06-17-2007, 06:15 AM

Hey guys. I think this is a really beginner question, but I'm planning on taking a photography course next semester and they say I require a "35 MM Manual Camera."

I have available for me to borrow/use, a Canon 20D and a Canon S700IS. Are one of these a 35 MM camera? I'm also a little curious as to what 35 MM means, if anyone knows aswell.

Thanks in advance

06-17-2007, 06:26 AM

35 millimetre refers to the film that's 35 millimetres wide and rolled up inside a cartridge, usually made of thin metal.



Both cameras you mentioned are digital.

06-17-2007, 06:41 AM

Ahh, I got it! Thanks!

06-17-2007, 10:37 AM

You may want to make sure whether or not they require a film camera or if digital is ok. In most photography classes I've looked into, they always required film.

If digital is ok, just keep in mind that the sensor sizes on the cameras you mentioned are not a full 35mm. (the light sensor replaced the film). You'll have to step up to the 1D or 5D for a full size sensor, or make the appropriate focal length adjustments for the sensor crop factor if allowed.

06-17-2007, 11:22 AM

I doubt they will allow digital as one of the big aspects of most intro photography courses is the darkroom processing

06-17-2007, 12:18 PM

I can see this going to extremes as sometimes happens when one era supplants another: From horses to cars, from steam locomotives to diesels, from quill and fountain pens to typewriters. . . .

When I got my driver's licence, I had to take it in a car with an auto transmission. Because of that, I couldn't legally drive a standard. Later, I had to take another test because of the fuddy-duddies in charge who believed anyone who drives a standard without hours of instruction is a loaded gun.

But it was just a stupid prejudice and eventually was recognized as such, and the law was changed. But the law also protected jobs (like Windows networks do).

When the current crop of photo instructors are no more, their darkrooms, like diesel-locomotive firemen's jobs, will follow them into oblivion. Film photography is no more inherently proper over digital than hand-setting of type or running a 3,000-pound Linotype machine is over pagination.

After graduating, how many students will slave over hot enlargers dodging and burning images, and mix chemicals, and load film into tanks in total darkness, and spend thousands upon thousands on darkroom equipment including the never-ending new supplies of film, paper and chemicals? Dam few. They'd be nuts.

Photoshop is a million percent better than any darkroom ever was or could ever hope to be, and Kodak, the biggest photo-supply company and standard of the former industry, knows it better than most.

More likely, these students will never see the inside of a darkroom again.

Notice that BananaPancakes will use a 35. Tradition should demand that the only way to really learn would be to use an 8X10 (4X5 Speed Graphics would be way too modern).

Better yet would be learning to make and shoot glass wet plates. Best would be Daguerreotypes. But that doesn't happen because instructors know nothing about them, making the processes as irrelevant as darkrooms are now in all but memory.

06-17-2007, 12:34 PM

Ranting aside, personally, I prefer to work in the darkroom. I can make a print look a million times greater than I can with photoshop. I still do not like quality inkjet printers put out. If it wasn't so expensive, I still have access to my darkroom in college because I used to work there, I'd would be a lab rat again.
If you need a cheap 35mm camera, search eBay for a Canon A-1 or Nikon FM or FM10 or something. Pentax K1000...
The 20D is a digital camera and unusable and the second is a point and shoot digital Canon as well.
Rule of thumb, Nikon uses D in the name of their digital SLR's and N in the name of the film SLR's. Nikon D80 is digital but the Nikon N80 is a film camera.
Try searching eBay for something like "Canon 35mm film SLR" and see what you come up with. Send us some links of what you're interested in and we'll help you pick what your required to have. I assume you are looking for a Canon seeing you have two Canon digital cameras.
Bryan

06-17-2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by bryphotoguy

Ranting aside, personally, I prefer to work in the darkroom.

So would I. But why bother, especially when I don't have one. It would have to be a colour darkroom, anyway.

As it is, my Nikon is film, and my Epson churns out beautiful prints that despite the cost of paper and ink are far cheaper than using photographic paper and chemicals. Takes less time, too.

Compared to six- or 12-million-pixel images, what would a 35-mil neg be? 25 million? 25 billion? But the difference can't really be seen anymore. if I had my druthers, I'd get into 4X5. But even there and with swing and tilt lenses and camera backs, digital is taking over (and Photoshop corrects for that, too).

06-17-2007, 01:09 PM

I read somewhere that a 35mm picture would be roughly translated as a 24-ish billion pixels camera. I'll see if I can find the info again 'cause I didn't bookmark the reference.

06-17-2007, 01:41 PM

Regarding grain, it really has all been downhill since Daguerreotypes, described as grainless.

This page goes into it in depth (a 300-X microscope was used, which only proves the point).

This page has a better description of the whys and wherefores, while this one describes the high standards revealed in a portrait.

06-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Wow! That's fascinating stuff, Browny!

BTW I just had a quick look-see in google and can't seem to find that reference I posted about earlier. I'll try to find it though.

Oops! We are going off topic, aren't we? *Blush*

06-17-2007, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by MacHeadCase

Oops! We are going off topic, aren't we? *Blush*

Not if I mention 35-millimetre Daguerreotype film.

35-millimetre Daguerreotype film.

06-17-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by MacHeadCase

I read somewhere that a 35mm picture would be roughly translated as a 24-ish billion pixels camera.

This page seems to have as good an explanation of the pixel count as any.

My search turned up references of millions to billions of pixels in a negative, and as many arguments over it in discussion threads. But all those opinions aside, as soon as a neg or print (a print, by itself, represents a great deal of loss from the negative) is scanned, any benefits in the superior number of pixels is gone — 300 dpi is 300 dpi.)

06-17-2007, 09:50 PM

A good store to go look at would be Henrys

I think they have an online store.

06-18-2007, 12:18 AM

Henry's online camera store is here. It also sells used equipment with three-month warranties — and new Macs.