"I want a simple SLR" says my 15y/o son. Err, no you don't!

[Sirius Glass]

Not everyone can pick up a complete darkroom setup here and there for peanuts from people shedding unwanted gear, and some people are in places to which chemistry is very expensive to ship. I live in one of the not so easy places. I can afford it, but digital (with a secondhand body found cheap) would still be my better option.

I shoot as much film as I do because I love it, and I find the development a challenge.

As far as this thread is concerned, its purpose is done; the lad has his film camera.

It is not the darkroom equipment that is costly. It is the darkroom and how the available the room is for other purposes.

 

[removed account4]

one thing i love about photography is it can be just about anything. it records light on film on a sensor, on paper in the sun ..
stuff given away for a song ( not even a dance ) stuff that costs $60,000 .. hand painted on paper, on film , on metal
its a big tent, unless you want to be someone who doesn't like that and has a restricted definition.
i'm happy the OPs kid gets a new camera, and it is able to go all manual or all computer which is great.

pathdoc sorry things aren't as available where you are. it might be worth it to look into
developers that are ez to mix of a few raw chemicals. D23 is a brutally ez film developer, like 2 ingredients ( and water )
and i am guessing there is something as brutally ez for paper but i just can't think of it at the moment .. and fixer
well, thiosufate beads can be gotten for like $5/lb or even less if you find a pool supply sales agent ..
if i was starting fresh and stuff for little film ( 120 and smaller ) wasn't readily available i'd go bigger ( 4x5 ) a little more bulk and
sometimes a PITA but ive realized paper or xray film are cheap as dirt and can be processed even in stale coffee ..
good to hear you are having fun

 

[vsyrek1945]

Thanks, JN, for what I think should be the closing word on all the off-topic blather. The OP reported the "winning candidate" back on post #127, so I guess it's time to hit the "Ignore Thread" button.

G`bye

 

[pbromaghin]

Let's not compare a brand new digital camera, to a camera, the alpha 9 that came out nearly 18 years ago. Of course a body will be cheaper and a 50mm 1.7 can be had for peanuts sure.

Sorry, but you have to compare new digital cameras against old, obsolete film cameras because that's all there is! That's what makes film so cheap. That old world-class equipment is being sold for pennies on the original dollar.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The OP wants a focus assist in case of manual focusing.

the OPpolice has spoken?

 

[cooltouch]

I think the reason why some people say that digital is cheap, or even free, is because they have either forgotten about, or otherwise put out of their mind, the high cost of acquiring the digital camera (and probably at least one lens to go with it) in the first place and the costs of any of the computers and software needed to produce images from the digital files, as well as the cost of a printer to produce hardcopies of their images. So to these people, the only real expense is the memory cards their cameras use. But that is false economics, isn't it.

Whereas with film, these same folks see the cost of the film itself and the expense of having it developed and prints made (if any) as a continuing expense that will never end as long as one continues to shoot with film. So to them, shooting with film is far from free. But if they were to bother and factor in the real costs associated with their digital photography, they would have to arrive at a different conclusion. Digital may end up being cheaper in the long run. But perhaps not initially.

Cost of a top quality digital camera with one or two good lenses: $4000 US. Cost of software and computer to run it. Depends on whether it's a PC or a Mac, but easily $2000 US. So we're looking at a realistic cost of $6000 US to get started with a premium quality digital camera.

Cost of a top quality film camera (Nikon F6 with USA Warranty): $2500. Let's also add in at least one good lens, say another $1000 US. Cost of, let's say a year's worth of film -- say 100 rolls of what? How about Portra 400. $820/100 rolls. Cost of developing, figure $10/roll: $1000. So film's total for at least one year's worth of photography: $5320.

So at least $6000 US for digital compared to $5320 for film. The numbers are getting close enough to each other that one might call it a wash. That is, they are not significantly different enough from each other that a conclusion can be drawn in favor of one or another. Even though there is a $680 difference, this can easily be accounted for with the addition of another lens, or the purchase of a faster computer and/or more software, and/or a printer. And the film user may wish to buy a scanner to digitize the images, which means the film user must also have access to a PC or Mac. So it's a wash.

In other words, choose which you prefer, and go and have fun with whichever choice you've made. And let the poindexter types argue over the definition of 'photograph' while you're out there having fun making a whole slew of them, no matter what the definition may be.

 

[georg16nik]

cooltouch, it's far from a wash.

with film neg you have spectacular images and you got your archive right there.
with digital you got files with lousy image quality, and BILLS for storage media every other year, and effy reliability.

It's called digital nitrate in Hollywood and for a good reason!

 

[faberryman]

If you are making a decision to shoot film or digital based on cost, you are making the decision for the wrong reason. Does an artist choose to paint with oils, acrylics or watercolors based on cost? It's just a way to rationalize a decision after you've made it on different criteria, and so is specious.

