hbutz New York wrote:
From what I've seen, the US market is drying up on 35mm vintage cameras.  I've had to start importing from Japan to get something which wasn't beat to hell.  Film cameras differed from digital cameras in one important aspect - an $80 camera took just as good of a photograph as a $2000 camera provided you had a good lens and knew how to use it.  e.g. the Pentax K-1000 vs. the Pentax LX.

But, that didn't get you cool features such as autofocus and autobracketing and a decent light meter with an electronic shutter.  And, once it breaks or needs adjustments there are no parts or people to fix it - it's done. 

It's just not right that film photographers need to resort to rummaging thru the scrap heap for equipment.  It's humiliating behavior from the camera companies whom I've sent many a tax refund check for my cool toys.

LOL I have been able to find a few good ones on Facebook Mareketplace around here.

AgX wrote:

Isaiah Brink wrote:
Well, we refer it like that because most of us no longer use film like you.  Most of us have made the digital switch for one reason or another, partially due to most of us not having a lab in our area that process film, and we don't have darkrooms in our homes or studios.

I certainly understand the you might not use film anymore, and that most don't use film, and I understand the many reasons why. But to frame it with

and

suggests that film has been relegated to some bygone time that only "oldtimers" can remember. That it's not made anymore, that you can't buy it or use it anymore, but you could "way back then. Remember those days?".

It perpetuates those questions of, "Can you still get film for that thing?! Really?"
Yeah, I can. Online, delivered in a couple of days, or if I'm in a rush, at the photo store 3 blocks from my place where they have a whole fridge full.

Actually, this is supposed to be a light hearted thread for those of us who don't use film anymore for various reasons.  Stop trying to rain on the parade.   Yes, we know we can go shop online and get film still, what?  Think we use a digital camera and a computer to edit them but don't know how to use google?  You underestimate us, or think we're stupid.  Either way, thanks, but please don't bring such negativity to a light hearted thread.  IF you want to spread your negativity, try another thread.  There's plenty that have been hijacked already.

J_Nicholas wrote:

LOL I have been able to find a few good ones on Facebook Mareketplace around here.

B&H has a good supply, 35mm, 120, and sheet film.  Also has some Polaroid film too.

hbutz New York wrote:

Zack Zoll wrote:
Nikon's F6 has actually been out of production for a couple years - they just have a shitload of them left.

'cause the thing sold for $2500 and it's best cool feature was saving metadata to a SD card as a $300 option, with a Nikon rechargeable battery which listed for $175 (if memory serves me).  And they're not selling?  Go figure.


From what I've seen, the US market is drying up on 35mm vintage cameras.  I've had to start importing from Japan to get something which wasn't beat to hell.  Film cameras differed from digital cameras in one important aspect - an $80 camera took just as good of a photograph as a $2000 camera provided you had a good lens and knew how to use it.  e.g. the Pentax K-1000 vs. the Pentax LX.

But, that didn't get you cool features such as autofocus and autobracketing and a decent light meter with an electronic shutter.  And, once it breaks or needs adjustments there are no parts or people to fix it - it's done. 

It's just not right that film photographers need to resort to rummaging thru the scrap heap for equipment.  It's humiliating behavior from the camera companies whom I've sent many a tax refund check for my cool toys.

What you call 'the market drying up', I call 'people running out of working units to sell, and/or owners with working units in the closet not being eBay friendly.' The stuff is absolutely still out there. I live in a a city that, in my view, is just barely large enough to count as a city - and we have all sorts of stuff around. New York, maybe not as much - there are enough people that I wouldn't doubt most of the cheap cameras are snatched up, and the remaining o es go for real money because ... Well, they can.

I've actually thought very seriously about buying all the Technics turntables, Polaroid cameras, and Advent speakers I can get my hands on up here, renting a van, and driving down to the Bushwick flea market to sell them for five times what I paid.

