OT 35mm SLR camera
 

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with
a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Richard" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with
a digital array instead of the film?

There have apparently be a few attempts at doing a kind of digital film
replacement unit, but has usually turned out to have a number of
unexpected difficulties and complications getting it to work in a
variety of cameras. One of the first problems to deal with is the
spacing between where the film can goes and where the sensor needs to be
is not a standard distance. Then there is the need to provide feedback
to the film advance detection systems that count sprocket holes etc -
again with sensors in a variety of places. Then there is the difficulty
of keeping the sensor clean.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt
got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it.
Check eBay for what they are fetching.
I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on
eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market
for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is
available.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is
about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and
digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so
there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about
film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed,
reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on
contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you
only *need* to know about those things if you are using film.

As long as your camera has manual or semi-auto settings (ie that you don't
just use auto-everything mode all the time) then you can learn the
principles of photography more quickly and much more cheaply with a digital
camera.


(*) With film, very short or very long shutter speeds mean that the rule
"double the aperture and half the shutter speed gives the same exposure" is
no longer true - and with colour film the effect is different for the
various colour-sensitive layers, so you get a colour cast.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/11/2016 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with
a digital array instead of the film?

There have apparently be a few attempts at doing a kind of digital film
replacement unit, but has usually turned out to have a number of
unexpected difficulties and complications getting it to work in a variety
of cameras. One of the first problems to deal with is the spacing between
where the film can goes and where the sensor needs to be is not a standard
distance. Then there is the need to provide feedback to the film advance
detection systems that count sprocket holes etc - again with sensors in a
variety of places. Then there is the difficulty of keeping the sensor
clean.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?

It does with the motor wind built into lots of the more recent film SLRs.

The reality is you would probably have to build multiple models to fit
various cameras, and even then you would not get all the features of a
true digital camera like being able to check and review what you have
just taken immediately. (although a wireless link to a phone could make
up for some of the limitations and actually add some capabilities the
digital SLRs don't have like a remote viewfinder)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 17:41, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.


I had several Canon cameras ... you could change the back for a 'data
back' allowing you to superimpose numbers & text onto negative as pic taken.

Feasible to evolve that to a fullframe digital sensor ... but why would
you want it ?
Camera software has come on amazingly since 35mm days, to get that you
need more modern lenses and the new electronic bodies - so market to
sell 'digital' conversion is very very small.

Plus manufacturers have a vested interest in selling new product - they
would rather you buy a new camera.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Nope. Some photo degree courses still require
possession ofa 35mm film camera.

I still have my Pentax MX that I bought 2nd hand in
1986, well used with nice brassy corners and a dent
in the pentaprism. It's been around the world,
spent 2 years in Fiji, all across the Pacific and
through South America. A pair of 1,5V silver oxide
cells last for ages. Accepts all the pre-digital
pentax lens (M42, K, Ka, KaF).

And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical
camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25
(RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it.
You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod
because it reads the light bouncing back off the
film and just shuts the second blind when enough
light has hit the film. Has the whole range of
changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder
and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange
in 1997.

for home-developed B&W, it's just too valuable to
sell.

I might get a Pentax K1 (full frame) which looks
like it could be the Pentax replacement for the LX
and I can use all my lenses.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC, Robert wrote:
On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt
got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it.
Check eBay for what they are fetching.
I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on
eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market
for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is
available.

I was curious to see if you can still get APS film - no; discontinued in 2011, although there are still labs who will print from them.

APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like the MiniDisk. The panorama mode was really rubbish, just a very severe crop of a single frame.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:21:26 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones.
Brian

Nope. Medium (6cm x 6cm)

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 23:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that
would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the
memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display,
something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the
wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.



Garbage in, Garbage out.

Idiots with digital SLRs dont bother think about what they
are doing, theyjust blast away and then use a computer
to select the pics they want and then have a fiddle with
photoshop just for good measure.

Might just as well use an iPhone.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/16 23:56, Andrew wrote:
On 23/11/2016 23:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that
would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the
memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display,
something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the
wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.



Garbage in, Garbage out.

Idiots with digital SLRs dont bother think about what they
are doing, theyjust blast away and then use a computer
to select the pics they want and then have a fiddle with
photoshop just for good measure.

Utter bigoted tosh.



Might just as well use an iPhone.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 23:56:13 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 23/11/2016 23:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Idiots with digital SLRs dont bother think about what they
are doing, theyjust blast away and then use a computer
to select the pics they want and then have a fiddle with
photoshop just for good measure.

Might just as well use an iPhone.

