The Best Film Camera Bargain

One thing I learned from the "Film vs. Digital (Not What You Think!)" post is that a small but significant number of people, after using digital for years, have gone back to shooting film.

I didn't know that was a thing. Sure, for years it's been rumored that it's cool for young hipster Millennials to shoot with old film cameras. But I wasn't aware that people of middle age or more were returning to shooting film, sometimes after two decades or so of shooting mainly or exclusively digital. But we heard from a number of you in the comments to that post, which means there are more out there who are doing the same.

So I thought I'd recommend a bargain camera.

'Party like it's 1999'
The best 35mm film camera bargain in the known Universe today is "The Last Great 20th-Century Nikon," the F100. I'm not sure what actually was Nikon's last camera of the 20th century, but the F100 must be the last great one, so that's what I'm gonna call it. It came out in 1999.

You can buy a nice F100 for anywhere from $199 (eBay) to $339 (in Ex+ condition from KEH Camera*).

The F100 is a bargain because of an accident of history. Or of timing, really. The last widely-used pro-level Nikon F camera, the F5, had come out in 1996. The F100, a fresh makeover updating the aging but very popular N90s, was Nikon's "AdAm" (advanced amateur) variant, containing a considerable amount of "trickle-down" technology from the F5.

EOS was only ten years old in 1999, and Nikon was either at or not very far from the peak of its modern reputation—certainly it hadn't been long since Nikon dominated the professional market, and at the time it still ranked first in the minds of many devoted enthusiasts. However you parse it, Nikon's reputation and prestige were near their peak. And for most people, digital was still hull-down on the horizon in 1999—the best digital cameras in the late '90s were breathtakingly expensive and being purchased mainly by newsrooms, sports magazines, and rich dabblers, while the amateur digital cameras of the day were more or less toys, heady fun to use but providing only heavily compromised image quality.

Plus, it was briefly a "thing" at that juncture in time—the late '90s—for seasoned and experienced photographers, especially middle-aged and older ones, to declare their fealty to "real" film photography and denigrate digital. The paradigm shift was still a few years in the future. And the F100, as the "F5 lite" (really, that's what people called it), offered significant technical advances over many cameras that were only a few years older.

As a result, the F100 sold like ice-cold Cokes on a sweltering hot day. It hit the bullseye in the target market. They were hugely popular. It seemed like everybody and his brother wanted one. Nikon sold boatloads of 'em.

...But only for a while. Only a year later, the three-megapixel Canon D30 came out, and Michael Reichmann's article declaring that it equaled film in image quality went viral in a big way, establishing his site The Luminous-Landscape. The D30 was tantalizingly cheaper but still prohibitive at $3,000. Then in 2003 the radically affordable Digital Rebel came along, and the bell began to toll. The same photographers who had proudly purchased F100's as their "last" cameras—enticed by the fast pace of digital progress, the proliferation of digital models on offer, and the ever more accessible prices of digital cameras—started making the migration to digital. First in a trickle, then in a torrent.

By 2005, hardly anyone was buying film cameras any more. As it happened, a great many people switched to digital shortly after buying their F100, making for a huge supply of F100's out there that had very low miles. Quickly, the used market was awash with F100s in great condition, so the price went down, down, and down some more.

And there the price has stayed.

'It was 20 years ago today...'
Objectively, there are more desirable Nikons today for film shooters. In 2001, Nikon made a small-volume revival of its famous FM/FE lines of compact film cameras, a new version called the FM3a (here's a picture). In 2004, the last Nikon F film camera, the F6, was introduced. Both the FM3a and the F6 are marginally better choices for someone wanting a nice 35mm film Nikon today; the former for its superior retro chic, the latter for pure tech-and-feature horsepower. The problem is that neither of those cameras ever sold in high numbers—the historical moment for each had already passed by the time they came along. As a result, the FM3a and the F6, used, now go for approximately two times and four times, respectively, what you'll spend for an F100. I'd pick an FM3a myself. But (unless you just prefer its manual-metal-mechanical gestalt) the FM3a is not twice as good a camera as the F100, and the F6 (which you can still buy new, believe it or not) is better but not four times better.

The F100 has more advantages 20 years later than just a low price. First of all, there are so many of them out there that you can be picky—you should be able to easily find one that's not only cheap 'n' decent but in truly pretty condition. It's ergonomic and not huge; it has AF and Matrix metering with AF-Nikkor lenses; it uses commonly available AA batteries, so no hunting for scarce or outlawed button batteries as with some more antique SLRs; it has built-in diopter correction, so ditto on the search for separate, screw-on diopters, a similar headache with certain old cameras for people who need diopters; I believe Nikon ARS (Authorized Repair Stations) still work on them, as do many independent repair shops; and there's a large community of film Nikon people and a large number of F100 shooters within that community, so you can find camaraderie as well as people on forums who can answer any questions you might have. And you can get Thom Hogan's Complete Guide to the Nikon F100. Finally, it's still new enough that you aren't likely to encounter problems created purely by age. The F100 was discontinued, along with most other Nikon film cameras, in the late 2000s**, not all that long ago.

