I bought a Nikon F55

[tom43]

Agree. The F65 and F75 are much better options, as they are more reliable (many F55 have technical issues). Plus they allow to use nearly every new AF-S G lens, which is impossible with the F55.

 

[pentaxuser]

. Mr and Mrs Smith from Llandudno, who bought this camera new were certainly enamoured by it, they placed an address sticker on the introduction page and highlighted the important parts of the manual – they really studied it. They placed the camera and lens serial numbers on the back where Nikon leave room for notes. I like to imagine the Smiths were upgrading from a P&S or maybe a bridge camera and this was indeed a big jump into serious photography. I think they must have been frustrated by the lag inherent in P&S cameras, the missed focus that occurs far too often and the red eye caused by the super powerful flash that seemed to go off even in bright sun. So many missed and ruined photographs. The camera is in great condition, the Smiths clearly took care of it, but then, they probably only used it for maybe two years before downgrading to a digital P&S or bridge camera, a digital DSLR being too much money. But soon enough they were no longer uploading their jpgs to an online printer and they just uploaded them to Facebook with a cable. In a year or two the Facebook app on their new smart phone meant they could do without a camera altogether as their mobile telephone allowed them to link their photos to Facebook. So seamless. That old F55 languished in a drawer, but Mr Smith did have the good sense to remove the batteries. A good decade later the Smiths moved house and cleared out all the old junk, the camera was part of a job lot

View attachment 269707

I wonder what Henning would have to say about your amusing but somewhat gloomy story of its history and that of "old" days photography that has lead to why such a camera ended up at £7 and expensive at the price

pentaxuser

 

[neilt3]

I shoot film 99% of the time but I would never make the argument that it is a better deal financially if you shoot a lot.
Roll of Fuji C200 - about $5. Same thing for a cheap roll of B&W. Dev and DECENT scan - about $20. So $25 for 36 exp.

Sony A7 full frame digicam sells for $300 used. Which is 12 rolls of 36exp film dev and scanned....
12 rolls is not an awful lot.

$25 ?
I suppose if your going to pay someone to develop and scan your film for you if you want it all digital , it would get expensive .

I develop my own film , and if I want to scan it , I do that myself as well .

How's the auto focus on those Nikon AF-D lenses on the Sony a7 ?
Don't forget to add another $300 for the Nikon F to Sony E A/F adapter , with worse A/f than the film camera .

A Nikon D700 would be the more logical route for a cheap full frame digital that takes Nikon lenses .
But for a bit of fun shooting full frame , an old film SLR is the cheapest option .
And if it's to be used with B&W film an F80 or something is ideal , or such as the F55 for less than the cost of a roll of film !

 

[Huss]

$25 ?
I suppose if your going to pay someone to develop and scan your film for you if you want it all digital , it would get expensive .

I develop my own film , and if I want to scan it , I do that myself as well .

How's the auto focus on those Nikon AF-D lenses on the Sony a7 ?
Don't forget to add another $300 for the Nikon F to Sony E A/F adapter , with worse A/f than the film camera .

A Nikon D700 would be the more logical route for a cheap full frame digital that takes Nikon lenses .
But for a bit of fun shooting full frame , an old film SLR is the cheapest option .
And if it's to be used with B&W film an F80 or something is ideal , or such as the F55 for less than the cost of a roll of film !

A used Nikon D600 is about $250 and you can also scan film w that.
Buying a used film camera is very cheap. But that’s where it ends.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think the general and mostly accepted statement is that cameras like the F55 offer a reasonably cheap entry into film for the digital shooter - a low risk way of seeing if film is for you. Even better if the lens on your DSLR fits the film camera. Given that, a digital shooter could try out film for less than £20. Should they take to film then costs will increase.

 

[neilt3]

A used Nikon D600 is about $250 and you can also scan film w that.
Buying a used film camera is very cheap. But that’s where it ends.

$250 is still a lot of money for someone to stump up if they just want to find out if full frame is worth the extra from an APS-C camera .
I've never paid anyone to develop my B&W film , but the last time I had someone develop some C41 it cost £3 .
You don't need a full frame DSLR to "scan" film , APS-C does it just as well ( that someone that would buy a full frame DSLR would likely have ).
I bought a full frame Sony a900 in 2012 , which is still my main camera , but it doesn't stop me shooting lots of film in 35mm , 120 or large format .
I also have a Canon EOS 5d that cost me less than £250 that I bout ten years ago . Presumably these are given away free with a box of cornflakes these days !