Ah, the ego trip.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 11/23/2016 11:56 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 23/11/2016 23:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that
would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the
memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display,
something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the
wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.



Garbage in, Garbage out.

Idiots with digital SLRs dont bother think about what they
are doing, theyjust blast away and then use a computer
to select the pics they want and then have a fiddle with
photoshop just for good measure.

Might just as well use an iPhone.

Complete non sequitur.

TNP is exactly right (on this occasion) :-)

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 11/23/2016 9:34 PM, Andrew wrote:

And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical
camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25
(RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it.
You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod
because it reads the light bouncing back off the
film and just shuts the second blind when enough
light has hit the film. Has the whole range of
changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder
and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange
in 1997.


Except for reciprocity failure.

I loved my Yashica electro 35 cc for the same reason. But with its
lowest film speed setting 25 ASA, you couldn't increase the exposure
with K II (which IMHO was the finest colour film ever made, 25 was never
as good). It needed a couple of stops at 20 seconds, IME.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 23:56, Andrew wrote:
On 23/11/2016 23:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that
would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the
memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display,
something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the
wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.



Garbage in, Garbage out.

Idiots with digital SLRs dont bother think about what they
are doing, theyjust blast away and then use a computer
to select the pics they want and then have a fiddle with
photoshop just for good measure.

Might just as well use an iPhone.

Speak for yourself dave.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 19:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.


You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.


The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they
have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a
recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical
shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages
of doing so.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:26:20 PM UTC, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

There is market for them; take a look on eBay.

For example: a Nikon FM3a (35mm film camera) in mint condition goes for £500+

I still shoot quite a lot on BW film (processed to slides and also scanned) . I take the view that if someone finds a box of slides in the attic when I'm dead and gone, they might take a look at them. A box of old disks that nobody can easily read will just be dumped.

Robert

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 11/24/2016 2:51 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro
sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping
the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.


The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they
have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a
recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical
shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages
of doing so.



In some countries, I believe the "sound" is a legal requirement to
discourage covert photography.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 15:08:24 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 11/24/2016 2:51 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro
sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping
the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.


The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they
have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a
recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical
shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages
of doing so.

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take teh photo.
canon EOS M3




In some countries, I believe the "sound" is a legal requirement to
discourage covert photography.

Yes covert usually meaning upskirt, I find this idea as a little odd because if you wanted to get around it just get a camera with 'decent' video options

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 24/11/2016 16:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 16:40:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 16:21, whisky-dave wrote:

mine too but it's not silent as the sensor needs to flip up to take teh photo.
canon EOS M3

Hmm, the sensor doesn't move in the EOS m3.

So what does flip up then ?


You tell us.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 11/23/2016 11:26 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that
would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the
memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display,
something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the
wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.


Horses for courses innit. Film isn't "better" than digital any more than
vinyl is better than CD or VHS is better than DVD: they are all artistic
media and in my opinion with quite different qualities and strengths
and weaknesses.

I have several digital cameras and they are absolutely brilliant for
some kinds of work: I tend to use them for the more industrial kind of
photography where accuracy and precision are what I'm looking for. But
since the price of film cameras has tumbled to the point where I can
easily afford to buy the kind of kit I could only have dreamt of in the
past I've been doing a lot more work with film in recent times.

Another factor I've discovered is a sort of analogy with quantum physics
where the act of observation affects that which is being observed.
Example: I was photographing a demonstration which was processing down
Avenida de Mayo in Buenos Aires this February just gone when I realised
that the protestors were "opening up" to me in an entirely different way
compared to passers by with camera phones and the press with their state
of the art gear. Why? It was my twin-lens reflex medium-format film
camera, that's why. I captured "stories" more than "photographs" that day.

Nick

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 24/11/2016 15:06, RobertL wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:26:20 PM UTC, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

There is market for them; take a look on eBay.

For example: a Nikon FM3a (35mm film camera) in mint condition goes for £500+

I still shoot quite a lot on BW film (processed to slides and also scanned) .
I take the view that if someone finds a box of slides in the attic when
I'm dead and gone,
they might take a look at them.
A box of old disks that nobody can easily read will just be dumped.

Precisely. How much 'important' work is sitting on 8 inch floppies
or 5.25 inch hard-sectored floppies, or Amstrad WP disks, or
even 3.5 inch floppies now that few PCs have a floppy disk drive ?.

Just remember not to store your E6 or Kodachrome slides in the
wrong sort of plastic boxes.

There is a black and white print of my relatives taken in 1886 and
apart from some surface crazing, it is as good as the day it was
taken.