To me, those 35mm cameras are a lost cause. I can buy a beat-up but perfectly functional Yashica-mat or Bronica for the same price as one of the major 35mm models, so why would I shoot 35mm? I could buy a Mamiyaflex for freaking nothing. To a serious film shooter, the best thing about the 'film renaissance' is that most everybody is chasing 35mm cameras, and that has caused the price of larger formats not made by Hassy/Rollei to stagnate ... which after inflation, means 120 cameras are cheaper than ever, even if the price of 'film' cameras is rising.

And no, that isn't at odds with my previous post. The fact that some moustache-waxing douche wants (and will get!) $400 for a MIB K1000 doesn't mean you can't buy an FM for chump change - it just means that you're going to have to look harder than the 'wouldn't it be cool?' buyer is willing to look.

Zack Zoll wrote:

What you call 'the market drying up', I call 'people running out of working units to sell, and/or owners with working units in the closet not being eBay friendly.' The stuff is absolutely still out there. I live in a a city that, in my view, is just barely large enough to count as a city - and we have all sorts of stuff around. New York, maybe not as much - there are enough people that I wouldn't doubt most of the cheap cameras are snatched up, and the remaining o es go for real money because ... Well, they can.

I've actually thought very seriously about buying all the Technics turntables, Polaroid cameras, and Advent speakers I can get my hands on up here, renting a van, and driving down to the Bushwick flea market to sell them for five times what I paid.

To me, those 35mm cameras are a lost cause. I can buy a beat-up but perfectly functional Yashica-mat or Bronica for the same price as one of the major 35mm models, so why would I shoot 35mm? I could buy a Mamiyaflex for freaking nothing. To a serious film shooter, the best thing about the 'film renaissance' is that most everybody is chasing 35mm cameras, and that has caused the price of larger formats not made by Hassy/Rollei to stagnate ... which after inflation, means 120 cameras are cheaper than ever, even if the price of 'film' cameras is rising.

And no, that isn't at odds with my previous post. The fact that some moustache-waxing douche wants (and will get!) $400 for a MIB K1000 doesn't mean you can't buy an FM for chump change - it just means that you're going to have to look harder than the 'wouldn't it be cool?' buyer is willing to look.

I think you're on to something.  I think time will tell with things, will medium format and 35mm market dry up?  In time it will.  How much time, I don't know.  Will there be new cameras made?  I don't think they will, last I heard Nikon just released a new digital camera.  Something about "Z".  I think people know what I"m talking about.  And Canon just released a new digital camera as well.  Anyways, I forget, what films did you like again?  You know, let me look back at he previous pots.

Studio NSFW wrote:
I wonder if the old Daguerreotype photographers struggled to continue their craft in the face of the new silver halide technology onslaught...before the mercury poisoning got to them?

Silver photography has many improvements over Daguerreotype and was a nice progression of technology.  Digital is a step backwards from film.

Mirrorless digital is another step backwards from DSLR.

It's not even photography anymore.  They should just change the name from "photography" to "digital imaging."

hbutz New York wrote:

Silver photography has many improvements over Daguerreotype and was a nice progression of technology.  Digital is a step backwards from film.

Mirrorless digital is another step backwards from DSLR.

It's not even photography anymore.  They should just change the name from "photography" to "digital imaging."

I'm curious to hear your reasoning there. I don't totally disagree, but it does sound a bit arbitrary and Luddite ... Ish? Luddish?

Zack Zoll wrote:
I'm curious to hear your reasoning there. I don't totally disagree, but it does sound a bit arbitrary and Luddite ... Ish? Luddish?

Sorry... didn't want to turn this into a "film vs. digital" thread.  imho, digital cameras have less exposure latitude than film and it's far easier to blow out highlights on a digital due to a linear vs. s-curve response.  Film more closely follows the response of the human eye.  Technology continues to make improvements, slowly but "sharpness" of digital is not an attribute I'm in desperate need of.  If I want perfect image, sharpness, and perfect color I can just look out the window.

