A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 23rd 19, 03:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

On 11/22/19 7:10 PM, RichA wrote:
From what i've seen electronic cameras fail outright or show performance-damaging problems in 7-10 years. Film cameras, especially manual ones keep going for 25, 50, 75 years. Some of the simplest ones from the 1800's like view cameras are still working. Failures of certain kinds in electronic cameras more than 5 years old may not be fixable and it's only the rapid advance of technology and rapid decline in value of old digitals that makes this acceptable. Now that camera companies are suffering, it's likely advancing technology will slow, meaning cameras, like in the 1970's, will have to last longer. People don't mind tossing a camera that has outlived its technological life, but they might mind if it hasn't.


Out of 625 35mm SLR cameras manufactured between 1964 and 69, I have 110
that I have tested with film and are within one stop of being accurate.

The remaining functional cameras have been shutter tested. About 100
show within one stop with the tester. About 250 are within one stop
except for the shortest and longest shutter speeds. (Usually, the
fastest and slowest speeds on mechanical cameras will go bad first.) 60
of them have two speeds on each end more than one stop out. 50 of them
have additional random shutter speed issues.
Finally, about 60 of them, less than 10% of these 50+ year old cameras,
have issues making them non-functional.

Older digital cameras will have image sensors that have been surpassed
by modern ones. Film cameras can use any "image sensor" (film) on the
current market; they aren't limited to what was available at the time of
manufacture.

--
Ken Hart

  #2  
Old November 23rd 19, 03:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Older digital cameras will have image sensors that have been surpassed
by modern ones. Film cameras can use any "image sensor" (film) on the
current market; they aren't limited to what was available at the time of
manufacture.


they can, except they're still not as good as outdated digital cameras.
  #3  
Old November 23rd 19, 03:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

On 11/22/19 9:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Older digital cameras will have image sensors that have been surpassed
by modern ones. Film cameras can use any "image sensor" (film) on the
current market; they aren't limited to what was available at the time of
manufacture.


they can, except they're still not as good as outdated digital cameras.



You should really avoid general statements like that. I have a ten year
old digital camera that I can beat with a Holga.


--
Ken Hart

  #4  
Old November 23rd 19, 05:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


Older digital cameras will have image sensors that have been surpassed
by modern ones. Film cameras can use any "image sensor" (film) on the
current market; they aren't limited to what was available at the time of
manufacture.


they can, except they're still not as good as outdated digital cameras.



You should really avoid general statements like that. I have a ten year
old digital camera that I can beat with a Holga.


you should really avoid bogus comparisons.

you were specifically talking about 35mm film slrs, therefore the
correct comparison would be with a digital slr and not some mystery
camera you're too embarrassed to even mention by name.

an older digital slr can easily produce better results than your film
cameras and in *far* more conditions too.

how well does your camera handle predictive autofocus with moving
targets. not very well, since you don't have any autofocus, let alone
something capable of tracking moving objects across the frame.

how about handheld photos at 1/2 second or longer. oh right, no image
stabilization. sure, you could use a tripod, except that they're often
prohibited and a bitch to carry if they aren't.

you said you can use any film. i'm curious, what film do you plan on
using for iso 6400?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/19/26...32c22bb56e3754
f.jpg
https://i1.wp.com/digital-photograph...nt/uploads/201
3/12/1.jpg

do you have any iso 12,800 film?
http://resourcemagonline.com/wp-cont...7r-II-ISO-1280
0.jpg

how about iso 102,400:
https://idiotwithcamera.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/077a.jpg

oddly enough, i was able to find a film photo of that very same scene:
http://getwallpapers.com/wallpaper/full/7/1/f/28906.jpg
  #5  
Old November 23rd 19, 09:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

In any case that is irrelevant for most people. They take
pictures with their phones, and every 2-3 years they get a
new one.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #6  
Old November 23rd 19, 09:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

And for the rest of us, the money we save on film is
enough to pay for a new (digital) camera every few years.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #7  
Old November 23rd 19, 05:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

On 11/23/19 3:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
And for the rest of us, the money we save on film is
enough to pay for a new (digital) camera every few years.

