Considering an EOS 35mm (film) body

[FunPhotons]

12 year old autofocus and metering technology, 150 year old sensor technology, every shot costs a buck, no auto ISO and a limited range, and they get back to you a few days later (toss in a few trips to the store with the price of gas). No thanks ...

[crasher8]

I shoot with an Elan 7, love it but will one day upgrade to an EOS 1 or 3 for a more solid body with better sealing.

[smithy]

12 year old autofocus and metering technology, 150 year old sensor technology, every shot costs a buck, no auto ISO and a limited range, and they get back to you a few days later (toss in a few trips to the store with the price of gas). No thanks ...

Oh my gosh... it's almost like you have to take the photo YOURSELF!   

Film's still a pretty good way to shoot, financially speaking.  I wanted to explain it in this post, but it started getting complex and I gave up haha.

[BillyBean]

12 year old autofocus and metering technology, 150 year old sensor technology, every shot costs a buck, no auto ISO and a limited range, and they get back to you a few days later (toss in a few trips to the store with the price of gas). No thanks ...

This is ill-informed nonsense. If you don't like film fine, I have no issue with that.

But, just for the record:

1. The eye-controlled 45 point '12 year old' focus on my EOS 3 is better than the 5D mark II. This is why I waited for the 5D3 before upgrading, and even that has some bad points compared to the EOS3.
2. The 150 year old sensor technology was actually likely developed/revised in the last 5 years, and gets further updated regularly, which your current digital sensor won't, unless you replace the camera.
3. The 'per frame' cost of film is lower than digital, because the camera doesn't cost as much as a small car.

Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

[crasher8]

What is this store thing you takes trips to? I take trips to the darkroom.

[RichATL]

3. The 'per frame' cost of film is lower than digital, because the camera doesn't cost as much as a small car.

Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

For an amateur... yes...
For those of us who shoot 1000+ frames per week... no.

"Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand"


on topic...
I have an Elan 7 and it works just peachy for me...
Autofocus is pretty much equivalent to the 5d2...
but it's just a box that holds film for me... I don't use it's metering system, and I take my time with focusing anyway... so the $100 made more sense to me than $400 for a 1V

[BillyBean]

What is this store thing you takes trips to? I take trips to the darkroom.

Ha ha! Nice response. I too develop my own black and white, but colour is a bit too much hassle. But even for colour, I get excellent professional lab results returned within 2 days of posting. OK, it's not instant, but it's pretty good.

And then scan, and all the benefits of lightroom and Nik etc.

I used to do the printing (enlarger) myself, but although it's fun, life is too short.

[BillyBean]

3. The 'per frame' cost of film is lower than digital, because the camera doesn't cost as much as a small car.

Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

For an amateur... yes...
For those of us who shoot 1000+ frames per week... no.

"Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand"

I'm not suggesting film for a pro - that just would not make sense in this day and age. So yes, good point. But I don't expect to have to write small print on my posts... and the nonsense being spouted by the earlier poster did get me kinda riled.

Film is fun, and if folks out there have never tried it, they should. My point was: it's not expensive to give it a try out, and for lower volumes is way cheaper than digital.

[paul13walnut5]

Another vote here for the EOS 3.

The EOS 1V is about 5% better (metal body, 100% viewfinder, viewfinder blind)

The EOS 3 is about 30% of the price to buy.

Same top shutter, same metering, same AF (+ECF) Metal chassis, weatherproof, fast motordrive, expandable with PB-E1 and PB-E2.

For the idiots trying to turn this into a film vs digital debate, it isn't.  The OP didn't mention digital anywhere in their question.  They are obviously strong enough willed to have weighed up the pros and cons which exsist on both sides.

For what it's worth for me there is nothing quite like a good print from Ilford XP2, lovely grain and contrast, and it has the bonus of being a mono film that can be put through a colour lab.   And I say that shooting 99.5% of the time on digital.

The EOS 1V is the best 35mm SLR camera in the world.

The EOS 3 is the best value 35mm SLR camera in the world.

The Elans and Rebels all offered good value and specs at the time, but really, a used 3 can be had for so little that it's almost rude not to.

