[ChrisPlatt]

But they ae still making the FM10 for Nikon and a K series...

Likely no longer in production, but still listed by Nikon and Vivitar due to remaining inventory.

Chris

[Cuthbert]

Yes probably they haven't made the F6 for many years now.

[filmamigo]

Sad news about Voigtlander/Cosina.

I have found the price of 35mm SLRs has rebounded some in the past year. The "limitless supply" of cheap SLRs isn't so limitless. In Toronto, the K1000 sells for between $200 and $250, always at least a $100 premium over most other SLRs. The name recognition combined with suggestions from photography professors pretty well guarantee a demand from neophyte students.

Plastic SLRs are still being firesaled for $10 to $30, and its too bad that the Pentax plastic-fantastics are doomed by the inevitable failure of the plastic gear. Otherwise they would be a bargain. Newer semi-automatic SLRs (ME, ME Super) will fetch a bit more -- $40 to $60 -- but even these prices are creeping up. Retail storefronts have these guys for $100 to $150.

[VoiceOfReason]

I need to sell my film stuff. I don't use it and have no plans to use it. It simply isn't fun, and I can get far better results with a DSLR, plus the field of view looks weird and developing film is a pain.

[LesDMess]

To be honest I wouldn't consider it. I have some film cameras and find that I simply don't use them at all. I have, but I don't enjoy film. It doesn't have the magic to it that some people seem to find for me. I'm going to sell my film gear because of this.

I need to sell my film stuff. I don't use it and have no plans to use it. It simply isn't fun, and I can get far better results with a DSLR, plus the field of view looks weird and developing film is a pain.

Enough said.

[tuco]

I need to sell my film stuff. I don't use it and have no plans to use it. It simply isn't fun, and I can get far better results with a DSLR, plus the field of view looks weird and developing film is a pain.

It is amazing the different experiences people have with film. I suppose in the past you only knew and shot small format?

[VoiceOfReason]

It is amazing the different experiences people have with film. I suppose in the past you only knew and shot small format?

I started on a 110 film camera, then used various regular 35mm point and shoots when younger, then an APS film camera. I switched to digital in 2002, went through various upgrades until going with a Kx in 2010, then stayed with DSLRs and a couple mirrorless cameras. I bought film cameras at the urging of friends who were photography students, and I simply didn't get why after trying it multiple times that someone would take that huge step backwards in tech and to me quality. Blowing up photos gives me unacceptable noise, and I dislike the long processing times, expense, and wait for 24-27 pictures. I really don't see what people see in it to be honest.

I suppose some feel nostalgic for it, especially those who are older than I am, and I know some who do it because "it is more real" than DSLR photography, but to me I am not going with something that gives worse results, with more expense, and a limited amount of pictures from one set. If I were to use film at an anime con, even though I take only one pic because I get my shot right off, it would be an extra 100 dollars cost if not more and I'd have to wait to get it done. No thanks.

[Cuthbert]

I started on a 110 film camera, then used various regular 35mm point and shoots when younger, then an APS film camera. I switched to digital in 2002, went through various upgrades until going with a Kx in 2010, then stayed with DSLRs and a couple mirrorless cameras. I bought film cameras at the urging of friends who were photography students, and I simply didn't get why after trying it multiple times that someone would take that huge step backwards in tech and to me quality. Blowing up photos gives me unacceptable noise, and I dislike the long processing times, expense, and wait for 24-27 pictures. I really don't see what people see in it to be honest.

I suppose some feel nostalgic for it, especially those who are older than I am, and I know some who do it because "it is more real" than DSLR photography, but to me I am not going with something that gives worse results, with more expense, and a limited amount of pictures from one set. If I were to use film at an anime con, even though I take only one pic because I get my shot right off, it would be an extra 100 dollars cost if not more and I'd have to wait to get it done. No thanks.

I think the problem is not film photography, it's you. You are simply not good enough.

And to judge from the pic I'm younger than you.

[tuco]

... I simply didn't get why after trying it multiple times that someone would take that huge step backwards in tech and to me quality..

I see. Yes, we all have different experiences. As far as technical goes, I shoot medium format film a lot (as well as large now and then) and it is pretty much the same quality as my digital. Of course it is film so it is not apples-to-apples. And I can get way, more dynamic range out of my BW film in a single exposure than I can with my D810. So technically, it still can do some cool things. But you have to learn how to do it.

[Swift1]

plus the field of view looks weird

What does that have to do with film?

[VoiceOfReason]

I think the problem is not film photography, it's you.

And to judge from the pic I'm younger than you.

Care to explain why you're wrong? I can do that.

Digital photography: 120-200 pictures at a convention, with great colors, great dynamic range, nicely sharp, and get this, at no cost to develop and publish, sometimes that very night from my hotel room!

Film photography: 8-10 bucks per roll of film. Then another 10-15 to develop each roll, and I have to go somewhere to send it off, then wait for it to come back with crappy scans that are noisy as can be and lower resolution, and I can't mess with contrast and clarity like I can with my digital stuff. Less dynamic range (I don't do B&W, just color). On the low end of the amount of pictures I take that is going to run me 5 rolls. So, 100 dollars when all is said and done. I would call that pretty dumb for something I am doing for enjoyment and for free, Ohh, and a week to be able to publish my pictures because I have to wait until I get back home before sending things off. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 12:38 PM ----------

What does that have to do with film?

I am used to the field of view from an APSC camera, so when I look at a shot and think, hey, I should grab XXX lens, it doesn't end up the same. When the upcoming FF comes out I'll be getting it for the increase in dynamic range and ISO, and decrease in noise, not for the field of view. I suppose I will get used to it, but I'll keep my APSC cameras.

---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 12:41 PM ----------

I see. Yes, we all have different experiences. As far as technical goes, I shoot medium format film a lot (as well as large now and then) and it is pretty much the same quality as my digital. Of course it is film so it is not apples-to-apples. And I can get way, more dynamic range out of my BW film in a single exposure than I can with my D810. So technically, it still can do some cool things. But you have to learn how to do it.

My only B&W stuff is higher wavelength IR stuff. I like how I can take pics in RAW, pull shadows if I need to, slightly bump the contrast and clarity and possibly even the hue and saturation in photoshop, and get something that is quite pleasing to me (I take photos for myself and to share with others some). I simply can't do all of those things with film, and when I factor costs digital is incredibly cheaper. Heck, if I took the amount of pictures I do on film I could have easily bought a 645z.

[mohb]

I think the problem is not film photography, it's you. You are simply not good enough

Film isn't good enough.

[VoiceOfReason]

I love it when someone spews BS toward me personally in the forum. Almost makes me want to do my first boriscleto here.

[tuco]

... Heck, if I took the amount of pictures I do on film I could have easily bought a 645z.

That's the catch. With film most people take way fewer pictures and end up with the same amount of keepers, in general. My Fuji GSW690 only has 8 frames per 120 roll of film yet I end up with just as many keepers as my digital shooting ten-times the amount. It weird and hard to explain but that's what happens with years of experience with film. When I shoot digital, I snap away and ask questions later. I definitely get lazy because the medium supports it so easily.

So that's why you really can't equate the cost of film to your digital shooting habits in general. My film expense throughout the year is beer money since I develop and scan my own and that's what a person has to do today if they want to keep costs down. And of course that's not for everyone's taste which is understandable. But I can take pictures today and post them tonight with film because I'm all setup for it, FYI.

[mohb]

Pictures taken through the eyes of a replicant.

They are the same eyes that i had when I started taking photos in 1970

You may have some mystical relationship with film but for me it has had its day,