Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by 98dirtybird, Jul 22, 2009.
should i buy this? is it a good deal?
i had an AE-1 waaaay back when. they are awesome cameras. but will you use it?
I have only ever had point and shoot digitals, and i would love to be able to take some real photos. I thought it woul be a good camera to learn on, before i drop some serious cash and figure out that i dont like taking pics..
only problem is with this kind of camera, unless you are in school or a photog class, will cost you alot more in teh long run, than lets say a 10d with a kit lens. Due to film and developing costs
Is there nowhere to get a photoshop to develope them to digital for me? Not cost effective?
I can virtually guarantee you that you'd be sick of that camera and you'd stick it on a shelf or list it on ebay after shooting less than 10 rolls of film.
The cost and hassle of using film vs. digital gets old for everyone but serious artists or students.
That is kinda what i am worried about. I think i am going to pass on this deal, and read up on some starter digitals. I will mostly only be using for sporting/family/auto events. Time to start saving and researching.
nope not at all. For quality film you would spend upwards of 5-10 bucks a roll (24 exp). then you would have to find a decent developer in your town, then have them scan each and every negative on disk, So with your first roll after cost of film and developing you are at $20-35 without a single print. And thats for 24 images!!1!
so you think about it.
$60 for camera body
$200-300 bucks for 200-300 exposures, not to mention driving costs and time.
so around $300-350 you learn you like photography, then have to buy a digital SLR and spend another 350 for a cheap body and kit lens, only to sell the AE-1 for peanuts.
When you could just buy a cheap DSLR and kit lens now for 350 bucks, and if you dont photography, flip it for nearly the same money. And you wont be out a dime, and you will have learned a lesson.
Not really. you're still paying out just to see what you've got, and even then you're getting what their interpretation of what the correct look is, not yours.
True story. With digital you can quickly see what the results of your work are, and make changes accordingly, and the only thing it costs you is the time it takes to upload your shots to PS. Your best bet, is to get a cheap dslr, basic glass, and learn your composition. If you start taking a class that focuses on film, or really get into the look of film, get this. Until then, the most cost effective, is the one that's not going to be pulling money out of your pocket every time you want to see your photos.
Thank you guys. logic and breakdown ftw. Hopefully you see me cruising newb/sticky threads soon.
$60 bucks for a decent camera w/lens. Killer deal.
I'd say go for it. I am currently using a 35mm SLR, the Nikon FM-10 (jump from point and shoot digitals) and it cost me way less than a disposable crop camera (ie entry level DSLR)
People still shoot film, it's high quality, and costs much less, even the lenses are dirt cheap (1/10th price on average for manual focuses). (check ebay)
Fuckin sexy bro, you know you want it.
^^^how I know you're trolling.
FILM: A processed 120 format frame of film costs less than a buck and has more resolution and dynamic range and color gamut than any digital system available to anyone. Even military satellite reconnaissance uses sensors with lower resolution. Those satellites just make a lot of smaller images which are pasted together later.
CAMERAS AND LENSES: These are effectively free. I try to buy my film cameras and lenses used. I often sell them for more than I paid for them years later. Therefore film hardware is essentially free. A good lens today is still a good lens in 20 years. The most exotic film cameras cost the same or less than middle-of-the-road digital cameras which will need to be thrown away in two years, and the film cameras will still be making great images in ten years. Likewise, a new $100 film camera can whup any digital camera for color and resolution.
+Learn the photography the real way
You will never be a serious photographer if you've never shot film
Yeah, 35mm is FULL FRAME, try buying a full frame digital camera and enjoy spending 20 times as much for a camera who's sensor will fade in 2-3 eyars
obvious troll is obvious.
I still use my AE-1P
If you already had an AE-1, I would say shoot away. But I wouldn't go out and buy one. The AE-1 is a dinosaur, its meter is vastly inferior to newer cameras, and being limited to manual focus is a bear. (I say this as a guy who is currently using an AE-1.)
For the same money or close -- well under $100 anyway -- you should be able to find a mid-90s autofocus SLR and kit lens.
For example, here is a Nikon N80 for $75:
An added bonus is that a modern film SLR operates much the same way as a digital SLR, so you can learn all the same concepts. Also, any lenses you buy for it can be used on digital SLRs; you can't do that with any pre-EOS Canon gear.
Anything to look for? How can i tell if this is not broke and what not? I knew the guy selling the other one so i trusted him, but cl is sketch.
digital or bust
You'll just have to learn what you can about how it works, and try dry-shooting it a bit if possible. Look through the viewfinder and see if the autofocus system, LEDs, switches and dials and whatnot seem to work.
Since I've never handled a modern SLR, others may be more helpful than I am
However, it seems like most late-model film SLRs have not seen much use and are equivalent to barn find automobiles. Most people switched from those to digital P&S cameras in the early 2000s and never looked back. The only people who use film SLRs nowadays are photography students who have to buy something for the class and can't afford a DSLR.