Cost of a Canon FX camera with 50mm f/1.8 lens retail new in 1964 $200.
Price that I paid for most of mine used- $30 to $60 each.

Cost of film and prints:
36 exposure color print film $4.50 (Walmart)
Developing to negative $1.35
Printing the negatives to 10x14" $0.30 each (my darkroom, paper
purchased in 300' rolls, chems purchased in 10L quantities, mixed as needed)

My print size of 10x14" may seem odd, but I want a print close to
full-frame (which would be 10x15"), and I find it convenient for making
albums, my end result.

When I shoot, I normally get 30 "keepers" from a 36 exposure roll.

So, the total cost: $14.85 for film and chemicals to make 30 prints.

Equipment costs: All my darkroom equipment is fully amortized, and in
most cases was bought used. But I'll estimate the new price: Paterson
film tank and reels- $150. Omega D2V enlarger with lens and CC filters-
$800. 20" wide roller transport print processor- $3000. Total: $3950.
(Actual costs were closer to $40 for the film tanks, $150 for the
enlarger, and $300 for the processor.)

So, my equipment costs for my darkroom are in line with the cost of a
computer/monitor suited for photography, and a wide carriage printer
(Remember, my preferred size print is 10" wide).

I typically either mount my photos individually or mount them
back-to-back and make them into an album using comb-binding. Dry-mount
tissue- $0.06 each (I buy it in 300' rolls), Dry-mount press, new $450
(I paid $50 used), Comb-binder punch $125, binders $0.20 each.

So, my finished cost for a 30 photo album is about $15.95. An 11x14
photo book from Walmart is $54.96, but it's currently 33% off, and
that's for 20 pages or 40 full bleed photos. Doing the math to adjust
the page count, it's $41.22. Minus the 33% (I assume Christmas)
discount, $27.48.

If you want to add my time into all that: film developing takes about 45
minutes of my 'exclusive' time (the film hangs to dry overnight, but I
can do other things during that time). A print takes 4.5 minutes through
the processor, dry-to-dry. Dry-mounting takes 3 minutes in the press. (I
usually spend those snippets of time in light exercise.)

So, my total time to develope, print, mount and bind a 30 photo album is
about 4 hours. I assume this would be in line with the time to do this
with digital photos.

--
Ken Hart

  #8  
Old November 23rd 19, 09:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

Well, a long time ago, when I still was using film, the
cost of one 10x15cm print was around 1DM (= German mark).
Can't remember how much a roll of film cost. Development
of the film cost a few DM if I remember correctly.
Now, if you shoot 10K-20K photos/year, as you do with
digital, doing that with film is very expensive. Even just
shooting 1000-2000 photos/year would have been quite
expensive.

--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #9  
Old November 24th 19, 12:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras

On 11/23/19 3:45 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
Well, a long time ago, when I still was using film, the
cost of one 10x15cm print was around 1DM (= German mark).
Can't remember how much a roll of film cost. Development
of the film cost a few DM if I remember correctly.
Now, if you shoot 10K-20K photos/year, as you do with
digital, doing that with film is very expensive. Even just
shooting 1000-2000 photos/year would have been quite
expensive.


Those prices sound like reasonable retail.

But it seems to me that the only way to make the "digital economy"
argument work is if you don't print your digital photos. Obviously with
film, you have to develop and print, or you just have some latent images
in a film canister.

So let's print your 1K-2K photos/year, at about 25x40cm. How much does
it cost for a good quality paper and ink cartridges?
Printing photographically/optically, it costs me about $0.50USD per
print for film, paper, and chemicals.

For 1K-2K photos/year; physical prints that I can hang, give to friends,
etc; I'm willing to pay $500-$1000.

--
Ken Hart

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film cameras will last far longer than electronic cameras nospam Digital Photography 0 November 23rd 19 01:28 AM
Turning film cameras into digital cameras [email protected] Other Photographic Equipment 68 May 7th 07 10:38 PM
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More Walmart General Equipment For Sale 0 December 17th 04 12:52 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.