I typically use only B&W film in 35mm or Rollei infrared , as I prefer the results from film more than processed digital .
Colour I tend to use digital unless I'm out with just medium format gear with interchangeable backs ( where I'll have one loaded with colour ) or a manual focus camera where I'll take an extra body rather than a DSLR and an extra set of lenses

My point is , you can try out full frame 35mm for just £5 for a body and less than £10 for a roll of film including developing and scanning at somewhere such as Max Speilman's .
£15 is a lot less than £250 , and for occasional use , might be all that's needed .

I think the general and mostly accepted statement is that cameras like the F55 offer a reasonably cheap entry into film for the digital shooter - a low risk way of seeing if film is for you. Even better if the lens on your DSLR fits the film camera. Given that, a digital shooter could try out film for less than £20. Should they take to film then costs will increase.

I totally agree with you .
You still see SLR cameras with a kit lens selling for £30 occasionally .
You used to Minolta Dynax 5's for £15 including the 28-80mm kit lens , they go for more than that now .
But get a 50mm lens to go on it and it's a new experience for a lot of people giving much different results from their APS-C cameras with 18-55mm kit lenses on .

 

[Huss]

$250 is still a lot of money for someone to stump up if they just want to find out if full frame is worth the extra from an APS-C camera .
I've never paid anyone to develop my B&W film , but the last time I had someone develop some C41 it cost £3 .
You don't need a full frame DSLR to "scan" film , APS-C does it just as well ( that someone that would buy a full frame DSLR would likely have ).
I bought a full frame Sony a900 in 2012 , which is still my main camera , but it doesn't stop me shooting lots of film in 35mm , 120 or large format .
I also have a Canon EOS 5d that cost me less than £250 that I bout ten years ago . Presumably these are given away free with a box of cornflakes these days !

I typically use only B&W film in 35mm or Rollei infrared , as I prefer the results from film more than processed digital .
Colour I tend to use digital unless I'm out with just medium format gear with interchangeable backs ( where I'll have one loaded with colour ) or a manual focus camera where I'll take an extra body rather than a DSLR and an extra set of lenses

My point is , you can try out full frame 35mm for just £5 for a body and less than £10 for a roll of film including developing and scanning at somewhere such as Max Speilman's .
£15 is a lot less than £250 , and for occasional use , might be all that's needed .





I totally agree with you .
You still see SLR cameras with a kit lens selling for £30 occasionally .
You used to Minolta Dynax 5's for £15 including the 28-80mm kit lens , they go for more than that now .
But get a 50mm lens to go on it and it's a new experience for a lot of people giving much different results from their APS-C cameras with 18-55mm kit lenses on .

Originally you stated you could shoot an awful lot of film for the price of a ff digicam.


But I do agree, if you have no desire to use the camera for other than a roll or two a year, it is a cheap way to do it.
If you are an avid film shooter, the process is pricey.

A thing to remember is FF in film just means a camera that uses 35mm film. Any P&S would do. Some I have given to me for free..

 

[neilt3]

Originally you stated you could shoot an awful lot of film for the price of a ff digicam.

That's right .
Apart from certain films , I tend to buy bulk rolls and load the cassettes myself .
Much of my bulk film was given to me or obtained quite cheap as slightly out of date .
This makes 35mm film very cheap . Developed myself , cost isn't an issue .
$250 can be a heck of a lot of film if you use your head .

But I do agree, if you have no desire to use the camera for other than a roll or two a year, it is a cheap way to do it.
If you are an avid film shooter, the process is pricey.

Tell me about it !
I've nearly finished making my own 8x10 camera .
A pack of film for that will be £125 .
I'm looking forward to seeing the results .

A thing to remember is FF in film just means a camera that uses 35mm film. Any P&S would do. Some I have given to me for free..

This thread isn't about P&S cameras , it's about SLR's .
The lens used makes the difference , with a P&S you haven't got a choice .
With an SLR you have a choice .
The results will differ greatly .