'Sweetheart of the Rodeo'
Nikon put a huge amount of R&D into the F100, as it was right in the sweet spot for high-volume, high-profit sales to the enthusiast market that was the company's bread and butter. And it was an expensive camera when it came out. I reviewed one in 1999 or early 2000, and my memory is that the retail price at the time was about $1,400, which was a pretty decent whack 20 years ago. Yet it was a fair bargain at that price...as least in terms of the market conditions that existed at the end of the 20th century.

I'd be pretty relaxed today about tech specs, though. Shooting film is retro now, and should be enjoyed as such. You can use the F100 with manual-focus AIS lenses...some of which are still available new! Brand new, you can get the legendary AIS Micro-Nikkor 55mm ƒ/2.8, the same lens John Loengard of LIFE magazine used for his brilliant work. That would be fun. It would pair perfectly with the AIS Nikkor 28mm ƒ/2.8, another standout. And of course the short tele to get with those would be the famous AIS Nikkor 105mm ƒ/2.5, one of Nikon's most iconic and longest-lived lenses, which had a run from 1959 all the way through to the '90s. Here's an information page about that paragon.

The camera only offers aperture-priority exposure and center-weighted metering with manual-focus AIS Nikkors, but that's okay, because focusing it yourself enhances the retro experience. On the modern functionality side of the equation (you still want to take good pictures, after all), the camera offers focus confirmation in the viewfinder with manual-focus lenses, and actually has little arrows telling you which way to turn the focusing ring.

Me, though? If I had an F100 I'd take some of the savings from the body and buy an AF-Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2D, which is also still available new. The lens is a sweetie, and with the F100 has both autofocus and Matrix metering. Beware of used models of this lens, though, at least those without the "D" suffix at the end of the name—many early samples of this lens were plagued with lubricant getting on the aperture blades, a problem that Nikon service had trouble fixing. That lens's period of greatest popularity overlapped with my tenure as the Editor of Photo Techniques, and I fielded an earful of complaints about it. The "D" version fixed the problem.

'The Song Remains the Same'
Of course, shooting film isn't entirely about value these days, because film and processing costs money***. And picking a camera is part of the fun—you might want something weird or ancient, something that's nostalgic for you, or that can serve as a conversation piece. Have at it, I say. But if it's a bargain you seek, for shooting 35mm film you can't get more camera for the money than "The Last Great 20th-Century Nikon."

Mike

*And believe me, when KEH calls something "Ex+" it's going to be technically gone over and cosmetically essentially flawless. Those people are strict about their condition grading.

**Many higher-end film cameras were sold out of NOS for years after the last production run by adjusting the prices ever upward as the stocks ran lower and lower, so that there is seldom a well-demarcated date of discontinuation.

***But then, so does inkjet printer paper and ink.

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada
Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Andrew: "I got into photography in the late 1990s and continued to shoot film for years after many (most?) had switched to digital. It was wonderful to buy used film cameras, use them for a while, then sell them for pretty much what I paid for them. I owned P&S style cameras (Contax T2, Olympus Stylus Epic, Lomo LC-A), many rangefinders (Leica M6 TTL, Zeiss Ikon, Bessa R2a), medium format TLR (Yashica 124g) and a bunch of other stuff. The best camera of the bunch, in terms of keeper photographs, is the Nikon F100 with the 35mm AF-D lens. Ergonomics, metering, reliability, features—all perfect. I still enjoy using it."

Mike R: "Regarding shooting film being a thing: a while back, I picked up a Yashica TLR, and was shooting around the Philly Art Museum. Two young guys saw what I was doing, and were excited—excited!—to see an old film camera in use. And insisted I take their picture. And wanted to take mine, but I declined to hand over the camera. (Ya never know.)"

PWL: "Thanks, but I started out with Minoltas, and now I’m going back to 'em. I’ll pitch for the XD—a very well built and innovative camera for its time—and also a bargain these days—along with Minolta MD glass, which can still give the Big Boys a run for their money. Takes me back years to have to do the focusing all by myself—and guess what: it’s fun...."

Jim Grey: "I'm a 40-year film-camera collector and also a miser in the first degree. I say the best film-camera bargain is actually the Nikon N90/N90s—plenty, plenty good, and available for under $50. I bought my body for $27, including shipping!"

