A few months back, I started the following thread (in GD) to talk about film photography.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Is-film-photography-coming-back-Or-is-is-transitory-/5-2732880/

The reason I did was because I was signed up for the pre order of the subject camera, and that day has come. I have about 44 hours left to decide if I want to purchase this modern film camera for $828.00.

https://rollei35af.com/pages/camera


I keep "feeling" like film will make me more intentional about my photos, vice just snapping everything I see and picking my favorites, but that would also assume that I give up my digital (fuji XT5 or phone).


I don't know the point of this...., I know it's up to me to pull the trigger, or not. I guess just looking for a philosophical discussion about film vs digital. I'm trying to decide if I believe my own hype (that I would be more intentional with my photos).

I'm currently 60/40 against buying. (The money isn't really a factor).

I started down the path of photography in 1974. First learned how to process and print B&W film in high school. Studied photojournalism in college. Worked at camera stores. Worked as a newspaper photographer, then a magazine editor/photojournalist. Made the transition from film to digital in the early 1990s. I haven't been active in photography for more than a decade so it's a bit shocking to see anyone talking about wanting to shoot film. I guess everything old comes around again. Personally, I can't think of a single reason why I would ever mess with film again.

Shooting film won't make you a better photographer. All it will do is force you to deal with a bunch of meaningless technical shit that have nothing to do with making good pictures. The important thing is to "see" and communicate visually. Dealing with the unforgivable exposure latitude of film and overcoming finicky color balance, etc. won't make your photos more interesting. Those things are simply unnecessary obstacles to effective communication -- obstacles that have been largely eliminated by digital technology.

And that Rollei looks like an expensive toy for rich people. It's not a serious tool for visual communication. Full disclosure, I didn't even know they were making those, but the originals were terrible cameras. (Sure, German made and somewhat elegant looking but they were toys, too.)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply! You moved the needle to 80/20 against.

Seriously, though, I am sitting here thinking through it and outside of the novelty, I think I would get tired of it pretty quick. Expensive lesson to learn.

A camera is a tool. You should figure out what "job" you want to do with a camera and then determine which camera is the best tool for that job.

The raison d'être of the old Rollei 35 was as a pocket camera, something you could carry on your person when photography wasn't the primary purpose of your activity. It was a camera to carry when you couldn't carry a camera. The original Rollei 35 was sort of like the Keltec P32 of cameras. I assume the new Rollei's role is similar.

I still don't get the whole film thing, but if you absolutely must go retro and fuck around with film, then why not choose one of the hundreds of 1970s/'80s film cameras listed for cheap on eBay? For the same money that you'd spend on a faux Rollei you could buy a real camera.

What kind/style of photography interests you? What do you want to photograph?

Documenting my travels is my main focus. I have a fuji camera and mess with the "recipe" in order to produce straight out of camera JPEGs that appear filmlike, without post processing.

I agree, if I want to try out a film camera, there's tons available for way cheaper than that Rollei. I'm skipping it.

IMO, your cell phone camera would serve the travel documentary role better than the Rollei. Travel often means low light and mixed color. Digital far excels in those conditions.

ustinU235: You didn't really state a purpose why want to by the Rollie 35AF. I remember when it was first introduced, it had a manual focusing system, and I go WTF for such an expensive camera, I think back then it was like $300. The modern 35AF has a laser-based focusing system. For I am interested in taking photos and not really all that much into hardware, but hardware comes with the territory.

Personally even back then, I felt it wasn't worth it for picture taking, now it you are collector, "that is a horse of a different color." I think Rollie won't have a cult following like the Leicas. Back then the venerable Minolta SRT102 was selling for $300 with a 58mm f1.4 Rokkor lens(the forerunner of today's Sony cameras). Personally for me, I came from the film world, I did darkroom, at home film development, etc, and won't do that again, way too much work.

Personally, if you want a pocketable camera, I would recommend a Sony RX100-5a or a -7. The RX100 line can do much of what the big boys can do, except in a smaller package. Whichever RX100 you select, it will be worth it, I had a Canon Powershot S100 pocket camera, that failed and Canon wanted half the price of a new one to repair. So are I've my RX100-7 for 4 years and it is GTG. Same regards for Panasonic Lumix ZSxx comera, I had a ZS50 that fail, and Panasonic's repair was a US-based contractor, they were a PITA.

It's expensive for what it is, but I'm at a point where I'm willing to spend some money to try things out. If it doesn't work out, sell it. You might lose some money in the process, but in the end you learned something.

I recently acquired a nice, functional Rollei 35... it does film, my thought is to shoot b&w, develop my own flm, then - the horror - run the film through my film scanner.
I would go the whole photo printing route, but I can't see well enough to focus a grain magnifier.
I plan on using one of my hand held light meters for exposure.