 

[Paul Manuell]

One of my 15 year old twin boys has taken an interest in photography since I resurrected the use of my OM's this past summer. So the other day he suddenly announced that he wants 'a simple SLR' that he can use to learn photography. But truth is, he doesn't want a simple SLR as we know the term: born of the iPhone generation, I had to try to explain that the 'simple SLR' he thinks he needs won't do any thinking for him, and he'd have to set the focus, shutter speed and aperture. "What the heck's an aperture?!". Long talk ensued, as you can imagine. And that's the baseline we're starting at.

After which we've decided what he wants is a program camera that initially will do all the thinking for him (except probably focussing, for the reason given below) and allow him to take control at his own pace while rewarding him with good results that will motivate him to learn.

So I'm looking for ideas. Essential features are:

- Program mode to initially use to gain confidence
- Aperture priority and manual mode for when his ambitions branch out
- Split-image viewfinder to make MF easy (so I think that probably excludes most AF cameras except for a few oddities like the quirky Olympus OM30)
- Genuine manual controls on the lens/body for aperture and shutter speed, not hidden in menus or multipurpose dials and switches. (Again that alienates many AF cameras, so I think it's likely we'll be looking at purely MF cameras).
- Cheap, so $100 / £100 or less for a working example with a lens, on the assumption this will turn out to be a flash in the pan (but if it isn't, no harm done and I've kickstarted a hobby for life for him)

On the radar already is of course the excellent Minolta X700 and the underrated Olympus OM40 / OM-PC.
Pentax / Canon / Nikon must surely have had equivalents? Yet I can't think of them!

All ideas welcomed.

Film cameras have menus?!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

cooltouch, it's far from a wash.

with film neg you have spectacular images and you got your archive right there.
with digital you got files with lousy image quality, and BILLS for storage media every other year, and effy reliability.

It's called digital nitrate in Hollywood and for a good reason!

+1

 

[cooltouch]

cooltouch, it's far from a wash.

with film neg you have spectacular images and you got your archive right there.
with digital you got files with lousy image quality, and BILLS for storage media every other year, and effy reliability.

It's called digital nitrate in Hollywood and for a good reason!

Heh. I like that moniker. Gonna have to remember that one. And it is apt. But I dunno how realistic your claims about digital are. My NEX 7 shoots at 24.3mp which results in 4000x6000 pixel images. I wouldn't call that lousy image quality. I use this camera to make digital duplicates of slides and negatives. I can resolve Kodachrome 25 grain @ 4000 pixels per 24mm (a slide being 24mm x 36mm). And I do as I suspect most other digital photographers do. I bought a large hard drive for my computer (3TB) and I use it for image storage, keeping my fingers crossed that it won't crash. But crashes do happen, so when I think about it, I archive images to DVD. Unfortunately I've learned that DVD isn't an archive quality storage medium, (at least the non-Gold ones aren't), so I'm still looking for better storage media. Perhaps SSDs are better? Cloud storage (where there would most likely end up being a fee)? I dunno at this point. But that is the big problem with digital file storage, isn't it? There is no archival equivalent to film storage in archival sleeves. And honestly, that's a big reason why I'm still a big proponent of film photography and always will be.

 

[cooltouch]

If you are making a decision to shoot film or digital based on cost, you are making the decision for the wrong reason. Does an artist choose to paint with oils, acrylics or watercolors based on cost? It's just a way to rationalize a decision after you've made it on different criteria, and so is specious.

I agree, but if you look again at my previous post, I was stating from the outset that people were making decisions based on cost, and for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, most professional photographers --- artists? -- have made that cost basis analysis and have switched (hence the cheap prices on used medium format gear) because it is a business to them and they are forced to look at the bottom line. The pros regard digital as being faster with fewer overhead costs and they haven't looked back, have they. And it isn't just the professional photographers, is it? It's the organizations they work for. I wonder if National Geographic even accepts film submissions anymore. Yes, there are still pros who shoot with film, and God bless 'em, but they've become a rather small minority, haven't they.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

As for digital being cheaper, to match what was my working 35mm outfit in the late 90s would require two pro level full frame dslrs bodies, primes from 20 to 200mm, computer, software, printer, etc. Medium format, $30,000 digital back for starters, likely some other stuff. 4x5, not possible.8x10? Don't be silly! All my working gear paid for itself many times over, including the darkroom stuff. Over the past 5 years I've accumulated some very nice and interesting gear; my annual expenditure on gear is less than many people spend on takeout coffee. So going digital, for me, would cost many tens of thousands of dollars while using film costs no more than film and chemicals.

 

[faberryman]

As for digital being cheaper, to match what was my working 35mm outfit in the late 90s would require two pro level full frame dslrs bodies, primes from 20 to 200mm, computer, software, printer, etc. Medium format, $30,000 digital back for starters, likely some other stuff. 4x5, not possible.8x10? Don't be silly! All my working gear paid for itself many times over, including the darkroom stuff. Over the past 5 years I've accumulated some very nice and interesting gear; my annual expenditure on gear is less than many people spend on takeout coffee. So going digital, for me, would cost many tens of thousands of dollars while using film costs no more than film and chemicals.

Don't forget the cost of therapy occasioned by moving from film to digital.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Don't forget the cost of therapy occasioned by moving from film to digital.