David Brown: "Slightly off topic to the bulk of this essay, but regarding your initial comment that people are going back to film from digital: I teach beginning darkroom at the Dallas Center for Photography. When we designed the workshop three years ago, we assumed two things: 1.) people would be coming to film from digital (and our terminology had to account for that), and 2.) it would be a lot of younger folks (millennials, et al.). Number 1 turns out to be absolutely true. However, number 2, not so much. Most of my students have been middle aged and up. I’ve had one 15-year-old, but she came with her Dad. Many of them started with film ('in high school') and are now coming back. The number shooting 35mm and 120 is about evenly split. Many TLR users."

psu: "The F100 was that last film body that I bought with the serious intention of using it a lot...but I ended up switching over to the D100 then the D70 instead, and never went back. That old 35mm ƒ/2 was also one of my favorite Nikon lenses.

"In my house I still have an old 8008s, which was the grandfather of the F100, and an FM3a that I should sell. The last time I shot a roll with the FM3a I forgot to reset the transport before rewinding the film and broke the film off outside the canister while still in the body. Ah those classic ergonomics.

"I think if a current Nikon D user picked up an F100 they would note that it mostly handles the same as the D700, D300 and D500s of the world...but they might be surprised by two things: 1.) It's pretty small compared to even the DX bodies, even though the film camera has to have a transport. I've never understood why the digital bodies are so comparatively large. 2.) The various functions of the camera are relatively slow compared to the newer hardware. Especially focus and frame-to-frame speed."

Timo Virojärvi: "My first Nikon was an FM with 55mm ƒ/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and my last new film camera was an F100. They are my favourites and I will never sell them. I still use the 55mm with digital bodies."

Sroyon: "I started out with my dad's Minolta film SLR around 1999, when I was 14. After a few years I switched to a digital compact and finally got my first DSLR in 2012. Meanwhile in 2011 I started using my dad's SLR again, but I was only shooting a couple of rolls per year. Last year I got a Leica M3 as a birthday gift, and now, other than macro and wildlife, I hardly use my DSLR at all. My girlfriend and I also started developing and printing B&W film at home. Maybe my enthusiasm is contagious, because my dad, who is 66, has also gone back to shooting film. He and my mum went on a holiday recently where he took just his film SLR and my mum's digital compact. His full-frame DSLR stayed at home."

Alan: "Bought the pristine chrome FM3A with silver pancake 45mm with silver clear filter for about $500 in 2003. Had the 105mm ƒ/2.5 for many years, and the 20 mm. f2.8 also for a few years. I was in heaven for a few years and then in 2007 the D70 came along and I began to give up the film. Still have the FM3A, an FE, an FE2, and an N80 with about 25 rolls of Fuji Velvia in the freezer. My camera now is a Sony A6500 because its light and fabulous with my 12mm Zeiss, 19mm Sigma and 16-70mm Sony, but the Nikons still call my name. So after reading these posts, I will thaw out some film and see what develops!"

Dan Khong: "The growing number of new films (mostly in B&W) available in the market is a positive sign that film photography is slowly rejuvenating. There is a lot more play when shooting with films. Films and printing papers cost money, and so do inkjet inks. But the majority of people shoot but they don't print. At the end of the day, the guys with prints will still have something in their hands to show for their memories."

Comments

[Chris Kern]

As recently as 2010, I stumbled across the F100 selling new on B&H’s website for $750, and I just couldn’t resist. I don’t know whether it was nostalgia for the film era, the fact that I had Nikon lenses, or temporary insanity—probably some combination thereof—because I knew before I clicked on the order button that I wouldn’t get much use out of it. I’ve probably only shot ten rolls of film with it, but somehow it’s still reassuring to see it in the drawer.

That said, my Fuji X-T3 is smaller, lighter, just as simple to operate—and, needless to say, has vastly better image quality.

[Speed]

'It was 20 years ago today...'

Point of interest. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released (in the UK) on May 26, 1967 … 52 plus years ago today.

[Peter Wright]

Mike, you must have been peeking into my Nikon drawer! I bought my F100 new when you sung its praises and posted a link on TOP to the camera at B&H some years back. (I think it was selling then at about $600. I already had the FM3a, which indeed is a lovely camera). I bought the 35mm f/2 AF-D at about the same time, and I would say that it's about as much bang for the dollar as you can get; an excellent lens in fact. The AI-S 28mm f/2.8 is in the cupboard somewhere as well. You didn't mention the 70-210 f/4-5.6 D. It's a very compact, light and truly excellent telephoto. I bought mine second hand for $200 on eBay after reading what Kirk Tuck had to say about it. If someone can't do good photography with the F100, 35 AF-D, and the 70-210 AF-D, then they should consider another hobby.

It was interesting to see that there are others like me who have gone back to shooting/developing film after being digital-only for years. Just adds to the fun! BTW, I was told by a used camera sales person, that the reason cameras like the F100, EOS 7n, etc are so cheap, compared to the FM3a, FM2n etc, is that the former look too much like modern DSLRs...