Mirrorless cameras have worse battery life and worse autofocus and tracking.  The few advantages they do provide are not things I'm looking for.  I don't need a smaller camera which takes more frames per second.  And, models like a photographer who use big full frame cameras

In my opinion again, we all chase the shiny new toys and stand in line for the latest model of cell phones, rather than making demands on the market.  We let the camera companies tell us what we want - which is more expensive and less desirable than what we have, but makes more profit for them.

martin b wrote:
EPP Ektachrome plus, pretty standard for magazine submissions and working at museums for documentation
TMax 400 rated at 200 developed in microdol (?) if I remember right?
Kodak gold for print ( i didn't shoot much print film)

shot a nikon 8008, fm2, finally a f5 before going digital
medium format was Hassy
4x5 8x10 was calumet, Sinar p2 and Toyoview GX ( I think was also yaw free)

Damn hard to remember.  Back in those days I used to sleep in front of my cameras. Shooting since the early 80s.

Yeah, back in the day, if you had a Hassy, you had some money!  Don't get me wrong they were great cameras without a doubt, but you paid for them!  I got to use a Calumet 4x5 camera a few times, and I have to say, I enjoyed it.  I wish I got to use it more to get the hang of 4x5, it was also a joy to print them as well.  I liked using either Plus x or Try x in the 4x5.  Never got to use a Hasselblad though, or even 120.  Just 35mm and 4x5 for me.  What I really wish is that I could have taken that Calumet to Yosemite, since it was less than an hour away from me at the time.

hbutz New York wrote:

Sorry... didn't want to turn this into a "film vs. digital" thread.  imho, digital cameras have less exposure latitude than film and it's far easier to blow out highlights on a digital due to a linear vs. s-curve response.  Film more closely follows the response of the human eye.  Technology continues to make improvements, slowly but "sharpness" of digital is not an attribute I'm in desperate need of.  If I want perfect image, sharpness, and perfect color I can just look out the window.

Mirrorless cameras have worse battery life and worse autofocus and tracking.  The few advantages they do provide are not things I'm looking for.  I don't need a smaller camera which takes more frames per second.  And, models like a photographer who use big full frame cameras

In my opinion again, we all chase the shiny new toys and stand in line for the latest model of cell phones, rather than making demands on the market.  We let the camera companies tell us what we want - which is more expensive and less desirable than what we have, but makes more profit for them.

I see what you're saying, and I won't veer too far off topic either. I'll just point out that film isn't just a medium - it's an entire system. That's especially true when talking about 'the good old days.'

Even when I shoot digital, I often get comments at shows about how great it is that I'm 'keeping film alive.' Makes sense from people that know me and know I usually shoot film, but I get it from strangers too. I think it's because I use old film lenses, I shoot and process for maximum dynamic range, and I print using the Piezography K7 system, which more closely resembles analog prints than regular inkjets do.

There certainly are things that can only be done with certain mediums, but I find that the vast majority of the things that someone says cannot be done absolutely can - the speaker just hasn't seen it done yet.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Yeah, back in the day, if you had a Hassy, you had some money!  Don't get me wrong they were great cameras without a doubt, but you paid for them!  I got to use a Calumet 4x5 camera a few times, and I have to say, I enjoyed it.  I wish I got to use it more to get the hang of 4x5, it was also a joy to print them as well.  I liked using either Plus x or Try x in the 4x5.  Never got to use a Hasselblad though, or even 120.  Just 35mm and 4x5 for me.  What I really wish is that I could have taken that Calumet to Yosemite, since it was less than an hour away from me at the time.

Hassys (Hassies?) have come down in price, but not a lot - aside from the ones with electric film advances, which (IMO) aren't worth the effort of sourcing batteries and dealing with the weight. They also hop back up once in a while, even if the overall trend is (barely) down.

I shot one for a long time, usually with an 80s Zeiss 80mm. My around town work used to be with a Hassy, actually. I also used a Yashica-mat EM, 124G, Mamiya C2, S (or F, I forget) , Agfa Isolette (forget the version) , and a Bronica. I only owned about half those cameras myself, and the rest I either played around with or borrowed because I didn't currently own a 6x6. The project isn't finished, but so far I have images in there from every camera but the Isolette, and they all look about the same. Of course i'm shooting this project mostly around f/11 and usually with a tripod, so I'm not asking the cameras to do much heavy lifting.

