35mm Cameras

[Jerry Bruette]

Is there a market for used 35mm cameras? In this digital age are they even desirable to anyone?

[Kev Williams]

Put it on eBay and find out- When I met the wife back in '91 she had a CED video-disc player. Not the 'laser-disc' that was fairly popular for a few minutes, these 12' discs were black, inside a plastic case that inserted into the machine. We got tired of it taking up space so we put it on eBay-- sold for like $235! Never know... :)

[Mike Henderson]

Depends on the brand and the model. I sold a Nikon F a few years ago and didn't get a lot for it. Of course, that was a popular camera and there were a lot of them sold.

Mike

[Bruce Wrenn]

Many college photography courses require 35MM cameras. Might want to look into donating to local community college.

[Bill Dufour]

The Cannon lens are compatible film and digital for the last 30 years or so until this year when they switched the mount. So at least the lens may have some value?
Bil lD

[Jerry Bruette]

There's already 445 cameras on the bay that are the same model as mine. I think that diminishes my chance of a sale any time soon.

[Mel Fulks]

There's already 445 cameras on the bay that are the same model as mine. I think that diminishes my chance of a sale any time soon.
That is astonishing !

[Jim Becker]

Film cameras "in general" is a very depressed market. Most buyers are either enthusiasts or students who are required to use film for HS (and sometimes college) art classes. I picked up a Nikon body for like 50 bucks when my younger daughter had that requirement for a class in high school. There are also some high-end bodies that have cult following that can bring reasonable money if in really excellent condition. The same is true for something rare. Patience is required, however. If you have something that was more of a mass market body, you're unlikely going to get a whole lot of money for it. DSLRs took over the market many years ago and even they are starting to be superceded by mirrorless designs.

You may actually do better with any lenses you have when it comes to selling, depending on brand. Older Nikon lenses, for example, are still useable on many of the current DSLR bodies; at least the higher end ones. Good glass is always in demand.

[lowell holmes]

Where can you get film developed? Does Walgreens offer the service?

[Jim Becker]

Where can you get film developed? Does Walgreens offer the service?

Yes, one can still get film developed through most pharmacies as well as from specialty firms via mail order. It will be interesting to see how much longer that lasts, however...

[Jim Koepke]

Yes, one can still get film developed through most pharmacies as well as from specialty firms via mail order. It will be interesting to see how much longer that lasts, however...

Unless you find an old exposed roll of Kodachrome. That was my favorite color film. The last lab to develop Kodachrome processed the last roll in 2011 or 2012, different articles have different dates. It may still be processed with B&W chemistry.

jtk

[Stan Calow]

drugstores around here pulled all their in-house film processing machines a few years ago.

[Mike Henderson]

The Cannon lens are compatible film and digital for the last 30 years or so until this year when they switched the mount. So at least the lens may have some value?
Bil lD

I'm not familiar with Cannon but if you use an old Nikon lens on a modern camera it's completely manual - focus and f-stop, just like when you used it on your old camera. That's not appealing to most people with new cameras.

Mike

[Edwin Santos]

Is there a market for used 35mm cameras? In this digital age are they even desirable to anyone?

It really depends on the particular camera. Some 35mm cameras are highly desirable in the used market. There is a decent camera collector's market.

Don't count film cameras totally out just yet. In recent years, film has made a pretty big comeback, somewhat like vinyl LP records did.
Analog film has a different look that appeals to some discriminating photographers, and for certain niche areas of photography, film is superior to any digital camera in production.

Fuji is a company that has made an amazing transition from being a film manufacturer to now being one of the dominant digital camera makers. One interesting thing they have done in the X series is include film simulation modes so the camera can emulate the film characteristics of some of their venerable film flavors like Velvia, Provia, Astia, and a mode called Classic Chrome which basically emulates the look of traditional E process slide film for a 60's and 70's look.

[mike stenson]

I'm not familiar with Cannon but if you use an old Nikon lens on a modern camera it's completely manual - focus and f-stop, just like when you used it on your old camera. That's not appealing to most people with new cameras.

Mike

I have a lot of auto focus lenses from the film days that work just fine and dandy on my D850 ;) I also have factory converted AI lenses that work as you indicate. Nikon hasn't changed their mount since the F, so there's a lot of glass out there. However, to use the AI lenses, you generally either need a pro-body or a prosumer body.