[Gordon Lewis]

An alternative for those who want something smaller and lighter yet still built to last is the Nikon FM3A. The FM3A, introduced in 2001, was the last iteration of the FM-series. It has a TTL aperture-priority center-weighted metering system and an electronic shutter -- however, if the battery dies the shutter and aperture functions will still operate mechanically even if the meter won't. Try that with any of today's totally battery-dependent cameras; or better yet, don't. The main drawbacks are: 1) Because the body has no handgrip and is solid for its size, it's best used with small primes rather than large, heavy zooms, and 2) It can't be used with Nikon's G-series lenses, which have no aperture rings. Plenty of AI and AIS lenses are still available though.

[Gordon Lewis]

Oops. I forgot that mention that the FM3A nowhere near the bargain the Nikon F100 is though. Used FM3A bodies average $500-600 in very good to excellent condition and as much as $1000 in mint condition. Guess that only hammers home your point about the F100 being such a bargain, doesn't it?

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

When I was working in photo retail around 1999-2000, we sold the F100 at (the equivalent of) 2.000 USD (we have a 25% sales tax in Denmark). Some 3-4 years back, I bought a nice copy at a dealer for the equivalent of 50 USD. Great camera, which I much preferred to the F5 due to the smaller size/weight and red AF points. I like using it with my 28/1.8 Sigma for a unique WA/shallow DOF look, although most of my film work these days is M3 and RTS. I’m one of those who do both film and digital.

[James Bullard]

If I were going to abandon digital, I still have my film equipment including a very nice Canon EOS 7. I kept that both because it is a great camera that I enjoyed using and because for a long time it was vastly undervalued on the used market. I see now it is close to the Nikon F100. I still think I'll keep it. The MF gear needs to be thinned through.

[Bob Keefer]

I owned an F100 very briefly 12 years ago while contemplating a switch (I never made it) to Nikon. It was the only camera ever I've held that instantly felt perfect in the hand -- at least, that is, until I got a Pentax K-5.

[David Brown]

I would vote for the last great 20th Century Minolta, the Maxxum 7. Just sayin' ...

[Dave Stewart]

Bought mine in 2011, and won't part with it... despite it only working in B&W mode. :-)

Film was good enough for me for a couple of decades before taking up digital. It still is. After using it again for a while, it makes the convenience of the (beloved) D700 seem like absolute luxury, even with its mere 12MP.

I won't part with the AIS 105mm f/2.5 either.

[Stan B.]

An F100 (or F3), Tri-X, Plustek scanner (w/Vuescan), inkjet prints. Affordable, quality B&W hybrid heaven!

[Ken]

For a few years just before transitioning to digital in 2006, I shot pretty much exclusively using the F100, the 35/2 AF-D and the 85/1.8 AF-D. Once in a while I get a longing to use film, primarily because of how enjoyable it was to use that camera and those two lenses. Then I remember how much of my would-have-been future retirement I wasted on film and printing costs in my 20s and 30s!

Everything in its time. Film cameras were fun in their day, but I can now get better results with everything I photograph and shoot new subjects I couldn't dream of photographing in film days.

[Rob L.]

I found an F100 for $100 and ran with it, great camera. When I was shooting digital Nikons it was a great partner - I still feel that the F4 had a slightly better meter(i can still tell my F4 contact sheets at a glance), but it's still my go to AF film body. Sadly, my EOS A2 that saw me through so much doesn't hold up as well, the body flex and picky mode wheel are a lot harder to ignore now.

[Mike Ferron]

One clue to prove the possible new found popularity of film cameras is the pricing. A used F100 in ex+ condition could be had for $199-$249 a couple of years ago.

Check out Mamiya 7 prices. Some years ago a 7 and 80mm lens in good condition sold for $1200 or so. My local dealer has one for $2400 in bargain condition and said dealer has very decent used prices.

I have been shooting both digital along side B&W film for 16 years or so now. I have strong urges to dump digital, dust off the enlarger and just shoot B&W film. Far more fun for me.

Oh BTW with an F100 one can use a lens like the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC. Yes vibration control shooting B&W film. Near cheating it is.

[Ned]

I'm over 55, jumped back into film full force about 7 years ago. I mean, all the way in. Jobo processor, drum scanner, Scitex flatbed, Large and medium format cameras, mat cutter, etc. Digital just didn't give me the satisfaction of creating a photograph as I get with film. Not sure I will ever go back.

[Greg]

FYI https://www.etsy.com/shop/TheFilmCameraShop. Derrick Story is restoring film cameras. He's a blogger I follow. I'm not pushing this, it's just to show that people are interested in film. I suspect that most his followers aren't young.

[Earl Dunbar]

Get one fast, because now I expect the price to skyrocket! :)

[Daniel Speyer]

Vis-a-vis the Nikor 55mm f/2.8 Micro lens, I would mention many of them suffered from oil on the aperture blades--this personally told to me by Marty Forscher's Professional Camera Repair.** (Remember them?)
_____
** My 55mm f/2.8 actually was/is fine--the repair was to my FM-2n. The FM-2/FM-2n are (very) much less expensive and likely the equal to the FM-3A except for the hybrid exposure control.