The sharpest image in the series was with the Mamiya S/F, and handheld oddly enough. And of all of those cameras, I only kept the 124G. They all looked so damn similar, and that was the camera I most enjoyed using.

I wouldn't buy another Hassy. It was a great camera, it was my first step into 'serious' photographic equipment, and I'm glad I owned it. But I wouldn't buy it again. If the money for a Hassy dropped into my lap, I'd buy a Rollei if I were walking around and only needed one lens, or an RB/RZ if I were using it in studio.

Because of the brand recognition, that's one of the few 120 cameras that still sells for real money. It was a great purchase fifteen years ago when it wasn't *that* much more expensive than other great 120 cameras, but now they're 2-3 times more money than cameras that are just as good.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Hassys (Hassies?) have come down in price, but not a lot - aside from the ones with electric film advances, which (IMO) aren't worth the effort of sourcing batteries and dealing with the weight. They also hop back up once in a while, even if the overall trend is (barely) down.

I shot one for a long time, usually with an 80s Zeiss 80mm. My around town work used to be with a Hassy, actually. I also used a Yashica-mat EM, 124G, Mamiya C2, S (or F, I forget) , Agfa Isolette (forget the version) , and a Bronica. I only owned about half those cameras myself, and the rest I either played around with or borrowed because I didn't currently own a 6x6. The project isn't finished, but so far I have images in there from every camera but the Isolette, and they all look about the same. Of course i'm shooting this project mostly around f/11 and usually with a tripod, so I'm not asking the cameras to do much heavy lifting.

The sharpest image in the series was with the Mamiya S/F, and handheld oddly enough. And of all of those cameras, I only kept the 124G. They all looked so damn similar, and that was the camera I most enjoyed using.

I wouldn't buy another Hassy. It was a great camera, it was my first step into 'serious' photographic equipment, and I'm glad I owned it. But I wouldn't buy it again. If the money for a Hassy dropped into my lap, I'd buy a Rollei if I were walking around and only needed one lens, or an RB/RZ if I were using it in studio.

Because of the brand recognition, that's one of the few 120 cameras that still sells for real money. It was a great purchase fifteen years ago when it wasn't *that* much more expensive than other great 120 cameras, but now they're 2-3 times more money than cameras that are just as good.

I once had a Yashica-Mat 124G and liked it at the time.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Yeah, back in the day, if you had a Hassy, you had some money!  Don't get me wrong they were great cameras without a doubt, but you paid for them!  I got to use a Calumet 4x5 camera a few times, and I have to say, I enjoyed it.  I wish I got to use it more to get the hang of 4x5, it was also a joy to print them as well.  I liked using either Plus x or Try x in the 4x5.  Never got to use a Hasselblad though, or even 120.  Just 35mm and 4x5 for me.  What I really wish is that I could have taken that Calumet to Yosemite, since it was less than an hour away from me at the time.

Back then I was a commercial shooter so it was kinda standard.  I think I only had three lenses.  I never forget that Hassys are pretty sensitive cameras and sometimes stop working for no reason.  I've had a couple just stop for no reason.  I wasn't printing my pics.  I used to go to a lab in LA called A&I.  They printed for a bunch of the art galleries around town.  Most of the film I ran through my cameras was slide film.  4x5 slide film was soo expensive back then.  I think because I shot mostly for magazines, slide was the standard.  It would probably shock some people but I knew some photographers who shot medium format negative film for magazines instead of slide film.  I think it gave their pictures more of an amateur look.  I prefered shooting slide film on 35mm over medium format negative film for magazine submissions

I know it's just rambling trying to remember things from so long ago.

martin b wrote:

Back then I was a commercial shooter so it was kinda standard.  I think I only had three lenses.  I never forget that Hassys are pretty sensitive cameras and sometimes stop working for no reason.  I've had a couple just stop for no reason.  I wasn't printing my pics.  I used to go to a lab in LA called A&I.  They printed for a bunch of the art galleries around town.  Most of the film I ran through my cameras was slide film.  4x5 slide film was soo expensive back then.  I think because I shot mostly for magazines, slide was the standard.  It would probably shock some people but I knew some photographers who shot medium format negative film for magazines instead of slide film.  I think it gave their pictures more of an amateur look.  I prefered shooting slide film on 35mm over medium format negative film for magazine submissions

I know it's just rambling trying to remember things from so long ago.