[mnewberg]

I had the same urge to move back to film. I have been shooting a EOS 5, Elan 7, and a Argus C4 for the past month. You can get dirt cheap film($2-4), and it only costs a few bucks to have a roll scan to CD at most one hour places. When you want to move up to something higher quality there is always more expensive films and developing. I have had good results with thedarkroom.com. Film can be a lot of fun, and produce interesting results. There is nothing like feeling the film advancing in the camera after the shot. Most films are really forgiving on exposure compared to digital, and they also look better then any instagram filter.  I have had good luck with the canon cameras with both canon lens support, and canon flash support. If you have canon EF lenses, I feel there is no reason not have at least one EOS film camera just for fun since they are so affordable now in the used market.

[msdarkroom]

Holy smokes - awesome feedback here guys. Thank you all very much for your opinion, even the film haters.
Jose Villa is a name that came to mind when I saw the debate about nobody shooting film professionally.

I'm leaning EOS 3.

Speaking of www.thedarkroom.com, I just found that site the other day when searching for somebody to develop my 120 holga film. I have one of their postage paid envelopes on the way but haven't used them yet.

Thanks everybody for the info, very good stuff.

-MS

[Seanlucky]

While I do shoot some 35mm film every once in a while, I find it much nicer to do on a camera little different from a Canon... I currently use a Contax RTSII with those beautiful zeiss lenses. I find if I'm going to shoot film, I prefer to get away from the more digital style bodies, and really embrace the craft.

That being said, I rarely shoot 35mm, generally opting instead to shoot 120 format. While I do enjoy the Hasselblad 501 for it's smaller size, I'm generally taking out an RZ67 as I find it easier to shoot with (especially focusing...)

EDIT: That being said, I loved shooting on the Contax 645, which is starting to feel quite a bit like a Hasselblad H2 setup sans top LCD screen. Wish that one was in my budget, especially since it's the only medium format camera I know with an 80mm f2 lens...

[risc32]

Take note of the wireless flash abilities and HSS mode. Everything new does all that stuff, but not all of the older film bodies. I use a 1n and it doesn't do HSS. Sometimes that stinks when you have to go faster than 1/250th and still want some flash. Otherwise I really like it. Plastic over metal body, feels pretty tough. The AF is slow to get going compared to modern stuff, but the math going on must be pretty good cause it actually tracks things well. I even like the neat little trap door with buttons behind it. I got one of the optional grips(there are 2 or 3 different versions) so i can run the thing off Eneloopes and stop buying those damn expensive specialty batteries that i can't source locally.

[smithy]

While I do shoot some 35mm film every once in a while, I find it much nicer to do on a camera little different from a Canon... I currently use a Contax RTSII with those beautiful zeiss lenses. I find if I'm going to shoot film, I prefer to get away from the more digital style bodies, and really embrace the craft.

Digital style bodies?  I'm pretty sure that film SLRs were that style before the digital ones...

[daniel-barton]

I have an EOS 3.  I bought it off of KEH for $149 to replace my 1973 Ashai Pentax ESII brass-body as my film camera.  It is an outstanding well-built durable camera, the autofocus is great (I use the eye control), works well with a flash, and the viewfinder is excellent.  The interface is easy to use, few frills I dislike, and plenty of features I do.  I hate the battery, but that's that.  I like it over my 40D for some things, but my 40D is still my daily shooter.

I have been shooting mostly Ektar 100 color negative using a 17-40L for landscapes and/or nighttime long exposure.  I occasionally put a thrifty fifty (1.8 II) on it for a walk-around.  I sometimes shoot a roll of Fuji 100 or TMAX for a change of pace, but I mostly buy 5-packs of Ektar 100. 

I would highly recommend this camera and a cheap 50 or a nice wide-angle zoom to anyone who wants to shoot film (again, or for the first time).  Between the body ($149), the film ($9/roll with developing), and a good but not great scanner that allows for 13x19 enlargements of sharp images ($175), you could shoot 100 rolls, or 3600 images, for the price of a used 7D.  That doesn't sound that cheap, and truthfully it isn't, but it's about 30 cents an image, not a buck as some film-hater above claimed.  If you do your own C-41 at home (Tetenal press kit?) you could make it cheaper.  I intend to do this at some point, but I worry because it's a bit finicky.

Rambling!