[Christine Bogan]

Mike, that is nice to read. I bought this Nikon F100 in 2005 because you wrote about this Camera in these days. I still use it from time to time together with a Kiron 28/2,0 mm and the 105/2,5mm. Nice to remember the time when everybody wanted digital cameras.

Christine

[R W Doyle]

I have a lot of film cameras but my favorite is a Nikon N75 with an 18-55 DX lens. Great from 28 to 55, roundish images at 18. Fast auto focus and VR works. Feels much better in hand than a Leica or F3 and it even has a pop up flash for emergencies. The N75 is really light to carry and produces very well focused and properly exposed images with minimal effort. The F100 has more features but the N75 has all I need for my 4 or 5 rolls a year.

[c.d.embrey]

The Best Film Camera Bargain is a Canon EOS Elan7n (or en with eye control). This was the last Canon film camera (2004).
1. Diopter is user-adjustable from -2.5 to +0.5.
2. Metering range: EV 1-20 (ISO 100).
3. Flash metering: E-TTL II Program Flash. Can use the latest Canon Speedlites.
4. Built in flash: Guide No. 43 (ISO 100, ft.) Works great for fill-flash!
5. Multiple exposures: Up to nine exposures can be preset.
6. Focusing modes: (1) One-Shot AF; (2) Predictive AF with AI Servo AF; (3) AI Focus AF; (4) Manual.
7. Shutter speeds: 1/4000 to 30 sec. (in 1/2-stop increments), plus bulb.
8. Film Speed Setting: ISO 25-5000 automatically set in 1/3-stop increments according to DX code.
9. Battery: Two CR123A lithium batteries (6V) loaded through the camera grip bottom. Still easy to find, Duracell, Energizer, Panasonic.

They can us any Canon EF (not EF-S) lens. Flip the switch if you want to manually focus. Some EF lenses have built-in IS (image stabilization).

Best of all they can be purchased for less than $100.00 today.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film245.html

I purchased a low-milage Nikon F100 about ten years ago, for $250.00. Two years ago I had a hard time selling it. Some Nikon F100 body rubber becomes sticky over time. Be sure to ask! I sold the sticky F100, a 50mm f/1.8D lens and a SB-8E Speedlight for the princely sum of $125.00. Meh!

[John]

Close to my transition. Hopped on eBay and back into photography around the same time in the ‘90s. Got me a F5 and a F100 (without any real need for an F5 whatsoever, merely gear lust). Held onto the F100 while adding Contax and then started dropping it all after I bought a used Canon D30 (after seeing a photojournalist using two at an event I was writing about).

After many years, still missing Contax and actually selling my Canon gear and dipping into Nikon again, next to my Olympus kit.

[Chad Thompson]

While I loved the FM3a as a camera, the match needle and I didn't get along as well as the LEDs in the FM2n. The LEDs just made it so much easier to shoot in low light. But then again the FM3a had aperture priority so I loved it for a different reason. Ultimately my greed won out when I found I could sell the FM3a for thrice what I paid for it. At that point I was shooting a D700 for my work and film was only used for fun personal stuff anyway.

[hugh crawford]

My feeling is that if you are going to use film you should least use 120 film.
The Mamiya C series of cameras are outstanding bang for the buck in my opinion.

Re: the sticky micro nikkor 55 2.8
I have three of them and when I get two that are stuck I overhaul them myself. After the second time it’s pretty easy.

Next time I’m just not going to lube them at all.

[Richard Man]

Film camera prices have been steadily dropping, except for the cult classics, for years. However, for whatever reasons, Leica M6, M7 and MP prices have shot up in the last 6 months or so.

I am heavily invested in scanning equipment, so in theory I can shoot film just about as easy as shooting with digital.

[Barry Reid]

I’ve owned a DSLR since 2005 but continued messing with film cameras. Buying them, playing with them and selling them on over the years it’s definitely, noticeably, become ‘a thing’ since around 2014.

Many people I know are increasingly using film too. Film camera prices have risen fast, certain models shoot up fast and others catch up. If you want a cheap film camera now you either buy an AF model or one of the lower end brands like Ricoh or Chinon.

I believe you’ve recommended a body, in the F100 which is neither a bargain nor, in many ways, what defines a desirable film camera in 21st century terms.

Shooting film SLRs in the post digital era seems to be about the feeling of mechanical refinement and the process as much as the result. Real film shooters focus, expose and wind on manually*

Look around in any tourist destination or big city and the main (film) SLRs being toted will be the Canon A-1 and AE-1/AE-P which are faux mechanical cameras and now cost more than any sane person should pay when, for example, an original Olympus OM-4 (not the T/Ti version) is cheaper. There will also be some Canon F-1s, Pentaxes and Leicas.