Well, I never worked in the magazine business, but I wouldn't be surprised if they got submissions from many film sizes, that of course I'm including 35mm.  I'm sure you weren't the only one.....  In any sized submission.  Hopefully you got some published!

AgX wrote:
I never understand why people refer to the "good old film days" like they're talking about some long-lost era, ne'er to be seen again. As if, in their next breath, they'll reminisce about traveling by stagecoach to Topeka, or getting birthday wishes from their aunt via telegram. #filmisnotdead

This afternoon's shoot will be on 120 film (Portra 400 and Delta 400). Next week's shoot will be on film, likely mix in some LF HP5+. All my photography is analog. For many of us, the good old film days are right now.

When I say "Good old film days" I am taking about when it was available everywhere and you could have it developed within a couple of hours. Now, I can't find slide film in my area. I have to order it online and wait a few days for it to arrive. And, if I want to have it developed? I would have to ship it and wait a week? Specially slide film. You can't even print it.

So, yes. The good old film days are gone. It is not convenient anymore to shoot film.

Voy wrote:

When I say "Good old film days" I am taking about when it was available everywhere and you could have it developed within a couple of hours. Now, I can't find slide film in my area. I have to order it online and wait a few days for it to arrive. And, if I want to have it developed? I would have to ship it and wait a week? Specially slide film. You can't even print it.

So, yes. The good old film days are gone. It is not convenient anymore to shoot film.

In the good old film days I dropped off my slide film at Kodak to be processed.

Voy wrote:
When I say "Good old film days" I am taking about when it was available everywhere and you could have it developed within a couple of hours. Now, I can't find slide film in my area. I have to order it online and wait a few days for it to arrive. And, if I want to have it developed? I would have to ship it and wait a week? Specially slide film. You can't even print it.

So, yes. The good old film days are gone. It is not convenient anymore to shoot film.

It was still possible to print slide film using cibachrome paper, which was a specialty.  Today, there are labs emerging which can develop the slide film and produce high resolution scans ~5000dpi to give you the best of both worlds.  Now you can shoot your slide or print film and print/publish digitally from tiff's or jpg's.  You don't need to wait for the film to be returned - they send you a dropbox or FTP link while you're waiting for the slides.

Of course, you need to appreciate the look of film to tolerate the inconvenience of waiting a week to see the results.

Voy wrote:

When I say "Good old film days" I am taking about when it was available everywhere and you could have it developed within a couple of hours. Now, I can't find slide film in my area. I have to order it online and wait a few days for it to arrive. And, if I want to have it developed? I would have to ship it and wait a week? Specially slide film. You can't even print it.

So, yes. The good old film days are gone. It is not convenient anymore to shoot film.

That's a gross generalization. I shoot and scan BW, and it's a hell of a lot more convenient than it used to be when I had to print in the darkroom.

Yeah, slide films are pretty much gone - at least at the professional level. Unless you live in a major metropolitan area with a large professional community, you're going to have trouble getting slide film developed at a quality level that justifies shooting slides. There are also only one or two choices for pro-level stocks, with most slide films being sold to goobers with Holgas, or who want to shoot a couple rolls just to do it.

That said, you're missing the bigger picture. On older technology, slides reproduced much better than negatives - which is why magazines all wanted slides. With today's technology, the denser, lower-contrast negative films will scan better on anything other than a drum scanner. Even an Imacon will produce better dynamic range with a dense negative, edited to restore contrast, than with a positive. I'm not even sure a drum scanner will make better scans of slides - I just think the DR is such that they aren't any worse than negatives. Of course film grain IS much finer with 50 iso slide than 160 iso negative ... but if you're shooting a large enough piece of film to justify a drum scan, then your grain is going to be miniscule anyway.