Canon changed their mount at least two times that I can recall. I'm not sure what bodies their compatibility is.

[Jim Becker]

I'm not familiar with Cannon but if you use an old Nikon lens on a modern camera it's completely manual - focus and f-stop, just like when you used it on your old camera. That's not appealing to most people with new cameras.


Yes, it's probably not appealing to the general population, but there are many folks who truly love "old glass" and don't mind working it manually. It's a subjective thing. And as Mike S mentions, current Nikon bodies with the internal focus motor will autofocus back to at least the D-series and have some control functionality over AI lenses (even older) that are properly prepared. Given that many folks don't switch camera brands much, if at all, we're talking people who have been using this stuff for many decades. When I bought my D750 a few years ago, I still had a 50mm lens from my original Nikon film camera I bought back in like 1979. It actually worked fine for metering, but, of course, was manual focus. I put that on the film camera I picked up for my daughter to use for her high school art class. (black and white and they had to develop them themselves in the school) The new Z-series mirrorless come with an adapter that lets one use lens back to a certain point, too, although not as far back as my D750 and Mikes D850 can handle.

[mike stenson]

The Z adapter doesn't stop the aperture open for focusing, which.. is one of the reasons I don't find that solution so appealing :)

[Ole Anderson]

Took my 1980's SLR to my local camera store six years ago, all I got for it was a SDR card for my then-new Canon T2i. That long operating camera store is now out of business. Gave my even older Konica SLR with lenses to my granddaughter for a film class she was going to take. Quick answer to your question: no.

[Mike Henderson]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

[mike stenson]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

Process yeah.. shooting? Not really. No.

[Jim Koepke]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

Maybe part of the course has to deal with forms and shape using B&W photography.

jtk

[mike stenson]

Maybe part of the course has to deal with forms and shape using B&W photography.

jtk

All of that applies to color. Light is light. The fact that my digital camera is FAR more sensitive than film, really has little to do with the exposure (other than simply allowing more slop, or more detail) and certainly nothing to do with composition.

[Jim Koepke]

All of that applies to color. Light is light. The fact that my digital camera is FAR more sensitive than film, really has little to do with the exposure (other than simply allowing more slop, or more detail) and certainly nothing to do with composition.

Then could it be some kind of conspiracy?

Here is a simple answer from an online search:


Many people use a digital camera because they can see the images immediately. ... The point here is that using a film camera slows you down. It makes you think about each shot, making sure you have everything thought through. This will make you a better photographer.

Kind of like why some woodworkers use hand tools instead of machines, it slows them down so they make their mistakes slower. :D

jtk

[Jim Becker]

Several people commented that schools teach film photography. I can't understand why they would do that. The way you shoot and post process digital photographs are entirely different than film. Unless someone was going to specialize in film photography it seems like the wrong thing to teach.

In my opinion they should be teaching how to properly shoot and post process digital - that's what people are going to be doing.

Mike

I don't disagree with you, but I got the impression (at the time) that they wanted the students to have limited chances to "get it right" (rather than shooting a billion photos on digital and just picking the best ones) as well as the developmental/printing techniques. I personally would have wanted to teach it all digital, however, for the reasons you state. It's how things work now. I do a lot of photo manipulation just for posting on social media...because I enjoy it.

[Mike Henderson]

Process yeah.. shooting? Not really. No.

I go way back with photography. I shot weddings with 2 1/4" film. Some of the problems with film is that different film gives different images so some photographers used more than one camera. Also, you had to be very aware of the number of shots left in the camera and the activity you were shooting. There are wedding shots that you just can't miss. If you have to load more film at a bad time you can be in real trouble.

[Added note: Hasselblad (https://www.hasselblad.com/history/500-series/) had removable backs which allowed you to have different film in different backs. Also, you could reload by simply changing a used back for a new back. But the Hasselblad was very expensive, and the extras, such as backs and different lenses, weren't cheap. I shot with a Mamiya C3 twin lens reflex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamiya_C). When I'd shoot on contract for a studio I would sometimes use one of their Hasselblad cameras.]

Also, retouching film is (was) difficult - not impossible but very manual and took some manual skill to do it where people didn't notice it.

One shot, for example, was the bride throwing the bouquet. With film you generally only had one shot of that. You just couldn't advance the film that fast. With digital you can shoot continuously with whatever interval you want and have a much better chance of getting just the right shot - the people reaching for the bouquet as it is just out of their reach.

