Should I sell of my film stuff?

[kafene]

I'm was wondering what some of you guys have done. I still have my old Canon EOS-1N RS body and 540EZ flash unit. I loved this camera, but now that I have my Canon 10D, I just don't see myself using it anymore.

I've held on to it because this set-up cost me almost $3,000 new and it really hasn't been used a lot. Should I sell if off or keep it? I'll never be able to get as good a film camera again, but now with digital, why would I need to? hmmm.

kafene.

[defordphoto]

Yeah, that's a tough decision. I sold all my film stuff except for a couple of handy point and shooters, which I have not touched since getting my first dSLR. I also have not touched my old Fuji digital point and shooter and doubt I ever will again.

Once you shoot with a Canon dSLR, it's pretty difficult to shoot with anything else. You might consider keeping that stuff for now as an emergency backup. I have the D60 as a back for my 10D, so I have no use for film equipment anymore. The thought of manually scanning film again just makes me cringe.

[Belmondo]

The fact that you're asking the question suggests that you already have reached the point where you don't see yourself ever having a need for the film-based camera systym again. You're not alone.

The sad truth it, your equipment will never be worth more than it is at this moment. The market is starting to become flooded with used high-end film equipment, and the prices are sinking faster than the Titanic. I just turned down an immaculate A2 body that I could probably have bought for $200 or maybe less, and it could have passed for brand new.

As more and more people migrate to digital, the problem is only going to get worse.

Chances are, you'll never use that camera again, so from that standpoint, you might consider taking the hit now and kiss it goodbye while there's still some value left in it. The other side of the argument, and more representative of how I feel, is that these high-end film-based camera bodies represent a high-water mark in their technology. They're beautiflly designed and manufactured, almost works of art. My choice would be to keep the camera, pull the battery out to prevent chemical disembowelment, and treat it like a treasured heirloom---display it, admire it, save it to show to your children and your childrens' children.

Ultimately, however, you will have to make this call by yourself.

[UK_Terry]

Sold all my film equipment when i went digital (EOS 5)
have not regretted it at all.

[huzzar]

I too sold my film equipment and never looked back... I belive that having XX$$ sitting on a shelf and NOT bringing some type of return is a poor use of my funds... My wife and I go back an forth on this item as I would rather SELL off my used stuff - then keep if and watch it continue to drop in value... Plus you have the added bonus of helping out someone else... YES, sell your film stuff...

[Vegas Poboy]

Me, myself I would keep it. If it's as good as you say it is then keep it. It's something that can never be replaced and who knows when you may want to play with it again. You may never get the true value out of it when you sell it.
I still use all of my cameras depending on the job or my moods. Infared to me can only be done one way and that is on film. PS and my10D is great and I love digital but all of my courses right now is still demanding B&W, color or E6 film and using manual settings and I have to say doing your own developing and printing is still fun. I also decided to save it as a time line of history.
They're plenty of opinions out there and this is just mine if you don't need the cash and have room for it then keep it.

[ssim]

I have gotten rid of most of my 35mm stuff. I have held onto my medium format cameras. If you want a 16x20 print of something this is still the way to go. Tough to beat the resolution of the 120 neg.

[kafene]

Vegas Poboy wrote:
Me, myself I would keep it. If it's as good as you say it is then keep it. It's something that can never be replaced and who knows when you may want to play with it again. You may never get the true value out of it when you sell it.
I still use all of my cameras depending on the job or my moods. Infared to me can only be done one way and that is on film. PS and my10D is great and I love digital but all of my courses right now is still demanding B&W, color or E6 film and using manual settings and I have to say doing your own developing and printing is still fun. I also decided to save it as a time line of history.
They're plenty of opinions out there and this is just mine if you don't need the cash and have room for it then keep it.

Boy, you do have a good point. My EOS-1N looks brand spakin' new on the inside. I also have an old Canon F1 Pro manual body and may look good in a display for a "in-home" museum type disply :) Thanks for the idea.

This issue sure can eat up a guy. My brother was actually telling me to sell of the stuff (he has almost the exact same set-up), but when he spoke to another photographer who had a job where the client required only positive trannys he decided to keep it because you never know when a client will demand a film job.

kafene.