If you're coming from a place of nostalgia, and missing the way things were, I'm right there with you. I don't think there's anything more beautiful in photography than a perfectly exposed sheet of 8x10 Kodachrome. I've seen them mounted and displayed on light boxes in lieu of prints, and they are breathtaking.

But from a standpoint of the overall workflow - what gets you from A to B, and more importantly how the final image looks - today's negative films are just so much better than slide films. The worst thing I can say about Portra 400 - and the best - is that it's boring. No funky/cool colors, no cool/amateur looking underexposed haze ... It just takes the scene and puts it on the film as neutrally and faithfully as anything I've seen. From there, you can do whatever you like with it. It's not perfect, but color film stocks never are.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Yeah, slide films are pretty much gone - at least at the professional level. Unless you live in a major metropolitan area with a large professional community, you're going to have trouble getting slide film developed at a quality level that justifies shooting slides. There are also only one or two choices for pro-level stocks, with most slide films being sold to goobers with Holgas, or who want to shoot a couple rolls just to do it.

I disagree.  When I shot my first sunset on color print film the lab sent me back a stack of brown blob prints rather than the gorgeous red and oranges I saw.  It was then I learned that all my color and exposure was at the mercy of a kid pressing buttons on a machine.  They always got it wrong.  They still get it wrong.  But, when I shoot slides there is nobody "correcting" my color and exposure for me.

hbutz New York wrote:

I disagree.  When I shot my first sunset on color print film the lab sent me back a stack of brown blob prints rather than the gorgeous red and oranges I saw.  It was then I learned that all my color and exposure was at the mercy of a kid pressing buttons on a machine.  They always got it wrong.  They still get it wrong.  But, when I shoot slides there is nobody "correcting" my color and exposure for me.

That's because nobody made prints for you. Just get your negatives developed and make your own prints - problem solved.

The fact that the "average" printer - even today, when photo degrees are rampant - isn't very good at their job has nothing to do with what a format is capable of.

As a side note, that print quality issue is a huge deal for me. I think printing is like driving, in that everybody thinks they're awesome, and the only way to show them otherwise is to get them in a car with someone who is actually awesome. I do think print quality has declined among the enthusiasts' ranks with digital, as printers have 'correct' settings, while the darkroom has none. This encourages digital printers to stop after one print, while darkroom printers tend to keep at it until they're sick of looking at the image.

But of course, guys like you and I know that whatever the device spits out isn't necessarily correct - it's just where you start  I average about a dozen prints before I finish an image - mostly on cheap 8x10, then a couple good 8x10, then a couple good 16x20.

Studio NSFW wrote:

I was the opposite.  I worked professionally as a commercial photographer in LA since the mid 80s but didn't learn to print.  I used a lab called A&I and they had a custom b/w lab.  It was the best education ever.  They would make a straight print at 8x10 then give me lots of suggestions how to improve the print.  They would take the time to show me on my negatives what they wanted to do to my print.  I know I took up tons of their time and they were incredibly patient with me.  They would eventually turn out these really beautiful gallery quality large prints in b/w.  I would hang them on my wall and most people I guess assumed I was a great printer.  BTW, I think there was just a style that came out from LA and also from NY about b/w prints from the 80's and 90's. 

As a side.   I also loved those great Cibachrome prints with big punchy colors.  I still sell prints but it's really hard to convince people to purchase prints for their walls.  I now shoot mostly weddings and events.  Even to sell prints of people at events taking pictures with the president or former president is hard to sell.  Everyone just wants a digital copy.

hbutz New York wrote:
It's not even photography anymore.  They should just change the name from "photography" to "digital imaging."