Of course, if you used 35mm film you could have a motor drive but I shot on larger format.

But, in any case, my belief is that you need to teach to the tools that the student will really use. Learning how to develop film or paper may be interesting to the student but not of much use.

And regarding B&W or color, with digital you can post process any picture into B&W if you want to. The pictures that wedding photographers produce today are something we couldn't even dream of back when I was doing it.

Mike

[mike stenson]

I go back too, also shot medium format weddings, was an ASP/ASMP member and shot for various media companies. Worked in professional darkrooms and have a degree in this. I still own a 503c ;)

You are talking about convenience and post-process. That's all. If we're in a studio (where we have control enough that convenience isn't an issue), both are completely identical. Light has NOT changed.

I mean we can argue that I no longer have to choose my film for a specific effect, lighting situation etc, but that's all back to convenience and post-process.

btw, I suspect we actually agree completely on this, but are looking at it/vocalizing it from different perspectives. Convenience does make some things possible in the field.. but then again.. look at Uelsmann's work :)

[Edwin Santos]

I go back too, also shot medium format weddings, was an ASP/ASMP member and shot for various media companies. Worked in professional darkrooms and have a degree in this. I still own a 503c ;)

You are talking about convenience and post-process. That's all. If we're in a studio (where we have control enough that convenience isn't an issue), both are completely identical. Light has NOT changed.

I mean we can argue that I no longer have to choose my film for a specific effect, lighting situation etc, but that's all back to convenience and post-process.

btw, I suspect we actually agree completely on this, but are looking at it/vocalizing it from different perspectives. Convenience does make some things possible in the field.. but then again.. look at Uelsmann's work :)

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.

[Wade Lippman]

I love estate sales that have old SLR's for absurd prices.
I saw an Argus C3 and thought it would be fun to have, as it was my first camera in 1965. But they wanted $50 for it! I thought maybe $5....

[Jon Grider]

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.
Well said Edwin. I still shoot film in small format with my trusty Leica M3 and my Summicron, Summilux and Elmarit are my best friends. I use a digital Minolta light meter or sometimes sunny 16. I enjoy composing a photo and getting the settings right the first time instead of bracketing, particularly with the cost of film and C41 crazy high now. Film has made me a more careful photographer and that carries over into the digital photos I take as well. An example of what I consider digital convenience trumping photographic awareness occurred on a vacation to Michigan's Pictured Rocks boat tour several years ago. We sat on the upper deck of the ferry that slowly cruises past Pic Rocks National Park. As I was carefully composing the shots I wanted, another person who had a huge Nikon digital was just blasting away with her camera in machine gun mode.When I asked her about her methodology, she told me she was an equestrian photographer and that was the technique she used to capture the images of moving horses. She said she would spend hours in Photoshop editing her work. I wanted to reply she wasn't shooting horses but I didn't. I guess the bottom line is one spends time composing or editing, I prefer the former most of the time. To each their own.

[Mike Henderson]

I cannot really disagree with either Mike, but I will offer a case for why a photography school might teach students using film.

Digital cameras offer just so much in the way of convenience and instant feedback.
In contrast, film shooting, while feature limited in comparison, does force the photographer to concentrate and think. This is because you're blindfolded, you just don't know what you've got until the film is processed so you have to make your shots count. You have to think about composition, and mentally juggle a whole bunch of variables. The word that comes to mind is pre-visualization.
With a digital camera, it is very possible to not think or pre-visualize and instead just fire away, twiddling the dials until you get what you want. Rapid trial and error if you will.
You just don't have that luxury with a 36 exposure roll of film.

The idea on the part of the school may be that developing these thinking skills and being forced to concentrate on photographic (especially lighting) theory will make one a better photographer even when you "graduate" to a digital camera and then apply the same skills.

So yes, maybe a digital camera is "better" in use for many of the reasons you mention, but a school is in the business of teaching skills, and once you've learned to shoot predictably in film, blind without the instant feedback, it should make you a better photographer in either format. Also, all the skills in mastering a film camera will crosswalk over to shooting digital. It is not as though the film student is learning obsolete technique.

Last point, there is a big difference between taking a picture and making a photograph. A school is teaching the latter. The vast majority of consumer digital cameras are aimed at people doing the former.

Just a theory. And please don't attack me for saying that film is better than digital or digital is better than film because I'm saying neither.

