Thinking of picking up a film camera.

Blacktop

Senior Member
Since spring is here, I'm thinking of picking up a film camera to do some flower shots with. (for that certain film look)
I was looking at an F4 on e-bay for a 160 bucks. I was thinking of using a few of my existing AF-S lenses with it , but thinking about it further, I may just pick up an AF-D lens just for that purpose. I do have a 50mm 1.8 AF-D and a 20mm 2.8 AF-D but I'm thinking something longer for flower shots.

What would you seasoned film guys recommend for that type of shooting. Also if you think that an F4 might be too much, I would like to hear your thoughts on maybe a different camera as well.
Oh yea! Also some film recommendations would be appreciated as well.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I keep thinking about it in medium format 6x6 or 6x4.5,then i remember how much more i enjoy digital :D but good luck if you go down that road
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
I recently resurrected some old images i did with my f5 and 85 1.4 ais about 7 years ago. I tell you the truth. Not impressive. Not the image/composition but the film rendering. It looks horrible vs digital. I couldnt believe it. I used fuji reala and kodak professional portra 160 nc and vc.scanned with the 4000 scanner and sa30 adapter. Just horrible. I wouldnt go back there.
Iso 3200 in the d3 looks like 400 with film.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I recently resurrected some old images i did with my f5 and 85 1.4 ais about 7 years ago. I tell you the truth. Not impressive. Not the image/composition but the film rendering. It looks horrible vs digital. I couldnt believe it. I used fuji reala and kodak professional portra 160 nc and vc.scanned with the 4000 scanner and sa30 adapter. Just horrible. I wouldnt go back there.
Iso 3200 in the d3 looks like 400 with film.

Aint nostalgia great :D
 

Needa

Senior Member
Challenge Team
Aint nostalgia great :D

Sure beats reality.


Recently dug out a photo of a young lady it took back before time began. When found there she was gorgeous as ever sitting on the hood of the car. Lets just say my mental processing of the image far excised what was there, as I saw many opportunities for improvement.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Every once in a while I ponder the idea of a manual Nikon camera--I still have a couple lenses from my 35mm film days (along with an N90s and N70).

What about a macro lens for flower shots?
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Aint nostalgia great :D

yes, but I look at the images and say, wow, film looks horrible. how people accepted such horrible quality. not the composition or subject but the color and grain and low resolution, no clarity in the image vs digial. I remember years back when canon put out the 5d MK1. it was 13mp. popphoto did an article of it vs film and they did a closeup of a sign far away in the image. the canon was much clearer and I thought to myself, this is a hoax, film is much better. there was an article a guy from luminous landscape did of it vs film and I couldnt believe what I saw was true. I was a hardcore (film also) nikon fanboy then as well. I was using 3x f5 at the time and even when the D300 came out, I wasnt budging from film. but looking back at images just 7 years ago, the images are just horrible. the resolving power, grain and color is horrible. and I was using the best gear. today we have it very good . we are spoiled. I just cant believe the restrictions I had when shooting with film. I cant believe I accepted working weddings with this VERY limiting media-film. then I used to lug around 1200w/s monolights to a wedding for proper lighting on the dance floor. it was a nightmare running electrical cords and trying to find outlets for them. today its tiny speedlights. setup and go. agile and flexible.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
yes, but I look at the images and say, wow, film looks horrible. how people accepted such horrible quality. not the composition or subject but the color and grain and low resolution, no clarity in the image vs digial. I remember years back when canon put out the 5d MK1. it was 13mp. popphoto did an article of it vs film and they did a closeup of a sign far away in the image. the canon was much clearer and I thought to myself, this is a hoax, film is much better. there was an article a guy from luminous landscape did of it vs film and I couldnt believe what I saw was true. I was a hardcore (film also) nikon fanboy then as well. I was using 3x f5 at the time and even when the D300 came out, I wasnt budging from film. but looking back at images just 7 years ago, the images are just horrible. the resolving power, grain and color is horrible. and I was using the best gear. today we have it very good . we are spoiled. I just cant believe the restrictions I had when shooting with film. I cant believe I accepted working weddings with this VERY limiting media-film. then I used to lug around 1200w/s monolights to a wedding for proper lighting on the dance floor. it was a nightmare running electrical cords and trying to find outlets for them. today its tiny speedlights. setup and go. agile and flexible.