As a very low-income single mother, I'm grateful for digital as I would never have been able to pursue any of it (whether it's photography or digital imaging) if digital cameras had never come along.  Digital imaging brought me a lot of joy for a while.  I would never have been able to afford film, or find the time to process film images.  Just one worthless opinion.  Sorry, carry on...

Eugenya Donald Images wrote:
Just one worthless opinion.  Sorry, carry on...

No such thing as a worthless opinion   I've got just as many digital cameras as I do film cameras.

Film development wasn't all that expensive for me.  My Pentax consumer grade camera cost the same as one single Nikon EN-EL15 battery, which itself ran on $2 batteries.  Bulk loaded film cost me under $2/roll and I printed for about a buck.  I shot less but I chose my shots more carefully.

My beef is that the market has abandoned film photographers.  Today, Kodak has announced that Ektachrome is once again available in 35mm format for the general public via Twitter.  It has just come out of beta testing.  But, there are no 35mm SLR's currently in production to shoot with it.

When I googled, "SLR", google asked me, "Did you mean DSLR?"  No, g'damn it.  I meant to search for SLR.

From my point of view, it's as if all outdoor BBQ charcoal grills ceased production with the invention of the microwave oven.  Who wants to stand over those hot coals for hours when you can prepare an entire meal in minutes with the new microwave oven?  uh... I do!

#EktachromeIsBack

hbutz New York wrote:

No such thing as a worthless opinion   I've got just as many digital cameras as I do film cameras.

Film development wasn't all that expensive for me.  My Pentax consumer grade camera cost the same as one single Nikon EN-EL15 battery, which itself ran on $2 batteries.  Bulk loaded film cost me under $2/roll and I printed for about a buck.  I shot less but I chose my shots more carefully.

I appreciate your response  :-)

My first camera was a Nikon D60, back in 2012, and that was way too expensive for me.  It was totally worth having some debt for though, as I got so much joy from it.  About two and a half years after that I traded it in (and paid some more that I technically couldn't afford) for a Nikon D90, which I still have.  My ex-boyfriend was kind enough to upload Lightroom right onto my laptop for me, which I had a ton of fun with.  Every little bit helps.

hbutz New York wrote:

No such thing as a worthless opinion   I've got just as many digital cameras as I do film cameras.

Film development wasn't all that expensive for me.  My Pentax consumer grade camera cost the same as one single Nikon EN-EL15 battery, which itself ran on $2 batteries.  Bulk loaded film cost me under $2/roll and I printed for about a buck.  I shot less but I chose my shots more carefully.

My beef is that the market has abandoned film photographers.  Today, Kodak has announced that Ektachrome is once again available in 35mm format for the general public via Twitter.  It has just come out of beta testing.  But, there are no 35mm SLR's currently in production to shoot with it.

When I googled, "SLR", google asked me, "Did you mean DSLR?"  No, g'damn it.  I meant to search for SLR.

From my point of view, it's as if all outdoor BBQ charcoal grills ceased production with the invention of the microwave oven.  Who wants to stand over those hot coals for hours when you can prepare an entire meal in minutes with the new microwave oven?  uh... I do!

#EktachromeIsBack

I fail to understand your obsession with the lack of new 35mm cameras. At least so long as the old ones are still getting worked on.

Are YOU looking to buy one? If you were, would YOU pay new camera prices over used?

If not, then what do you care? It sounds a lot like the guy that complains that his old camera is suddenly crap when a new one comes out.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I fail to understand your obsession with the lack of new 35mm cameras. At least so long as the old ones are still getting worked on.

Here is the complete list of service centers for Pentax 35mm film cameras:

1) Eric.

/end of list

Zack Zoll wrote:
Are YOU looking to buy one? If you were, would YOU pay new camera prices over used?

I'm buying an average of 1 35mm film camera per month for the past 4 months, yes.  Would I pay Nikon $3,000 for a film camera?  no.

Zack Zoll wrote:
If not, then what do you care? It sounds a lot like the guy that complains that his old camera is suddenly crap when a new one comes out.

Yup, every time my tax refund check arrives I say to myself, "Man, my old camera equipment is crap."   Doesn't everyone?