Another note - for post processing, I agree that there is not much use I can see for teaching darkroom techniques and chemical printing. So most of my comments apply to the shooting and capture of the photograph. Whether capture is digital or analog, learning post processing in digital (Photoshop) is the only practical path. Although, speaking from experience, a decent background in classic photographic theory is very advantageous in using Photoshop effectively. Many functions are absolutely emulating traditional darkroom techniques.

I'm not going to disagree with you, Edwin. But even back in the film days when a professional was shooting product pictures, perhaps with one or more human models, they usually used a Polaroid back for their camera so they could see what the lighting and composition was before shooting with regular film. It was slow compared to what you can do with digital but it was all we had.

People can be taught about light and how to compose a picture, no matter what kind of camera they're using. With digital I could imagine a studio in a school where the students have to set up the lights and pose a model and then take the pictures(s). The teacher can then immediately look at the picture(s) on a TV or computer and give pointers about how to improve the shot. The student can immediately go back into the studio, make the changes suggested and take more pictures. Using film just slows everything down - a whole lot.

Even if the student has an assignment to shoot outside of class, they can bring in their pictures on an SD card and the teacher (and class) can critique the shots and offer suggestions for improvement.

If the student is going to use a digital camera, teach them to use what it can do to their advantage. When digital first came out, it took film professionals time to learn how to use the features and functions of digital to their advantage. If you teach people how to shoot film you aren't teaching them how to use the camera they're likely to use professionally (or even for fun).

Mike

[Off subject a bit: One thing I found about digital cameras is that they all offer about the same features and functions (for the same level of camera). Once you learn one, it's easy to pick up a different brand. The biggest difference is the way the menu is laid out.]

[Edwin Santos]

Well said Edwin. I still shoot film in small format with my trusty Leica M3 and my Summicron, Summilux and Elmarit are my best friends. I use a digital Minolta light meter or sometimes sunny 16. I enjoy composing a photo and getting the settings right the first time instead of bracketing, particularly with the cost of film and C41 crazy high now. Film has made me a more careful photographer and that carries over into the digital photos I take as well.


You have some choice equipment my man. Not that you're in the market to sell any of it, but to the OP's original question, yours is the kind of equipment that fetches high dollars in the used market among a devoted buyer group. I ran across little vintage camera stores in Tokyo that are fanatical about such gear. I have a M6 myself, with an assortment of Summilux and Summicrons. Not as legendary as the M3 and I have to admit, I don't break it out as much as I should.
Ironically, digital cameras are now reaching that maturity that various models are distinctive in their own way. For example, I am now a big fan of the Fuji X100 system. Fixed 35mm equivalent lens, minimalist camera, intended to be a digital answer to the Leica M tradition. Phenomenal street photographer's camera aimed at a very specific kind of shooter.

Also, @Mike H, digital vs. film is not an either/or proposition in many photography programs. I think the best curriculum puts students through an initial "boot camp" with film, learning fundamentals, but digital plays a big secondary part of the curriculum for the many reasons you point out, and also post processing. I certainly can't argue your comments about the improved conveniences. I remember doing portraiture before polaroid backs were common, and we relied on the modeling lights for pre-visualizing pattern, and hand held light meters for measuring ratios. It seems prehistoric now.

The Ansel Adams zone system might seem nonsensical to someone with a digital SLR that can go into machine gun mode and auto-bracket 5 stops in either direction, and then post process using HDR.
But my argument would be that the photographer trained in the classical Zone system would be capable of seeing a particular photograph in a scene that would be invisible to the machine gun shooter, who would invariably walk right by.

Anyone who gets a chance, look into the nature photography of Florida photographer Clyde Butcher. He shoots exclusively on a large format view camera with a wooden stand, sometimes waist deep in a swamp. All his prints are very large format hand printed chemistry B&W. To stand in front of a Clyde Butcher print is an experience. Mind boggling detail.

[lowell holmes]

I used to use film cameras. I now take pictures on my cell phone and print them on my HP Photosmart printer.

[Mike Henderson]

I used to use film cameras. I now take pictures on my cell phone and print them on my HP Photosmart printer.

I don't print mine but I've switched to using an iPhone 11 Pro for most of my photography needs. The new "thing" in photography is computational photography (https://www.pcmag.com/news/computational-photography-is-ready-for-its-close-up) and it is implemented in the iPhone 11 and the Google Pixel 4. It has some issues compared to a good high end camera but it has the advantage of fitting in your pocket and in being with you almost all the time.