 

[perkeleellinen]

In fact, the thread was specifically about how these cheap SLRs are a viable alternative to P&S cameras.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I wonder what Henning would have to say about your amusing but somewhat gloomy story of its history and that of "old" days photography that has lead to why such a camera ended up at £7 and expensive at the price

pentaxuser

In an alternate universe Mr & Mrs Smith won the pools and bought a Leica M10!

 

[Don_ih]

cameras like the F55 offer a reasonably cheap entry into film for the digital

I bought my wife a Nikon N65 (or F65 - same camera) because its controls were virtually identical to the DSLR she used. She could use it immediately and get results she expected. That was about 7 years ago, so the camera was a bit more expensive at that time.

As for the expense of film photography, if you make your own enlargements, it's actually cheaper than any digital process. If you know what you're doing, you can end up with 100 8x10s on genuine fibre-based silver gelatin paper for about $3 or so a print. If you use rc paper, that gets cut in half. You don't need a computer, portable hard drive, or cloud storage account to keep the prints or negatives, either. A box is fine.

Canon EOS and Minolta Dynax cameras are the equivalent of the Nikon blobby plastic slr (I hate the design of all of them) - they all take really good photos, so long as the lenses are decent.

 

[ic-racer]

My N55. I use it just as I would any 'professional' camera.

 

[darkosaric]

My N55. I use it just as I would any 'professional' camera.

wow, with battery pack, that I don't see often in cameras like those .
But yes - that best buy Nikkor ever (AF 50mm f1.8 - I have 2 of them AF Japan, and AF D China) will give the same results on N55 and on F6.

 

[gone]

Thanks to this thread I bought a beater N70 last night for $18 shipped. It was available in black and cheap. Someone else had one for $3.99 + $10 shipping w/ an Op Tech strap. The N70 was panned and quickly orphaned by Nikon due to some sort of indecipherable electronic menu they featured, but all I need is AE, Manual, or P.

I agree w/ Don. Film photography is as expensive or as inexpensive as you want to make it. The main expenses come initially....buying the enlarger, chemicals, lens, safelight, trays, paper, etc. But after that the cost goes down to a more "reasonable" level. The big difference w/ a darkroom though is that you actually get prints, not just scans or files that sit in the computer. If you go analog, you actually need to print the image just to see it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks to this thread I bought a beater N70 last night for $18 shipped. It was available in black and cheap. Someone else had one for $3.99 + $10 shipping w/ an Op Tech strap. The N70 was panned and quickly orphaned by Nikon due to some sort of indecipherable electronic menu they featured, but all I need is AE, Manual, or P.

I agree w/ Don. Film photography is as expensive or as inexpensive as you want to make it. The main expenses come initially....buying the enlarger, chemicals, lens, safelight, trays, paper, etc. But after that the cost goes down to a more "reasonable" level. The big difference w/ a darkroom though is that you actually get prints, not just scans or files that sit in the computer. If you go analog, you actually need to print the image just to see it.

Some even save as much as 10 cents a year by avoiding using stop bath with indicator which we all know is just so damned expensive!

 

[ic-racer]

wow, with battery pack, that I don't see often in cameras like those .
But yes - that best buy Nikkor ever (AF 50mm f1.8 - I have 2 of them AF Japan, and AF D China) will give the same results on N55 and on F6.

That is the battery pack for the N75. Not well known is the fact that it also fits the N55.

 

[Auer]

Thanks to this thread I bought a beater N70 last night for $18 shipped. It was available in black and cheap. Someone else had one for $3.99 + $10 shipping w/ an Op Tech strap. The N70 was panned and quickly orphaned by Nikon due to some sort of indecipherable electronic menu they featured, but all I need is AE, Manual, or P.

I agree w/ Don. Film photography is as expensive or as inexpensive as you want to make it. The main expenses come initially....buying the enlarger, chemicals, lens, safelight, trays, paper, etc. But after that the cost goes down to a more "reasonable" level. The big difference w/ a darkroom though is that you actually get prints, not just scans or files that sit in the computer. If you go analog, you actually need to print the image just to see it.

I like my N70's a lot, quirky interface and all. The rubber on the film door comes off with rubbing alcohol. Its usually a sticky mess at this stage of the N/F70's life..

 

[Autonerd]

I do think these plastic, light and cheap cameras are more viable than the cult P&S cameras whose prices are entering the stratosphere. For not too much more bulk and weight you get full manual control, exposure compensation, Matrix Metering, freedom to use many lenses and accurate auto focus.