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but can't the negatives be scanned then edited with PCC, LR, or other software of choice? Clarity can be added and grain can be dealt with, can't they?
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
sure they can. I had nikons LS4000 scanner with SA30 full uncut roll adapter. I used "ice" and "gem" in a light manner but too much makes it too synthetic of a look. still it looks like crap. its great for its time, but doesnt come close to digital today. its a different world. today the "grain" doesnt look like film grain its just noise. like tiny consistent pin sized dots all over. film grain is random and looks better but much bigger than the noise/"grain" of digital. the resolving power and clarity is so much better with digital.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I have an F4s that I use. I like it. It takes more work to get the same results as digital... and it "forces" you thru a different process... :)
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Thanks guys. Sounds like a novelty and it would probably end up on my shelf after a few outings. I still might give it a go just for fun's sake.:encouragement:

I did have a Fuji film camera back in the 90's that I shot when I went on vacations but it was full automatic and I didn't know what I was doing. Just point it and shot it.
 

dmc

Senior Member
I am sure that Henri Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Capa, Richard Avedon, Yousef Karsh, et al would be pleased to learn that their film work was sub-par. What a load of nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
I am sure that Henri Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Capa, Richard Avedon, Yousef Karsh, et al would be pleased to learn that their film work was sub-par. What a load of nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is saying that?:indecisiveness:
 

dmc

Senior Member
Quote rocketman122:

"yes, but I look at the images and say, wow, film looks horrible. how people accepted such horrible quality. not the composition or subject but the color and grain and low resolution, no clarity in the image vs digital."


The Rocketman does a great dis-service to all of us who shoot film.
 

Mako1969

Senior Member
The F4 is a nice camera, but if you can spend $288 +/- $75 (last 50 Nikon F5 sales on ebay as of March 6, body only, working camera), that will put you in the range of some nice F5 cameras. I've been looking over eBay too, as I really wanted an F5 when they first came out, and now that the prices are reasonable, you almost can't pass one up. My D4s is a marvelous photographic instrument, but there's something about film that I truly miss from my days as a yearbook photographer back in the 1980s. Knowing that with film there are a finite number of images (5 rolls = 180, 190 if you're good :cool:), and it makes the photographer that much more in tune with whatever they're shooting. Loading the reels carefully so as not to overlap the layers, the developing steps, unloading, and then seeing your images come to life as you unfurl the roll.

That is truly creating art.

Update 03-07-17: I just bought from eBay a Nikon F5, Mint condition, serial no. 3231168 (manufactured during the last 2% of the run of 235,612) for $499, and two more from an estate sale in Denver, CO. One of them has the MN-30 NiMH rechargeable battery with the MH-30 charger and the seller assured me that it still holds a charge. The camera has a serial number that begins 318xxxx, putting it at about the last 20% (i.e. mid to late 2002). I think that the other camera's number is around 311xxxx. The two from the estate sale will be going on eBay this weekend.
 
Last edited:

Mako1969

Senior Member
Quote rocketman122:

"yes, but I look at the images and say, wow, film looks horrible. how people accepted such horrible quality. not the composition or subject but the color and grain and low resolution, no clarity in the image vs digital."


The Rocketman does a great dis-service to all of us who shoot film.

I guess it's a good thing that Ansel Adams isn't alive to have to see how horrible his film images were compared to digital........:hopelessness: Or these 6 pros who still shoot film 6 Professional Photographers Still Shooting On Film - Atlas Magazine
 

harleridr

Senior Member
A good F4 or F5 body is running quite high. Also you have to think about batteries. They are getting hard to find. You may want to think about an N90, it has a great AF system and won't break the bank. You can e-mail me private if you need more nifo on the N90.
Harle
 

harleridr

Senior Member
I thought the F4 used a battery pac like my F5, which when i use the AA battery tray the darn thing eats batteries as fast as I can buy them. I have two Nikon pacs and one is fixing to go down so I am looking for a place to rebuild it.
Harle
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I have an F4s... that's the F4 with the winder... It uses 6 AA batteries... I use Eneloop 1900mAh rechargeable batteries with no problems...
 
Top