The hottest Nikons are the FM/FE range but I’d rate the FA as Best Buy in Nikon bodies - like the Canon A-1 but much better - you get all the knobs, dials and manual wind yet it’s stuffed with even more electronics like Matrix metering and multiple programs. Easily better than a Canon A-1 for similar or only a little more money.

My bargain choice is the humble Pentax P30/N/T which does more than a Canon AE-1P for 1/3rd the price (sometimes it’s cheaper to buy a 50/1.7 on a P30 than Solo (this also applies to the Nikon 301 & 50/1.8 Nikkor).

FWIW I’m lucky enough to have dabbled with all of the stuff I’ve mentioned and settled on Contax kit including multiple 159MMs, Aria, G1, T & T3 but there are few bargains in Contax since Kylie Jenner’s T2...

*ignoring the dilettante P&S crowd who are clearly having too much fun ;-)

[Marc]

If you’re going to go analog I’d argue that the best model is the Graphite 2B or similar models in the range*.

I’d be wrong, but after a life of thinking being bad at something is a moral failing I’m enjoying myself, even if I can’t identify the objects in the pictures I took.

(*I’m partial to the Palomino Blackwing Volume 54 for when I want to emphasise creative freedom to myself, or a Rotring 800 for when I’m being a gear-head)

PS. Voigtlander R3A was my perfect film camera. That with a 40mm Summicron-C on the front.

[Tam]

I'll note that some of the more desirable film offerings actually seem to have well-passed the bottom of their depreciation curves. Prices on cameras like the FM2n and EOS-1N seem to be trending back upwards.

I was gifted an N80 by a friend, and enjoy it. It does leave me wanting an F100, though.

On the Canon end of things, Elan II's are still selling for giveaway prices right now. That's a lot of camera for thirty bucks.

[Oskar Ojala]

I still have my F100 bought new back in its heyday. The rubber has become a bit sticky (apparently a common problem) but otherwise it works as it should. I rarely use it nowadays since it's rather large; I can use an Olympus OM that's much smaller instead. But there's nothing wrong with the camera: AF works, metering works and it's straightforward to use.

One interesting point is that while the F100 has a lot of electronics and many features for a film camera, it's pretty simple compared to modern digital. I recall that there are about 23 settings that can be changed, but all shooting controls are on the camera, so the "menu" is very rarely visited.

[John Shriver]

It does sound like quite the combination of features. The matrix metering was a big plus. Screw-drive Nikkor auto-focus lenses are common and affordable. Sounds like a real deal.

But I'd expect the F100 to be an exercise in frustration with manual focus lenses, except when using focus confirmation. Between a 0.76x magnification finder, and a "BriteView" focusing screen, I suspect manual focusing by eye is an exercise in frustration. That's certainly what I've found with all the autofocus Pentax cameras, both film and digital. The change in focusing screens to accommodate cheap kit zooms was the death of real manual focus. The metering systems are all calibrated for the bright screens, making focusing screen substitution a nasty tradeoff.

[Alan]

Bought the pristine chrome FM3A with silver pancake 45mm with silver clear filter for about $500 in 2003. Had the 105 f2.5 for many years, and the 20 mm. f2.8 also for a few years. I was in heaven for a few years and then in 2007 the D70 came along and I began to give up the film. Still have the FM3A, an FE, an FE2, and an N80 with about 25 rolls of Fuji Velvia in the freezer. My camera now is a Sony A6500 because its light and fabulous with my 12mm Zeiss, 19mm Sigma and 16-70mm Sony, but the Nikons still call my name. So after reading these posts, I will thaw out some film and see what develops!

[John Robison]

Sounds good..... but I already have all the OM Zuikos I ever wanted ( yeah I know, mount discontinued). So, when I came upon a OM4Ti with a 50 f1.8 in a second hand store for $35 because it was “jammed”, well I what would you do? I bought it, took it home and popped in a couple of fresh SO batteries and, wait for it.... yeah, all functions I could check were nominal.
I don’t get many real bargains but that sure qualifies.

[Sixblockseast]

My latest film camera was a Minolta 600si which I bought exactly 20 years ago. Still have the body but no lenses (gave them to a friend with a Sony alpha several years ago). That Minolta feels so much bigger than my Fuji X-T3. But I still maintain my affinity to Minolta--got a few old rokkor lenses that I quite enjoy using on my Fuji once in a while, my favorite being a 55mm/1.7. A close second is a 35-70/3.5. I made some of my favorite photos of my kids with those two!

[mike]

This post rings pretty true for me. I've wanted the F100 for years and a few months ago found a used body is very good shape for an even better price. I use it sparingly, but it is always a pleasure. I also agree with your thoughts on the 35 f2.0 D and 105; both are lenses I'll never unload and I'd add the 50 1.4 D to that list.