That right there is an excellent, excellent point.

I have a Minolta Maxxum 5 I bought for $20 shipped. It's one of the most advanced cameras I own -- and also one of the most inexpensive. I really ought to get off my lazy duff and by better lenses for it.

 

[Autonerd]

Buying a used film camera is very cheap. But that’s where it ends.

I did the math on another forum. I bulk-roll, develop and scan my own, and figured my costs for film and developing at just over 15 cents per shot for Ilford HP5/FP4, and around 11 cents for Ultrafine XTreme. (Averaging the costs of D-76 and HC-110 and assuming a single-tank roll.) It's hard to say how much scanning adds, since the scanner was a one-time purchase (and I bought it on sale), but if I shoot a roll a week and the scanner lasts 5 years (I'm hoping for more!), it'll add just over 2 cents/shot.

If my math is right, the $2500 digital Sony rig I'd love to own would keep me in film for just over seven years. I figure if I was an avid digitographer with a budget to match, I'd be replacing that Sony after two or three years, so with film I'm well ahead of the game.

 

[Huss]

I did the math on another forum. I bulk-roll, develop and scan my own, and figured my costs for film and developing at just over 15 cents per shot for Ilford HP5/FP4, and around 11 cents for Ultrafine XTreme. (Averaging the costs of D-76 and HC-110 and assuming a single-tank roll.) It's hard to say how much scanning adds, since the scanner was a one-time purchase (and I bought it on sale), but if I shoot a roll a week and the scanner lasts 5 years (I'm hoping for more!), it'll add just over 2 cents/shot.

If my math is right, the $2500 digital Sony rig I'd love to own would keep me in film for just over seven years. I figure if I was an avid digitographer with a budget to match, I'd be replacing that Sony after two or three years, so with film I'm well ahead of the game.

You're using a $2500 camera as your FF digi example.
I'm using a $250 FF digi camera, where if you got that you'd 'only' be able to shoot/process 46 rolls of film with your bulk rolling etc.

Point being, we are meant to be comparing like vs like i.e. cheap used film cameras vs the digi equivalent. Your Sony rig, at $2500, I assume is current perhaps new tech?
I don't know of any currently available new 35mm film camera at that price level, bar Leicas.
A bargain, and super film camera like the Nikon N55/70/75 etc can be had super cheap. So can a Nikon D600 or Sony A7.

I'd like a Leica M10-R (not really..) Those are $9000. It be fun to claim that my $30 (with lens) could be used for about 1700 rolls of film before we broke even!

 

[neilt3]

I shoot film 99% of the time but I would never make the argument that it is a better deal financially if you shoot a lot.
Roll of Fuji C200 - about $5. Same thing for a cheap roll of B&W. Dev and DECENT scan - about $20. So $25 for 36 exp.

Sony A7 full frame digicam sells for $300 used. Which is 12 rolls of 36exp film dev and scanned....
12 rolls is not an awful lot.

You're using a $2500 camera as your FF digi example.
I'm using a $250 FF digi camera, where if you got that you'd 'only' be able to shoot/process 46 rolls of film with your bulk rolling etc.

Point being, we are meant to be comparing like vs like i.e. cheap used film cameras vs the digi equivalent. Your Sony rig, at $2500, I assume is current perhaps new tech?
I don't know of any currently available new 35mm film camera at that price level, bar Leicas.
A bargain, and super film camera like the Nikon N55/70/75 etc can be had super cheap. So can a Nikon D600 or Sony A7.

I'd like a Leica M10-R (not really..) Those are $9000. It be fun to claim that my $30 (with lens) could be used for about 1700 rolls of film before we broke even!

We seem to be getting hung on just price here .
Fact is you can shoot a roll of film for much less than the $25 you stated .
The bulk film I bought was obtained for a fraction of the price that the normal full retail price is .
Some was given to me free . Keep an eye out , you can get a bargain .
I'm guessing a roll of film including chemicals costa me between £2 and £2.50 a roll , developed .
Scanning costs nothing if you use the digital kit you already have , scanner , DSLR or mirrorless camera .