[Belmondo]

There's an interesting legal argument floating around as to whether or not digital photographs should be allowed in court as evidence. There are very compelling arguments in favor of requiring evidence photos to be shot with film and the negatives submitted along with the prints as proof that the photos have not been altered.

I've done this type of work in the past primarily in railroad-related fatalities, and the question has never come up, but that's not to say that it never will. I expect there will eventually be a legal precedent established saying whether or not digital images can be accepted in court, and if they are, whether or not they can be given the same evidentiary weight as photos produced from a negative.

Admittedly, this is a niche application for film cameras, and it might never come to pass. But if it does, those high-end film cameras will be indispensable far into the foreseeable future.

Tom

[Vegas Poboy]

belmondo wrote:
There's an interesting legal argument floating around as to whether or not digital photographs should be allowed in court as evidence. There are very compelling arguments in favor of requiring evidence photos to be shot with film and the negatives submitted along with the prints as proof that the photos have not been altered.

I've done this type of work in the past primarily in railroad-related fatalities, and the question has never come up, but that's not to say that it never will. I expect there will eventually be a legal precedent established saying whether or not digital images can be accepted in court, and if they are, whether or not they can be given the same evidentiary weight as photos produced from a negative.

Admittedly, this is a niche application for film cameras, and it might never come to pass. But if it does, those high-end film cameras will be indispensable far into the foreseeable future.

Tom



I have not yet been able to take the CSI photography class here in Las Vegas but I did ask an instructor about digital and due to the EXIF file it is being accepted here in court but you're right every lawyer looks for a out for thier client and I'm sure it will be challenged.
In other words its not bad to have a film body camera as backup.

[bluebomberx]

I still have all of my film equipment. I keep both my EOS 5 and Elan 7e for backups to my digital in an emergency; but I still like the look of film. If it weren't for the fact that I bought a Nikon 4000ED scanner last December, I might have sold it all off when I bought a 10D. I still like using Fuji Reala and Kodak 160NC for portraits.

[SoCal69]

Vegas Poboy wrote:
belmondo wrote:
There's an interesting legal argument floating around as to whether or not digital photographs should be allowed in court as evidence. There are very compelling arguments in favor of requiring evidence photos to be shot with film and the negatives submitted along with the prints as proof that the photos have not been altered.

I've done this type of work in the past primarily in railroad-related fatalities, and the question has never come up, but that's not to say that it never will. I expect there will eventually be a legal precedent established saying whether or not digital images can be accepted in court, and if they are, whether or not they can be given the same evidentiary weight as photos produced from a negative.

Admittedly, this is a niche application for film cameras, and it might never come to pass. But if it does, those high-end film cameras will be indispensable far into the foreseeable future.

Tom



I have not yet been able to take the CSI photography class here in Las Vegas but I did ask an instructor about digital and due to the EXIF file it is being accepted here in court but you're right every lawyer looks for a out for thier client and I'm sure it will be challenged.
In other words its not bad to have a film body camera as backup.


Actually, this argument is moot. Digital photographs will be accepted in a courtroom as evidence in the same way a film photograph is accepted. From a legal standpoint there is no difference. Yes, it is true that digital images are much easier to manipulate than film images, but in the end, both mediums are easily manipultated.

Keep in mind how a photograph gets into evidence in a courtroom in most cases. It gets in through testimony given by a witness under oath. In some cases it may be the photographer. In many other cases it can be any witness. The key is the witness' ability to confirm under oath that the photograph is an accurate representation of the scene it depicts. If the witness confirms this (subject to other evidentiary rules), it may be admitted. Of course, this confirmation can always be challenged. Similarly, if the witness were the photographer himself or herself, he/she would testify similarly. The key issue is not whether the photograph is authentic or unedited, but whether it accurately depicts the subject it depicts. Along these lines, the photographer has the added advantage of testifying to EXIF info if necessary, but in most cases, it would not be necessary.

We have a different story, however, if it is ownership rights to a photo which is being litigated. However, in that case, the "authenticity" of the photo is not an issue, and the only issue is ownership. Evidence would more likely involve testimony of photographers, copyright registration documents and other information.

[kafene]

Another good point... if I got rid of my film camera, I would have no back-up at all.

[UK_Terry]

kafene wrote:
Another good point... if I got rid of my film camera, I would have no back-up at all.