[Kirk Decker]

I shoot digital and film. I found that after returning to film after a four year absence, the experience and thought process of working with film is not the same as when I originally shot it. After the casualness of digital (which used to be how I shot film) film now demands more a more studied and contemplative approach. The nice thing about Nikon is that since the lens mount hasn't changed on the SLRs it's easy to carry both film and digital bodies. The F2 feels petite compared to a D850 and the FA feels almost buoyant.

[Steve Jacob]

Ironic. In late 1999, I was in a camera store in central London, wracked with indecision. On the counter in front of me were an F100 and a Coolpix 990.

Curiosity, and the fact that I had a serviceable Minolta Dynax 7000i at home, pushed me over the edge into digital. I traded the Dynax for peanuts to fund a Pentax *istD in 2004, and never looked back.

If I were a B&W photographer, I might think differently about using film again, but I would be looking at large format, not 35mm. There is still something uniquely special about large B&W prints from a big negative.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hi Mike, quick query from a digital native looking to move into film, can the collective wisdom of TOP suggest how to approach film processing where one doesn’t want to delve into the darkroom? Just have the film processed and printed, or processed with contact sheets, or straight to digital with scanned files, or anything else? Do the pros/cons of each suit different approaches? I’m in Sydney, Australia in case that helps.

[mani]

I’d love to know where Richard is finding ever-cheaper film cameras? I transitioned from digital to film about 7 or 8 years ago, and I’ve seen prices rise steadily the whole time. About 6 years ago I stupidly didn’t buy a bankrupt-stock brand new Hasselblad XPan with new 45mm all-boxed for $1500. Nowadays, beat-up XPans are easily twice that amount. Medium format cameras are generally spiraling in price.
I’ve been teaching a media course at one of Scandinavia’s trendiest colleges - the cameras the kids are using are just 2 types: phones and old film cameras. I think the fact that this is a surprise says more about the age of TOP readers, than of photographic trends.

[Tim Bradshaw]

I am sure you are correct that the F100 is very good technical choice for a film camera.

But I think you may be wrong about whether it's a good choice for many people who choose to use film, because I suspect you are wrong about why people use film. Well, I can't speak for why other people use film of course, but I can speak for why I use it.

And I don't use film because I want something which is as much like using a modern digital camera as it can be while being just inherently far less convenient. I use film because I want something which is as far from using a modern digital camera as it can be while still being practical enough to use. Indeed I simply can't see the purpose in using film if what you want is, well, digital but not so good: if you want something that just looks like film is it really the case that the various film-simulating packages are not good enough? Perhaps it's hard to do a good digital copy of Kodachrome still, but, well, it's hard to do that on film too.

I use film for the some of the same reasons my father drove a vintage sports car (that is, a car made between 1919 and 1930) in the 1950s and 1960s: he wanted something which was as far from a then-modern car as it could be, while actually still being practical (then) to drive. So, for instance, he drove a car with front-wheel brakes because cars without them are kind of dangerous. (And, of course, as with film cameras, it was cheap to buy if not always to own: he bought the car for £50 in the late 1950s, a little before I was born. I still own this car.)

So the F100 is a camera I would run screaming from, because for me it represents everything I am trying to not do by using film. I'd run even faster from an F5 or F6.

Instead I'm after cameras which are as far from a modern digital camera as they can be while still being practical to use. For me 'practical to use' means essentially 'has a really good viewfinder, has a meter, which is good enough for B/W' with an additional requirement that the camera should be light & small enough & obviously should have good lenses. And, of course, I kind of like the same things about cameras that I like about vintage cars: brass, nickel plate, pretty, simple, often dripping petrol and oil.

So, of 35mm SLRs, a Nikon F is a nice thing but without a meter it would be hard to use (and the metering prisms ... uck, even if they still work which they never do). And kind of too big & heavy for me. But a Pentax MX now, that, of course, is the perfect 35mm SLR.

[marcin wuu]

Best 135 film camera, maybe (though my money is on Minolta 7). Best film camera, no way.

[Terence Morrissey]

Anybody shooting B&W film should look into dr5.com / dr5.us for B&W slides.
This eliminates the achilles heel of film for scanning, grain.

[David Comdico]

The beauty of the F100 is that it can use most Nikon lenses (for me that is all my lenses minus one) so if you are a Nikon shooter and have some decent glass, it is very easy to shoot two bodies, one digital and one film. Or, this is what I told myself when I bought it several years ago. What I've done instead is shoot my Zeiss Ikon or Olympus OMn1 to scratch the film itch, mostly because I haven't used my digital Nikon that much. Also, shooting my X-T30 has made everything else feel REALLY heavy.

[Daniel]

My dime goes to the Nikon F3HP. The pro workhorse that just keeps on working. Interchangeable finders and built for use.

