2006-12-11 12:08:22 · 8 answers · asked by SunFun 5 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
Not obsolete, but less common now, except for disposable cameras which seem to be going great guns.
I have been a lab manager for 11 years. My roll volume has dropped from an average of 80 rolls per day down to about 30. (This is in a town of about 6000 people in a rural area.) Last week we did over 4000 digital prints and 208 rolls.
Many of the "mom & pop" labs have gone under, and some commercial labs as well.. Kodak has stopped production of B&W paper. Agfa and Konica-Minolta are no more. Our film selection is shrinking. Good processing is harder to find.
There are virtually no 35mm point & shoot cameras now. Nikon only makes one film camera now, the F6. (Well, they put their name on a cheap manual camera that is actually made by Cosina) The B & H Photo catalog has just a few pages of film and oodles of digital. Just 3 years ago, the opposite was true.
I think 35mm will still be with us for some time to come, maybe as a niche market. I hope so, I have several thousand dollars invested in film bodies :-) I also use digital and like it also. So there is room for both, at least for the time being.
2006-12-11 15:15:55 · answer #1 · answered by Ara57 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. the technology for digital cameras has improved but is still outrageously expensive. For the same price as a digital slr camera lens and photo editing software. You could buy a high end 35 mm camera lenses and develop a lot of film. Also there are still things that you can not do with a digital that you can with 35 mm. Differnt effects like overexposure and things along those lines. Go check out a professional sports game and see how many pro photographers are still using 35 mm. I think you would be suprised.
2006-12-11 20:18:41 · answer #2 · answered by keith c 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
R T
I have 4 grand tied up in the old film style SLR cameras , are they obsolete ,I don't think so . They still take great shots and you don't have to worry about how many megapixals it has to blown up 2X3 foot prints . You still have the prints from digitals , they are nice as you have instant gratification of knowing if the pic is what you want right than so you can take a second shot I use both for my work , each has it's pro and cons
2006-12-11 20:19:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the point and shoot 35mm, its a yes. But for SLR 35mm, I would say no. Unless you can get yourself a full frame digital SLR, a 35mm SLR are always sharper than any digital camera no matter how many mega pixel it has. Not to mention infrared photography. You can't take any infrared picture without retooling your digital camera and even so, you won't get the crystalline grain and glowing highlights you can get with high-speed infrared film.
2006-12-11 20:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty Much. The issue is film vs. digital. There are nice SLR digital cameras
2006-12-11 20:12:32 · answer #5 · answered by abadger42 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
35mm film still has it's uses as detailed before. If you want to become a photographer 35mm is essential to learning the fundamentals but 95% of the people would be served just fine by digital.
2006-12-11 21:55:06 · answer #6 · answered by Theaterhelp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!!! the newest is called an slr it looks and works just like the 35 mm but it stores pictures on a memory card
2006-12-11 20:11:28 · answer #7 · answered by Charlene I 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutley with a digital you can download and edit & adjust right away after shooting. with a 35mm you don't have that option your stuck with whatever comes out and you certaily cant delete the one you want without wasting your film..Go digital it makes better sense
2006-12-11 20:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by rondahlm 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