Seeing as this is a film forum and the participants are people who shoot film , I can't see why it's turning into a film V's digital debate when if all you want is to do is take cheap photo's you would clearly just shoot digital and wouldn't be on this forum !.
Aren't we talking about using a small , cheap , compact film SLR as an alternative against a film point and shoot camera ?
In which case running costs are the same ?
i.e film , processing , digitalising/enlarging etc .

Personally for point and shoot , I would use digital .
Most of my film stuff tends to be thought out , deliberate shots , not just point and shoot .

What I originally said in my first post that you responded too was this :

I think quite a few people who usually shoot digital buy these camera's either because they want to do some black and white work and don't want to work on a computer to get the look of film .


Or people who have APS-C digital cameras who want to try out full frame on a budget .
You try find a full frame digital camera for £10 !
You can shoot an awful lot of film for what a full frame DSLR sells for .

The first point has nothing to do with cost , but what medium the images are captured on and personal preferences on how you want to make your B&W images .
Personally , I prefer film B&W rather than a digital image converted . Cost is irrelevant .

My second point was that you can get an SLR for £10 , you can't get a full frame DSLR for anywhere near that .
For a crop sensor digital shooter wanting to try out 35mm/full frame to see if the format (film or digital) gives them what their looking for , a £10 SLR camera and some film will tell them what they need .
I would say that someone testing the water with 35mm/full frame , 100 rolls of film is a heck of a lot !

The Sony a7 isn't a DSLR , and there's no way a Nikon d600 is a point and shoot camera .
Try fitting it in you pocket with a lens on , which is essentially what a point and shoot is !

I've a Canon EOS 500n with a 40mm f/2.8 that does a good job as a point and shoot , and fit's in a pocket ( just ).
Granted I splashed out on buying that camera , I paid almost £20 in the local used camera shop for it , but with a free roll of film chucked in the deal .

 

[Autonerd]

You're using a $2500 camera as your FF digi example.
I'm using a $250 FF digi camera, where if you got that you'd 'only' be able to shoot/process 46 rolls of film with your bulk rolling etc.

True -- but digital cameras have planned obsolescence. I'm honestly not sure what $250 buys in the digital age. I know my Pentax K100D is worth about a hundred bucks, but it's stuck at 6.1 MP. Can't produce the same IQ as something brand-new. But a hundred-dollar film camera can. As can a $7 film camera. Think about how cool that is: My 46-year-old Pentax KX can produce better images today than when it was new, because it can take advantage of film technology developed later.

[quote}Your Sony rig, at $2500, I assume is current perhaps new tech?[/quote]

Nah, that's the Sony rig I lust after. I have a six-year-old A6000. I'd love an A6400 or an A7 with the 18-55 f/2.8 lens, or a Nikon Z-series, but I can't justify spending that kind of money when it'll buy me so many years' worth of film!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Huss]

Just to be clear, I am not advocating digi photography! All I use my digi cam for is to scan my film - which I develop myself.

For the avg lay person, who does not develop themselves (the vast majority do not) film is a fun exercise, not an economic one.

Looping back to the actual topic, it really is something that you can buy something like an N55 for pennies. A disposable one time use film camera costs more!

 

[reddesert]

Film has lower startup costs than digital cameras of reasonable quality, film has significant costs in consumables. This has been true for a long time, although upgrade fever brings older digitals closer in price. (BTW, check the prices. From ebay, a Nikon D600 costs more typically $400 than $250.)

Anyway, back on topic, every now and then someone blogs breathlessly about how the lack of new film cameras will be a danger to film revival, and my thought is always, how can this be when there are so many N65's and N90's out there, selling for peanuts? I think people conflate "film" with "mechanical" for a variety of reasons, including self-image.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I am still using this camera and I'm enjoying it very much. It has become my most used SLR, my other two Nikons are the F5 and the FM2, the former is too big for causual shooting and requires so many batteries I must plan its use. The latter is great but heavier and slower than the F55. Two observations after using this camera for 2 years:

It occasionally gets confused with non-standard films from the likes of Adox and Cinestill that have unorthodox cassettes. It can refuse to acknowledge the reality of a film in the camera.

Secondly, the AF is not that good and under low light the camera has this 'AF-Assist' light that comes on. It works fine and the camera has always been accurate but, and a big but, that AF light ruins any hopes of a candid shot. You can, of course, switch off AF but the viewfinder does not make low-light focusing easy.

Edit - a third observation: I'm still on my first battery with this camera.