[Stan B.]

@John Shriver

Perhaps F100 manual focusing is harder with some lenses (telephoto?), but I never found it particularly difficult with shorter lenses- and I never used its AF.

[mark b]

One of the many reasons I still shoot film is that it opens the door to pro and near-pro level gear at affordable prices. I got my F100 for $125 on craigslist a few years ago. I'm currently stalking a Hasselblad kit in the $500 price range. This kind of gear was far out of my reach before the digital age.

[c.d.embrey]

This looks like the ticket, if you want inexpensive Kodak Pro color neg. Kodak Pro Image 100 Color Negative Film 36 Exposures (5 roll Pack) $27.95 @ B&H. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1476367-REG/kodak_6034466_kodak_proimage_100_135_36.html

Much like Kodak Ektapress (late 1990s), this unique film is intended for storage at room temperature and also has excellent latent image-keeping characteristics, allowing for longer time periods between exposure and development while maintaining acceptable results.

[Howard Sandler]

I'm one of the Film-digital-back to film targets of your post. Since returning to film I've had a Nikon F80, which is most of an F100, but practically free today. The thing is, the later plastic motor-driven Nikon film cameras feel too much like DSLRs. I prefer the FE/FM/Nikkormat metal thumb-wound cameras. Another thing is that the focus screens of the earlier manual focus cameras are more optimized to snap into focus than the screens in the autofocus bodies, which are optimized for brightness.

I shoot film largely for the fun of the cameras, rather than image qualities. The sweet spot is medium format in terms of negatives large enough to easily scan with good quality and variety of camera types and ergonomics. I have at least one of each major type: 6x6 SLR, TLR, folding camera, and a giant Koni-Omega rangefinder, which I know you find ugly but which I think has a certain charm.

[Mark O]

Still have my manual Minoltas (+1 on the quality of MD Rokkors) and a handful of Canon G3 and Yashica rangefinders. Also a mint Olympus Epic Stylus - what a lens on that little thing. But, if I was going to get back into film it would have to be with a Contax G2. Makes me smile just to hold one.

[Doug Chadwick]

I came really close to buying one of these when they were new. And I have always been delighted that I didn't do it.

It's a great camera. A friend showed me his and said I needed one. I agreed. I found a buyer for my 8008 and was about to proceed, and then never followed through.

A very good thing. I never would have taken a single photograph with it. I wasn't doing a lot of 35mm at the time, large format was what I did. And anytime I did want 35mm I would have grabbed my M6 or M4 (yeah, I know you don't like them, but I do) [wait, what? I love both those cameras! --Mike] and for some very odd reason that I don't understand, anytime I needed a 35 SLR I grabbed my Nikon FE. Not sure why.

So I am really glad I never bought one, and never will.

But thanks for reminding me of the temptation. Nice camera, but I have too many cameras. And too many that I never used.

I was lucky to find a few cameras that actually allowed me to make a living. Pretty weird ones. The rest turned out to be a hobby (don't tell the IRS, please).

[Steve Rosenblum]

I think the Olympus OM4t and lens system is the better choice if you want manual focus.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Interesting, I had hoped for some discussion of interesting medium-format cameras, especially the older folders. In my head (and this is probably why I don't shoot film any more) the 35mm SLR as the best general-purpose camera has been completely replaced by digital (mirrorless or DSLR), and something with a whole different profile was the only way it made sense to shoot film.

[Tam]

Tim Bradshaw's comment resonated with me:

"And I don't use film because I want something which is as much like using a modern digital camera as it can be while being just inherently far less convenient. I use film because I want something which is as far from using a modern digital camera as it can be while still being practical enough to use."

When I first got back into film, I went on a trip and brought along an EOS 10S film camera on the theory that it could share lenses with my then-working-camera, an EOS 20D. I think I shot one roll of film the whole vacation, because what was the point?

I've gotten over my antipathy for late autofocus SLRs for the most part, but a big attraction of getting back into film was the actual act of operating the old cameras. Of putting the 105 f/2.5 on the FM2n, with its lack of automated anything, and seeing if I still remembered how to "drive stick shift", as it were.

In a recent discussion a friend pointed out that, while paddle-shifters and automated clutches have erased every possible practical performance reason to have a manual transmission in a car, the classic stick shift is the last physical connection to the machinery. When you put your hand on the shift knob, you're touching a lever that is bolted to the gearbox that is bolted right to the motor, and you can feel it running. It's the same with winding on the tension in the film advance lever of an old film camera and cocking the shutter; it's a physical connection to the process.

Or maybe this is all woo-woo and I should just go take pictures. :)

[Gerald]

Many thanks, a very interesting read.

I completely agree with your thoughts on the F100. It's my main 35mm camera, coupled with the Nikkor 35mm F/2D, which IMO is the perfect all-round lens.