Anyone still using 35mm?

[matt green]

Seriously want to get into bird photography but my budget is very tight at the moment, I used to have a Practica MTL3 with various lenses, all purchased for next to nothing as everyone was at that time moving over to digital kit.

Am I right in thinking it's now possible to pick up some very usable 35mm film SLR's and lenses suitable for record shots for relatively little expense?

Have a rough idea of how much a camera would cost but what about a decent 500mm lense and maybe a 2x converter ~ false economy??

[iveljay]

Hi Matt,

Yes but ....
I have still use 35 mm as well as digital - but not for cheapness. You should be able to pick up useable bits for your camera but with a lot more searching needed than in the past because there is little market for the non-collectable but good kit these days.
Good quality kit is still not cheap but it is worth persisting to get a bargain and make sure of a warranty.

The big 'however' is that film and processing costs and I by moving to digital for much of what I do I have saved the cost of quite a bit of my kit.
If you intend shooting transparencies you will need to project or scan them.
For prints, standards of commercial printing are not high.
Manual focussing a long lens needs a fairly static target and a tripod especially if you are using a teleconverter.
If you can overcome these difficulties and still produce good bird photographs, as many did when the kit you describe was all that was available, you can truly call yourself a good photographer.
If your main interest is photographing birds my choice would be to buy one of the newer non-slr cameras with a long zoom (Olympus etc.) that you will find covered elsewhere in this forum. You will probably find it cheaper as well over a year. You will get a far higher success rate as well - later you can make do it the hard way if you want to build up your skills.
Why do I still use film? A - I have a lot of film equipment that I can also use on my digital cameras, B- I have film scanners etc. that produce higher resolution output than the cameras I can afford, and C - Most of the film stuff is far nicer, simpler and quicker to use than digital.
But that doesn't stop me using digital most of the time - its quicker to turn round the results and saves me a fortune!
This is just my view and if you really want to do it your way - all the best and get on and do it - its all about enjoying yourself and not always conforming.

J

[scampo]

The reason digital equipment has become so very popular for nature photography is that the results can be seen instantly and the shots can be post-processed extremely effectively on a home PC. Photoshop and the like is at the heart of most modern photographs, I reckon.

In the days of film photography, close-ups of wild birds were a genuine speciality that required expensive wide aperture 1000mm lenses, massive triopds, mini-hides and the patience of Job.

[gordon g]

If you have a film scanner and shoot negative film, you can reduce costs by only getting the film developed, not printed as well. My local chemist used to do this for £1 a 36 exp film, then I would scan and print only those I wanted. Having said that, the comments above about convenience, speed, ease of post-processing etc are still an important factor in favour of digital - digitising negs or slides is not a quick process even with a good scanner.

[RAH]

I would advise against going to film, even at cheap prices. Have you ever done digital photography of any kind? For me it was a whole different thing than film photography. For someone on a tight budget, digital is a dream come true - take as many shots as you want and it doesn't cost anything! Experiment as much as you want - take a bunch of macro shots of your toes just for the hell of it!

Best digital bang for the buck for bird photography: a super-zoom digital camera (e.g. Canon S5IS; Panasonic DMC-FZ8 and many other models; Fuji and Olympus models). You can get one for $300 - $400.

[mjmw]

Seriously want to get into bird photography but my budget is very tight at the moment, I used to have a Practica MTL3 with various lenses, all purchased for next to nothing as everyone was at that time moving over to digital kit.

Am I right in thinking it's now possible to pick up some very usable 35mm film SLR's and lenses suitable for record shots for relatively little expense?

Have a rough idea of how much a camera would cost but what about a decent 500mm lense and maybe a 2x converter ~ false economy??

The camera bodies are very well priced...but the lenses are still expensive because many will work on digital bodies. As mentioned already - film and processing is expensive - digital is free after the initial outlay. If you are learning bird photography, film could become a very expensive way to go.

[davem]

My 20D lives on my 100-400 but my old EOS-5 still comes with me on my travels!

[Claymore]

Hi,
There are lots of bargain to be had with 35mm cameras, but personally now i have switched to digital i won't go back to the 35mm because its so much easier to take a shot review it on the LCD and if its rubbish delete and try to improve your shot ( i have learnt much more about composition etc by doing this, something i just couldn't afford to do using film) However, recently i bought a cracking Contax 35mm camera for £50 and although its got a really tacky gold finish it does take remarkable flower shots and i even splashed out on a pack of 35mm film (1st time in many years) a friend says he remembers them when they came out and they were quite expensive then, i'm waiting to hear from a dealer who said he can quote me a value (knowing my luck it will be worth a fiver)
So old 35mm's may be worth collecting?
Good luck with your search
Cheers
Brian

[Claymore]

Me again, just checked it says Contax T2 on cardboard box (quite a fancy one too?) and i paid £50.00 + £8.00 postage it was advertised in local Free Ads (they wanted £70 but i knocked him down a bit LoL (who says Scots are tight?)
Cheers
Brian
Ps any info on the Contax would be lovely (unless its bad news)

[iveljay]

Superb camera - couldn't afford it when it was new. Brilliant lens .
Kevin Branner writing in2002:
'Key to its uptake into the fashion world is the quality of its lens, the high-performance Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 developed by venerable Swiss optical manufacturers Zeiss. It's relative expense compared to other cameras in the deluxe compact market is largely down to this. Zeiss practically invented modern lens technology, and the Sonnar is built from five pieces of glass made of finely-ground silicon and applied with multiple coatings to ensure contrast, focus and, most importantly, sharpness of image.'

'Kyocera began developing the T series in 1974 in response to the boom in amateur SLR use. It's sleek design was conceived by the German Porsche Design Group, whose founder F.A. Porsche designed the archetypal roadster. The company promptly sold 250,000 of the T2, and discontinued the line. Cameras now sell for around £500 apiece, assuming you can find a one second-hand.'

Sounds like a bargain to me!

J

[iveljay]

Dale Photographic currently advertising one for £ 325 in gold finish....

[Claymore]

Your joking? the guy i contacted told me market value is only £80 (for a complete mint one with all documents etc) i have the cardboard + a wooden box with mine + documents, he said he would buy it off me for his collection for £90 including postage! glad i didn't take him up on his offer?
I really didn't realise they were decent cameras as id never seen much about them in past, all i can remember is seeing these tacky compacts in a shop window when i was a lad and thinking alright for Librace or Gary Glitter etc LoL
Thanks for the info you have made my day!
Cheers
Brian

[Barred Wobbler]

My Nikon FM that I bought in 1981 is still in a drawer with the various lenses and bits and pieces, but I haven't used it for a few years now.

I had it in a camera shop about 4 years ago looking for a new case when I thought I'd lost the front of my ever-ready (I hadn't). The shop-keeper was full of praise for its condition, not a mark on it. I wouldn't part with it though. It's an old friend.