Canon EOS 50e 35mm film camera
I kept my Canon EOS 50e SLR which I had used for years with excellent results, and recently decided to go back to film as a change from digital.
The tiny plastic catch which keeps the back closed had broken off, with no way to repair it. It had lasted for years, but still it seems wrong that this should happen, or even that the catch should be made of plastic.
I was lucky to find an EOs 50e camera body on ebay for a very reasonable price which came with a new lithium battery,thus saving me additional expense.
Along with the 'SLR + film experience'I will now be able to use my Tamron zoom lens, which I missed with the digital camera (my DSLR has a zoom lens but it is so cumbersome I hardly ever use it and regret buying it. I have been using a smaller Casio Elixim, which has been very good - no complaints, I just wanted to go back to film for a while).
I don't know if anybody will be interested in reviews of film cameras anymore. I have had an Olympus and a Sigma, and prefered the Canon to both of these in terms of quality, ease of use and results. I am not an expert by any means, but used to get excellent results with black and white film which I developed and printed myself and was able to sell 12" x16" art prints from 35mm negatives. Not sure if anybody is still doing this except students in the early stages of their learning or dinosaurs like me.
What I like about the camera (and film SLRs generally) is that it makes you actually think about what you are photographing, and what you need to do in order to get the results you want. Although you have the option of 'automatic' everything , as you learn you can take control over exposure, etc. Which is where the thinking and decision making comes in, but you learn so much more about how to create a good photograph.
Small digital cameras do most of the work for you, are great for speed and tricky situations, and I am always amazed that you can take pictures in light which is so bad that you would swear it was impossible, then change the exposure at the editing stage, change the colour balance, change whatever you like if you have the software to do it.
That is I suppose creative in it's own way, but I personally prefer to create my 'vision' of the final print when first looking through the lens. It's a challenge - instead of editing out the telgraph pole, find a view which doesn't include the telegraph pole! A film SLR will make you look harder and more thoughtfully at your surroundings and your subjects.
It took me a while to get used to looking at a screen instead of through a lens when I 'went digital', but I haven't found it that way in reverse. I can't deny the screen is very useful though.
I have nothing against digital and will still use it myself when the situation dictates it. Each are creative tools and it depends on what you want a camera for. But a film SLR makes you think and work for your results, and I still have a sneaking suspicion that the quality of the end result is better. (This is probably not the case for those photographers who can afford the high end DSLRs - I can't, so this is just a personal review).
The downside with film is that you do not have the option to preview and delete images, so again it makes you think more and decisions have to be made if you want good results. I concede that digital is mostly imperative in business - eg if God forbid the wedding photos don't come out for some reason, you can't go back and redo them!Read full review
dFDCSBLJQUDd+EQ~~_57.JPG?set_id=89040003C1)
