see tons of them for sale on ebay-many going for less than $50. I know that very few people shoot film anymore, and that tons of film SLRs were manufactured. So their value to collectors is pretty low. Is this likely to accelerate? Sch a shame-some really well made, well engineered stuff now worthless!
Is this a rhetorical question?
Because, you already know what they are worth when you noted what they are selling for on ebay.
Some are destined to become collector’s items. Most are destined to become junk.
Some people are going to want to keep using them. So they will have some value, even if only for parts. I’m fully sold on digital.
Maybe someone can convince the kids who are buying LPs and turntables that they need 35mm film and cameras to go along with them?
Nah.
Well there was a purpose for them up until recently but the newer digital cameras seem to be making great strides.
They are railroad lanterns and brass diving helmets; look 0for one at Aplebees.
Call me a Troglodyte, but I still shoot everything on a truly dinosaur 35 mm camera. This camera requires no battery (the shutter works on mechanical gears) and one has to select every setting manually. The flash (separate from the camera) does require batteries and is less of an antique, though.
This camera has been repaired exactly three times in thirty two years. Luckily I have a great 35 mm camera repairman on (not exactly) speed dial. He was able to repair my camera the last time without needing any parts. I hope to never lose him.
It is impossible to get new parts for this camera anymore, but since literally more than a million of this particular camera were ever sold, one can generally find one on ebay, but then again, who knows how well this used camera has been taken care of?
I will start shooting digital soon after I buy the last roll of 35 mm film ever manufactured.
Exactly-I was just in Walgreens-not a single roll of film in sight! I suspect film photography will die very quickly-maybe within the next 2-3 years!
35mm film isn’t so difficult to manufacture that there won’t be somewhere to get some, probably for a decade or more. It will just be strictly via mail. In terms of general consumers film photography is already dead, IMO.
Yes, yes and yes.
I do believe that there is still a small but hard core of 35 mm users out there. As long as a 35 mm film manufacturer can still turn a worthwhile profit, I believe that they will continue to produce 35 mm film.
FWIW, I have been buying name-brand 33 mm film through the mail for many years, initially because it was a lot cheaper back then. I do notice, now, though, that when purchasing 35 mm film through the mail, a much narrower range of ASA speeds are available. Such narrowing of the product line is consistent with manufacturers who are trying to cut costs to maintain a product that is in decline.
As pixel counts continue to go up, I keep thinking of my older pro 35mm film cameras in my closet. I keep meaning to do some film work again, but I get sucked into so much digital computer time…
There is still a market for 35mm film, just not as big as years past. Larger formats are another story, but things are changing there, too.
Every time I think of a specialty process or a particular oddball film and want to do something like that again, I search for PS plug ins or other programs and get my fix satisfied digitally. I suspect many photographers are like that. If you search, tho, you can find photographers specializing in film only. Seems to be a niche market anymore.
As you have noticed, if someone wants to get one, older high end 35mm cameras are often available VERY cheap. Go for it.
IMHO, and as always on the SDMB: YMMV!
Like Hilary Alger, I’ve found that it’s getting harder and harder to buy film for my old Nikon setup from the sixties. Just as hard almost, is finding a place to develop it, since I don’t have a darkroom in my abode.
I love my digital cameras, but still like to get out to do some landscape shots with the film camera now and again. The old Nikon kicks some butt for landscape shots!
One brand of digital medium format backs
Large format digital possible but not cost effective yet.
My son is a high school sophomore. He’s taking Photography 1 this year. The first half semester was film and the second is digital. He’s learned to develop and print film. He’s signed up for Photo 2 next year. I don’t know if that has a film component.
He buys film through the school.
We have a photo lab near us. When we started going there nine years ago they had a long wall with different brands and every sort of film. Now they have just one 4’ section of slat wall with some film.
I’m pretty sure my kid will decide that film is the best way to express himself. The more expensive and difficult to find it becomes, the better.
To relate my ramblings just tangentially to the OP - at the beginning of the year we bought him a body only compatible with lenses I already had for about $30, including shipping.
It’s not the pixel count but the exposure computers in the camera. Now it is easy to learn photographer, or operated a camera and get good results. The instant feedback you get with digital really helps photographers learn what the results are for the decisions you make. So why use film? Digital gives you instant gratification, instant knowledge that you have the settings off. You can change “film speed” from one shot to the next. It really has so many advantages. I also find those people who say “film has this warmth that digital can’t do yet” to be full of it.
We still have on-site film processing in the drugstore where I work, although the vast majority of my customers use the self-serve digital kiosks. Those still bringing us film seem to be mostly the elderly, and some younger people who buy disposable(one time use) cameras. The nearby college still has at least one course that requires the use of 35mm film. The instructor always calls and warns us when he’s about to send a bunch of his students our way. We still stock some film, but the options are very limited. I think we sell single packs of 400 speed, and 4-packs of 200 speed.
Just my 2 cents.
digital has less depth in regards to bad lighting situations. they’re getting a lot better at it but once you overexpose part of an image there is no recovering it like you can with film.
If I were shooting stills, I think I’d look around for a deal on a film recorder. If you’re not familiar with them, they are devices to turn digital images into 35mm slides. They used to be necessary for large screen projection before high brightness video projectors became available. One I used to use could write an 8000 line image to a slide. It seems like a reasonable way to archive images, and I suspect that I could pick up a late generation LCD film recorder that originally sold for $35, 000 for change.
I picked up a Canon Elan, to go with my digital cams With the price of a full frame digital camera still over a thousand dollars for an older low mega pix unit, I find its more useful to pay as you go, with a film camera.
I’m not really worried about film going any time soon.
Declan
So true, so true.
Very luckily for me in, my town, two of the three drugstores still process film and all three will still make prints from negatives.
However, from info gleaned from other threads on this very topic on the SDMB, though, ready availability of film processing “in house” is not so much the norm anymore (this may be a function of market size?)
I do shudder to think of it, but perhaps in the not so distant future the only option for processing film in many markets (other than "do-it-yourself " processing) will be mail order.
FWIW, I used to do all my photo processing by mail order because it was so much cheaper. Then they lost one of my rolls once so many years ago and I bailed forever.
YMMV, but it would make me very nervous to have to have my film processed via mail order again, but soon enough we may have no other practical choice. :eek: