>>3361536>makes some stupid point about 35mm being more convenient than larger formats, which is a non issue in today's digital age35mm is still more convenient than 4x5 in today’s digital age. I started my response out by establishing the context of why someone would choose film over digital (personal preference), then went on to explain why someone would specifically choose 35mm over other film formats (convenience and the huge amount of available gear). I thought I explained it pretty clearly, which is borne out by the fact that
>>3361505 completely understood what I was saying. Hence my “this guy gets it” comment, which was me, not him samefagging his own comment.
So, continuing, and starting with the premise that someone wants to shoot film:
>if you want to use fresh 35mm rolls you’re going to be paying more now than you would back themBut you’ll be paying less than you would be for 120 or 4x5, and probably even less than you would for 110.
>/good/ 35mm cameras aren’t cheap today due to hipstersThis is a myth, easily debunked by going to
keh.com or spending any time in your local antique or thrift stores. Sure, something like a Leica M is still going to be expensive, and you can certainly find people trying to sell an Olympus mju for hundreds of dollars, but you can also find really good 35mm film cameras for twenty bucks anywhere used cameras are sold by people who aren’t photography nerds.