I solved that by buying a Digital compact with the proceeds (was a kodak now replaced with Canon S45) of the Film based sale.

[psk4363]

Strange that no-one has mentioned missing the use of transparency film.

I went totally digital some time ago yet I slowly realised that I was missing the vibrancy of a good Velvia slide when it's projected and equally when it's printed on Ilfa/Cibachrome. Nothing I have seen in the digital field has matched this - apart from the occasional file being reproduced as a trannie. If that's the eventual wish of the photographer why not use slide film in the first instance?

Recently I had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 30E, did so, and now not only does it provide a back-up to my 10D, but I can usually replicate digital shots on slide film at the same time (1.6x effect on focal length being considered).

So should you get rid of all your 'wet film' gear - absolutely not!

Cheers,
Barry

[robertwgross]

Vibrancy = Velvia

Yes.

I still shoot my Canon film camera frequently, either loaded with Velvia or Provia. This is mostly for nature photography.

There are some organizations and publications that only accept submissions on transparency. There are others that only accept digital. There are others that go both ways.

Since I have a good slide scanner, I can easily convert from film to digital, but it is difficult to go back the other way. As a result, the film camera will continue to see use.

---Bob Gross---

[msvirick]

bluebomberx wrote:
I still have all of my film equipment. I keep both my EOS 5 and Elan 7e for backups to my digital in an emergency; but I still like the look of film. If it weren't for the fact that I bought a Nikon 4000ED scanner last December, I might have sold it all off when I bought a 10D. I still like using Fuji Reala and Kodak 160NC for portraits.


I think this is the right way to go.

[msvirick]

I saw your web site and am wondering how you took pictures of the stained glass windows. Is it from 2nd floor of the Chruch?
I am sorry to have intrupted the thread. The pictures are perfect/

[tony4563]

I too sold my EOS 1n to be totally digital. Complete with a Canon 17-40 wide angle, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, I thought I had a nice set up for digital imagery, and I have.... However, a year later I find myself buying a 2nd hand EOS55 in mint condition. Why? Because i'll never be able to see the best and true optical performance from these lenses with a 6.3MP camera. A well exposed 35mm slide on a lightbox still blows the socks off my Canon D60 in the sharpness and colour stakes, inconvenient as it is. I look at my D60 as a convenient way of getting very good images, and prints on par with film. But if you want true quality, colour and sharpness, then slide film is, in my opinion, still tops. I carry my D60 and 55 in the same bag.

[UK_Terry]

msvirick wrote:
I saw your web site and am wondering how you took pictures of the stained glass windows. Is it from 2nd floor of the Chruch?
I am sorry to have intrupted the thread. The pictures are perfect/


If you were looking at my photo's of the church, then they were taken inside with the light coming through.
it is a single floor church

[RichardtheSane]

Here I back up Bob and Barry in pointing out that transparency, specifically velvia and provia are just unmatched in quality by digital - and a an absolute joy to use :)

I still have film gear, and use it quite a bit - mainly for landscapes because I find that digital just can't quite capture the fine detail in a landscape shot.

[mwinog2777]

I've decided to keep my old gear. I have 2 young kids, and they may take a photography course in high school or college which will start with film. So, they might as well have good gear.

[dbarthel]

I keep an Elan 2E around for the inevidable wide angle shot unavailable with the 10D. That said, I havn't touched it in a year. I use the 15mm and debarrelize instead. Still, it's an old friend.

Dan

[robertwgross]

RichardtheSane wrote:
I still have film gear, and use it quite a bit - mainly for landscapes because I find that digital just can't quite capture the fine detail in a landscape shot.

I just wish that there was some way to pack in medium format resolution into a 35mm camera body.

---Bob Gross---

[stormbikes]

if you're not using it i would sell it now as it's value will
fall dramatically over the next year or two. then if you
decide you want to shoot any film you will most likely
pick up high-end gear for about a third the price it is now.
i think i remember hearing that this year will be the first
where digital cameras will outsell film camera for the first
time. there's a store here in melbourne (australia)
where most of the pros shop that has a long shelf full of
nikon f5's that have been traded. i suspect soon they may stop taking them.


paul http://pauldurrantphotography.com