Guidance on Canon Film camera

[filmamigo]

**disclaimer** I shoot digital with a Pentax DLSR and film in 35mm SLRs and medium format TLRs.

Check around your local retailers for price to develop and scan (with no prints). I have paid as little as $2.99 for develop and scan, which gave me a CD with medium-resolution pics (about 1500x1000 pixels.) Combine that with film that you find on sale, and you can do a lot of learning for very few dollars. (Keep your eyes open for GREAT buys on multi-packs of Fuji Superia. For a consumer film, this stuff is nice. Really, they could slap a pro label on it and sell it for 3x as much.)

Also, ask what machine the store uses -- it'll either be a Fuji Frontier or a Noritsu. I find the scans from the Nortisu to be much more "film like" and have lovely soft colours. Frontier scans that I've gotten are snappy and colourful, but usually over-sharpened and over-compressed.

When I need good quality scans, I go to a local lab with a Noritsu and competent staff. For $5, I get a whole roll scanned at 2048x3072 (same resolution as a 6mp DSLR.) These scans are very good, and combined with a pro film like Portra, the results are impressive. Yes, you can tell it was shot on film, you can see the grain - but what's wrong with that? It looks great, and it doesn't have the same look as every other DSLR.

Another reason I love to shoot 35mm? Black and white looks great, and doesn't cost a lot. "Converted" black and white from a DSLR just doesn't have the same feeling. I like shooting AGFA Silvertone 400 (I get it for $1.99 a roll) and Ilford Delta 100 for under $5 a roll.

 

[filmamigo]

--

 

[filmamigo]

--

 

[ChrisA]

I have a flatbed scanner with an adapter to scan film, the quality is meh and I get about 3 MP. This is enough for casual scans, but nowhere near enough if you want to do something with your equipment.

Not all flatbed scanners are alike. Mine does good work. Some of my scans are better quality than I can get with my Nikon D50 DSLR. It depends entirely on how good the negatives are. Read the specs and the reviews and just remember that you get what you pay for.

Today in 2007 film still wins in terms of image quality. Digital is fast and easy to process on a computer but if image quality matters you can not beat film. Maybe in another decade or two....

 

[ChrisA]

I recently inherited a Canon 35mm film camera that is pretty decent from what I've read...

What kind of film camera is this? If it is a Canon SLR and it takes the "EOS" type autofocus lenses then those lenses can be used with the new DSLR. Lenses hold value and can last nearly forever and work well with digital cameras. Film bodies have almost no value on the used market.

This is the ideal setup: to have a set of lenses and both digital and film bodies. You can do things with film you can't with digital and vice versa.

With the Nikon and Pentax systems it's even better because the lenses and bodies old and new going back to the 1960's still (mostly) work together. But with Canon you can still go back about 20 years.

There are basically two kinds of film scans (1) consumer level and (2) professional. There is a wold of difference between the two both in quality and cost. Professionals are able to justify the cost of a skilled operator using expensive scanning equipment to make scans one at a time.

Your best option is to have the scans made cheaply as the film is processed and then if you really like one of the images have it re-scanned at a local professional lab.

One of the neat things you can do with a film camera is load it with black and white film. Buy it in bulk and it will cost only $1.50 a roll. Slides are the other option. They look good when projected. People now are so used to digital projector and TV that they are just blown away at the quality of real slides.

 

[OreoCookie]

Today in 2007 film still wins in terms of image quality. Digital is fast and easy to process on a computer but if image quality matters you can not beat film. Maybe in another decade or two....

I wouldn't say so. Under ideal conditions, the quality of (35 mm) film can be close to that of the highest-quality digital cameras. But the effort you have to invest to reach that level is really, really high. Mid-range film scanners give you a resolution of about 6 MP, you can get more from high-end scanners, though. The scan of one single image takes quite a while, about 40 seconds or longer (depending on whether you've activated ICE, the type of resolution you've chosen, etc.). Then you need to process the image which takes some time, too. Even then, in all comparisons I've read between 35 mm and digital cameras, top-of-the-line digital cameras had the upper hand.

In comparison to that, the images I get out of my dslr are good as-is, they require a minimal level of alterations (unless I want to do something fancy).

Nevertheless, I think the quality for both, digital and film slrs is `more than sufficient' (understatement of the month). I think it's helpful if one learns photography with `old-school' equipment.