Like any technology, computational photography will continue to evolve - I look forward to what the camera will be able to do in future generations of smartphones. I expect that traditional mirrorless cameras will begin to use some of these techniques, if they haven't already.

Mike

[Jim Becker]

Today's smartphone cameras have changed the way many of us handle our day to day photography for sure. "Back in the day", I'd have my DSLR out in the shop on a tripod to document projects; these days, I have my iPhone XS Max in a belt holster and just "whip it out" when I need a shot for some reason. Same goes for food photos, animal photos, life event photos, etc. I only bring out the DSLR for planned "serious" shooting.

[Alex Walter]

Check out the Ricoh XR-1 (https://www.ebay.com/p/83209940). There are less of them floating around but they are much less costly while having a cooler look and more features than Pentax K-1000. (https://onplanners.com/invitations/wedding-suite)
My brief time with a Minolta Maxxum 7000 left me with a very cheap and plasticy impression, similar to many of the lower tier EOS cameras.

[Art Mann]

My answer to the original question is that consumer grade 35mm film cameras are worth approximately nothing. There are a few high end film cameras that are worth a small fraction of their original price. Mostly, they are just collector's items and have no photographic value. I had several Canon and Minolta SLRs that I either gave away or threw away in good working order. Old lenses are downright blurry compared to new technology and aren't worth using, in my experience. Even 10 year old high quality lenses are substandard.

[Mike Henderson]

Old lenses are downright blurry compared to new technology and aren't worth using, in my experience. Even 10 year old high quality lenses are substandard.

I really have to disagree with you, Art. You can see pictures created back in the film days and the images are sharp and clear. I'm not going to say that all old lenses were great but many of the high end lenses were very good - as good as many lenses today. They just are not automatic so they don't get a lot of use today.

Mike

[Jim Becker]

I agree with you, Mike.

[Erik Loza]

My Minolta film scanner (a dedicated strip film scanner, not one of the flatbed-types with "strip adapter") was, at the time, a consumer-grade model and still can produce scans that blew away my DSLR and my (current) mirrorless camera. The sharpest lens I ever used was a 60's vintage 55mm Nikkor f3.5 Micro. Owned plenty of pro Nikkor ED AF lenses subsequent to that but for the simple lens it was, it out-resolved all of those. I would never go back to analog photography and lenses today might be lighter/faster/better-stabilized but the glass today is not substantially better, in my experience.

Erik

[Mike Henderson]

There is one place where modern lenses are much better than older lenses and that's in zoom lenses. Perhaps that's what you were referring to, Mel. Modern zoom lenses have a much greater zoom range than the older zoom lenses and they have decent characteristics across the range. They're not as good at any zoom level as an equivalent prime but they're not bad for most uses.

Mike

[Art Mann]

To really see the superiority of modern lenses, you have to compare zooms. They are designed with computer simulation and are far too complex to be done the old fashioned hand computational way. The best of the premium prime lenses from days of old were designed using a simple formula. They didn't require complex design or precision construction to be good. The lenses I had during that time period were crap compared to what I have today. I just couldn't afford the best glass.

I can't agree that scans of film from any scanner, however good, can come close to matching the output of good hobby grade or professional level cameras. Neither can professional level film printing chemistry. For one thing, even the very best film can not compete in resolution or dynamic range to modern camera equipment. These parameters are measurable and not just a matter of personal opinion. I know these things because my wife was an advertising designer for a commercial printing company and her livelihood depended on getting professional results. We have been doing this since 1986, when drum scans of chemically printed photos were the standard.

[lowell holmes]

I have old cameras in a book case in my computer room. I take pictures with my cell phone and print them on my Photosmart printer.
I suppose you can still get pictures processed and printed. I used to have a slide projector as well.

[Tom Bender]

Academia gets stuck in some very deep ruts. Times will change one funeral at a time.

[Jim Koepke]

The lenses I had during that time period were crap compared to what I have today. I just couldn't afford the best glass.

This may be the weak point in the argument. Vivitar made some nice lenses, but not as good as a Nikon, Leica or many other makers lenses.

It also depended on the film used. For B&W work, a slow PanX film was going to give much better resolution than TriX pushed to ASA 1000.

For color, Kodachrome ASA 25 would render much better resolution than Ektachrome at any speed.

jtk