Yeah! found some of my old film kit!

swanseamale47

swanseamale47

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,876
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
Whilst moving stuff around for the dreaded builders (yes they are still going) I found an old alu camera case with 2 Pentax MX, one gripped and a 50mm Chinon 1.4 a rikenon 50 2.0 and my long missing Tamron 24mm. I haven't run any films through but all the lens seem working and the shutters seem fine. Happy days.
 
leaky5 said:
lol I found my dads old camera the other day, but then looked at the price of film and put it back in the cupboard
Click to expand...

I think that as a hobby film shooting is relatively cheap,

Golf you are losing the balls every round and fishing, you pay for the pond and then the bait!

and what do you have to show for it? Nothing, you may get a photo of a nice carp if you are lucky!

Shotgun cartridges are an arm and a leg

Photography, especially film photography is dirt cheap all told. :)
 
Finding two Pentax MX's at the back of your cupboard is a definite bonus. I've still got mine. But I think these days I prefer a larger body.

Yes, film can be expensive, but I look on it as a guilty pleasure which hits the spot now and then.
 
I think the first proper film camera that I ever used was an MX

It felt like a real camera at the time.
 
I have a collection of old Pentax SLR's and whilst my favourite will always be the LX, the MX is second favourite for me (love the KX too though).
 
lindsay said:
I have a collection of old Pentax SLR's and whilst my favourite will always be the LX, the MX is second favourite for me (love the KX too though).
Click to expand...
What are the differences Lindsay
 
Small differences - MX is a bit smaller than the others, the metering display in the viewfinder is different. The LX was the pro Pentax SLR. However in practical use by me, it's all down to ergonomics and how they feel to use. Very subjective. I think all Pentax fans like the LX, but the KX is I think more popular than the MX due to being just marginally bigger. The metering display in the KX is, I will admit, possibly easier to use, but there's nothing much in it really.
 
I've just sent a roll of Portra 160 (120 format) off for process & scan, it is curently around £15 per roll and the processing is £17.95 plus the 1st Class Large Letter stamp (£3.15) so that's £36.10 for 12 shots (most are doubles so 6 compositions) so £6 per composition. I've no qualms about the cost of my hobby but I am concious of it so don't use film willy-nilly, this roll was used over 3 outings for specific shots and I documented those walks with digital.
 
Topsy said:
I've just sent a roll of Portra 160 (120 format) off for process & scan, it is curently around £15 per roll and the processing is £17.95 plus the 1st Class Large Letter stamp (£3.15) so that's £36.10 for 12 shots (most are doubles so 6 compositions) so £6 per composition. I've no qualms about the cost of my hobby but I am concious of it so don't use film willy-nilly, this roll was used over 3 outings for specific shots and I documented those walks with digital.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I work with regard to film. If I was getting through 3 rolls a week it might be different :ROFLMAO:

For me, 35mm is about £1 a shot, 120 is around £3 a shot all in.
 
LeeRatters said:
That's exactly how I work with regard to film. If I was getting through 3 rolls a week it might be different :ROFLMAO:

For me, 35mm is about £1 a shot, 120 is around £3 a shot all in.
Click to expand...
My 120 would be £3 a shot if I could get out of the very old habit of doubling up on every shot, "just in case", tbh I've not needed the second shot since I sterted again with film but it's an old habbit from when every shot mattered and it was on slide film. Must try harder. ;)
 
Topsy said:
My 120 would be £3 a shot if I could get out of the very old habit of doubling up on every shot, "just in case", tbh I've not needed the second shot since I sterted again with film but it's an old habbit from when every shot mattered and it was on slide film. Must try harder. ;)
Click to expand...

Go on. ...... One click and f*%& it ;)
 
I've been doing my maths too. I weighed up the potential €2,500 outlay for a digital 'medium format' camera body that only gives 1.6x the image size of my full frame Lumix S-1. I could use the 'medium format' digital body with my Zeiss 35mm optics although I haven't yet discovered whether the image circle is actually sharp enough to the edge. On the other hand I got a film Pentax 645 and two zoom lenses for around €600. Then I have to factor in €11 for a roll of Kodak, €27 for processing & hi-res TIFF scan. Say €40 per roll including shared postage with my 35mm films, divided by 15 images. I make that €2.66 a pop.

I'll probably go through about five rolls a year at €40 = €200 per year so including the value of the equipment I reckon I'll be over 80 by the time I'm out of pocket, but I'll have had a lot of fun on the way.
 
Clive K said:
I've been doing my maths too. I weighed up the potential €2,500 outlay for a digital 'medium format' camera body that only gives 1.6x the image size of my full frame Lumix S-1. I could use the 'medium format' digital body with my Zeiss 35mm optics although I haven't yet discovered whether the image circle is actually sharp enough to the edge. On the other hand I got a film Pentax 645 and two zoom lenses for around €600. Then I have to factor in €11 for a roll of Kodak, €27 for processing & hi-res TIFF scan. Say €40 per roll including shared postage with my 35mm films, divided by 15 images. I make that €2.66 a pop.