Probably some medication, too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't forget the cost of therapy occasioned by moving from film to digital.

Called conversion therapy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As for digital being cheaper, to match what was my working 35mm outfit in the late 90s would require two pro level full frame dslrs bodies, primes from 20 to 200mm, computer, software, printer, etc. Medium format, $30,000 digital back for starters, likely some other stuff. 4x5, not possible.8x10? Don't be silly! All my working gear paid for itself many times over, including the darkroom stuff. Over the past 5 years I've accumulated some very nice and interesting gear; my annual expenditure on gear is less than many people spend on takeout coffee. So going digital, for me, would cost many tens of thousands of dollars while using film costs no more than film and chemicals.

I would not only have that I would also have the cost of digital Hasselblad backs at $60,000US and who knows how much for 4"x5" backs.

 

[MattKing]

These relative cost arguments aren't particularly useful.
They are entirely dependent on local market conditions, individual levels of risk tolerance, and individual needs and circumstances.
Where I am, there is a healthy and robust market for used photographic equipment - both film and digital. Right now on the local Craigslist Photo/video classification there have already been 336 listings posted today, and there is a good mix there of film and digital stuff (along with a few things that don't belong there at all). There is also reasonable local availability of film and darkroom materials (as well as digital of course) even if some of it is relatively expensive. We have good local labs, and many of us can easily access US internet sources too.
In my area, I can easily and effectively get young people into film and darkroom for very little cost, and can help them keep those costs quite moderate.
But I can also access really reasonable digital equipment - my Canon DSLR cost me $125 CDN including kit lens and lots of accessories. My existing computer equipment can easily be used for photographic purposes too.
For other people, in other areas, choices are much more restricted.
With respect to the OP, the major factor in my mind is that the young person has a family member with interest, as well as supplies and equipment that might be available for sharing. In addition, bulk purchases are possible .

 

[removed account4]

As for digital being cheaper, to match what was my working 35mm outfit in the late 90s would require two pro level full frame dslrs bodies, primes from 20 to 200mm, computer, software, printer, etc. Medium format, $30,000 digital back for starters, likely some other stuff. 4x5, not possible.8x10? Don't be silly! All my working gear paid for itself many times over, including the darkroom stuff. Over the past 5 years I've accumulated some very nice and interesting gear; my annual expenditure on gear is less than many people spend on takeout coffee. So going digital, for me, would cost many tens of thousands of dollars while using film costs no more than film and chemicals.

it is cheeper.

the only time it isn't cheaper is when someone is brainwashed to buy
a whole bunch of stuff he or she doesn't need ... just like analog.

 

[one90guy]

Nikon FG is small and checks all the boxes. Plus they can easily be found for under $30.

I 2nd the FG, one of my favorite Nikons.

David

 

[pathdoc]

one thing i love about photography is it can be just about anything. it records light on film on a sensor, on paper in the sun ..
stuff given away for a song ( not even a dance ) stuff that costs $60,000 .. hand painted on paper, on film , on metal
its a big tent, unless you want to be someone who doesn't like that and has a restricted definition.
i'm happy the OPs kid gets a new camera, and it is able to go all manual or all computer which is great.

pathdoc sorry things aren't as available where you are. it might be worth it to look into
developers that are ez to mix of a few raw chemicals. D23 is a brutally ez film developer, like 2 ingredients ( and water )
and i am guessing there is something as brutally ez for paper but i just can't think of it at the moment .. and fixer
well, thiosufate beads can be gotten for like $5/lb or even less if you find a pool supply sales agent ..
if i was starting fresh and stuff for little film ( 120 and smaller ) wasn't readily available i'd go bigger ( 4x5 ) a little more bulk and
sometimes a PITA but ive realized paper or xray film are cheap as dirt and can be processed even in stale coffee ..
good to hear you are having fun

I am currently using and liking Caffenol. I looked at the D23 recipe but the raw ingredients are probably harder to source locally than commercial stuff. I also looked at sodium thiosulphate as a home fixer, but nobody I asked could point me at local sources & at the price I would be paying, it's cheaper to order the commercial stuff for that too!

 

[pbromaghin]

Not everyone can pick up a complete darkroom setup here and there for peanuts from people shedding unwanted gear, and some people are in places to which chemistry is very expensive to ship. I live in one of the not so easy places. I can afford it, but digital (with a secondhand body found cheap) would still be my better option.

I shoot as much film as I do because I love it, and I find the development a challenge.

As far as this thread is concerned, its purpose is done; the lad has his film camera.

Doc, I feel your pain. I grew up in one of those areas, rural northern Minnesota, surrounded by poverty, unemployment and indian reservations. Pursuing an oddball hobby like photography was really almost outside the imagination.

 

[removed account4]

I am currently using and liking Caffenol. I looked at the D23 recipe but the raw ingredients are probably harder to source locally than commercial stuff. I also looked at sodium thiosulphate as a home fixer, but nobody I asked could point me at local sources & at the price I would be paying, it's cheaper to order the commercial stuff for that too!

GO CAFFENOL !!

i love that stuff..