Once the 'free cloud storage' surrupticiously becomes chargeable
a lot of 'brilliant' pics taken by the happy, snappy, selfie
brigade are toast.

Robert

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the
rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 21:27:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the
rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed selected as ISO which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain or noise. I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 21:27:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a
growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the
rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A
kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film?
Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old
film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed selected
as ISO
which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain
or noise.

Dont need to do that using a film camera. Makes a lot more
sense to explain it using a modern digital camera instead.

I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with
blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


Why would photography students be required to learn using film?
Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old
film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed
selected as ISO
which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain
or noise.

Dont need to do that using a film camera. Makes a lot more
sense to explain it using a modern digital camera instead.

I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with
blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.

I remember having a long and ultimately fruitless discussion in a
photographic newsgroup with someone who was adamant that you could only
learn about photography and how to take good photographs if you learned on a
film camera, but all his arguments were weak and assumed that the film
camera was fully manual (or the photographer had the discipline to ignore
any auto or semi-auto settings) whereas the digital camera was fully auto
and was only used like that - in other words he was not comparing like with
like. He just couldn't see that an SLR film camera with PASM (programme,
aperture-priority, shutter-priority, manual) modes and manual/auto focus
lens was the same from a learning point of view as an SLR digital camera
with PASM modes and manual/auto focus lens. Sure, there are fully-automatic
digital cameras with no manual overrides (the ultimate is the camera in a
smart phone) but then Instamatics and other similar film cameras gave the
photographer just as little control. Yes, you don't learn about
film-specific things like reciprocity failure and the advantages/weaknesses
of different types of film. But do you need to know about those
film-specific things in order to use digital camera.

And digital (even if it's a digitised scan from a slide or negative) gives
you so much more ability to be creative with post-processing in software
like Photoshop - such as to clone out imperfections and unavoidable
foreground objects, to correct perspective (even when you have to take a
flash photo deliberately off-axis to lessen the glare of the flash from a
window or glass over a painting) or to correct brightness, contrast or
colour cast. Imagine how laborious it would be to do those things in a
darkroom with dodging and burning, or tilting the negative carrier and
printing paper (for perspective correction).


What are the advantages of new "designed for digital" lenses? I've never
tried using an old film SLR lens because by chance my film SLR was Canon and
my digital SLR is Nikon so neither lens could be used with the other camera.
I know that some DSLR lenses have a smaller field of view because many DSLRs
have a sensor that is smaller than a 35 mm frame and there's no point
designing the lens to have a full-frame coverage. Actually come to think of
it, I *have* used film lenses on a DSLR: my wife's first DSLR was Canon so I
tried my Canon-mount lenses in that and didn't find any worse quality -
apart from the appalling pincushion and barrel distortion of those lenses (I
paid peanuts for cheap Sigma 28-70 and 70-210 lenses and definitely ended up
buying monkeys) but that affected film and digital equally - and there are
programs like PTlens which can correct for it.

OT 35mm SLR camera
 

On 25/11/2016 19:08, NY wrote:

What are the advantages of new "designed for digital" lenses? I've never
tried using an old film SLR lens because by chance my film SLR was Canon
and my digital SLR is Nikon so neither lens could be used with the other
camera. I know that some DSLR lenses have a smaller field of view
because many DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than a 35 mm frame and
there's no point designing the lens to have a full-frame coverage.
Actually come to think of it, I *have* used film lenses on a DSLR: my
wife's first DSLR was Canon so I tried my Canon-mount lenses in that and
didn't find any worse quality - apart from the appalling pincushion and
barrel distortion of those lenses (I paid peanuts for cheap Sigma 28-70
and 70-210 lenses and definitely ended up buying monkeys) but that
affected film and digital equally - and there are programs like PTlens
which can correct for it.


It depends on what sort of spatial filter is on the sensor.
Film will accept light from any direction while a sensor doesn't.

So if you are using long lenses there is no difference as the angle of
incidence is pretty close to perpendicular.
However with wide lenses the angle can be quite large.
Its why good quality wide digital lenses are quite long as they are
designed to mke the angle of incidence close to perpendicular.

Oh and there is the fact that a sensor has far higher resolution than
film so what may be sharp on a film camera isn't sharp on a digital and
its the cheap lens manufacturings fault not the cameras. Pre digital
there was no need for very good lens sharpness as film just couldn't
resolve it, now there is. It gets worse as pixel count goes up.

My cameras sensor has ~268 pixels/mm which will easily out resolve K2
and its only a 16 Mpixel sensor.