I'll probably go through about five rolls a year at €40 = €200 per year so including the value of the equipment I reckon I'll be over 80 by the time I'm out of pocket, but I'll have had a lot of fun on the way.
Click to expand...
Wish I'd have done the maths before I invested heavily in the Fujifilm GFX 50S System. :ROFLMAO:
 
Topsy said:
Wish I'd have done the maths before I invested heavily in the Fujifilm GFX 50S System. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

That's the one that I was looking at. But I suspect that you will be taking more than 75 shots a year with it. Everybody's circumstances ard different and for me there is still a place for film in my photography.
 
LeeRatters said:
£10 a roll for 36 shots isn't too bad. Especially if you only use it selectively on nice sunny days etc
Click to expand...

It is if you forget to set the timer after you put the developer in! :oops: :$
 
Last edited:
Clive K said:
That's the one that I was looking at. But I suspect that you will be taking more than 75 shots a year with it. Everybody's circumstances ard different and for me there is still a place for film in my photography.
Click to expand...
Yes I do use them a bit more than 75 shots per year. I am more inclined to use digital for outings that I have no specific shots in mind but I use film when I have found a composition that I like enough to warrant the extra effort & cost. These days I don't take my Bronica out on speculative walks unless it is combined with a smaller digital kit, on these days I may not even get the Bronica out just use the digitals. I currently have 2 long term projects undarway, one is with the GFXs the other with the Bronica so they sort of get equal use and very occasionally my intended subject is for both so I will take a reduced kit of each on those walks. As you say there's room in my photographic life for film and digital.
 
I've still got a pair of Canon film cameras, which I bought after I'd gone digital, because I just couldn't resist the very low prices...

Cameras Canon FTQL and AE1 DSC01793.JPG

Both came from charity shops and each had a zoom lens fitted. The total price was around £27 for the pair. I handed the lenses back to the charity shops, so hopefully they raised a few pounds more. The bodies live in a roller case with my Tamron Adaptall lenses and a Nikon D600.
 
I wouldn't mind an LX, especially paired up with a 50/1,2 A. I get a lot of joy out of my P50 and Z-1p.

When I paid £28 for my last roll of Velvia, I tried to contextualise the cost versus the price of a 1st class stamp.

In around 1990 the price of a Velvia was ~£5 a roll, we were lucky that for a long time the price of film was stagnant - I remember buying a 3-pack of Velvia/Provia from Fujilab coupled with processing vouchers around 2003 for £19.99. I used that service a lot as I loved Provia in all its guises....

Just imagine now that film is 5-6x more expensive now than in 1990. worst case £7.

1st class stamp was 22p in 1990, now it will be £1.80 soon, an 8+x increase.

As a young boy I used to be an avid stamp collector, started on First Day Covers in 1981 and still get them but on subscription from Royal Mail. Whereas it used to be just over £1.50 for the stamps and envelopes in 1981, I am looking at around £20 each issue as Royal Mail seem to be celebrating everything under the sun, plus they expanded the scope of my order so I was starting to enrich their rich Czech owner. I continue only because I love the pictorial quality and design of these small pieces of paper - the adhesive is another matter!

Annual trip coming to Bass and Bligh this month, they usually have a good stock of film in.
 
When comparing film cameras with digital cameras, the calculation for analogue equipment always seems to be: film cost + development cost = £x. And x is a big chunk of money and rising every week. Whereas the calculation for digital cameras is often: ten million digital photos = £ nothing. Therefore film photography is very expensive.

But in the real world photographers spend much more money on everything which enables photos to be taken, such as petrol (sigh), air tickets, hotels, meals, parking, clothing, walking boots, bags, straps, tripods, filters, etc. And those things apply equally to film and digital.

Most digital photographers also conveniently forget that they ‘upgrade’ their cameras every few years at a cost of many hundreds or thousands of pounds, and spend a lot of money on software and up to date computers to run that software. They also forget about all the hard disks, back-up disks and online backup solutions they subscribe to.

I suspect an honest calculation of ‘how much did it cost me to hang that print on the wall?’ would reveal film photography is no more expensive, or possibly cheaper than digital.
 
FujiLove said:
I suspect an honest calculation of ‘how much did it cost me to hang that print on the wall?’ would reveal film photography is no more expensive, or possibly cheaper than digital.
Click to expand...
While I think that you may be correct in some cases, I think that, for the majority of photographers, your assertions would not apply.

For example, I wonder how many photographers "‘upgrade’ their cameras every few years"? My guess is that claim would be true for a very small number indeed. Some of the digital cameras that I still use, are from the early 2000s. They still do what I want them to. As for your long list of other costs, they may apply peripherally to the photography of some people but I would be surprised if that is anything other than a very tiny minority.

If film photography is your pleasure, then have at it and I for one wish you well. However, I think it is best to face up to the realities; one of which is that digital photography is, in general, much cheaper per image than using film.
 
The reality is that you take your pleasure in whatever way floats your boat. Film togging is more expensive per shot in pure cash terms, but how do you measure the value of the pleasure from using an old film camera, waiting for processing, and the excitement of getting the results? Compared to the process when shooting digital, the fun is had at different stages and in different ways. I'd argue that you shouldn't compare them in cash terms, but in more intangible ways. I'm lucky that I thoroughly enjoy both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top