cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Does Canon have a program where you can turn in an older camera and get credit towards a newer model

donnat817
Apprentice

Does Canon have a program where you can turn in an older camera to get credit towards a newer model?  A colleague has a 15 yr. old Canon with multiple lenses but it still takes film and she can't get it developed anywhere.  She's looking to upgrade but they are too expensive.

 

18 REPLIES 18

TCampbell
Elite
Elite

Most stores that used to develop and print are now mostly just doing "printing".  But you certainly can find places that do devloping.

 

But a quick exercise in adding up the cost to "purchase" the film as well as the cost to "process" (devlop + print) the film will reveal that you're probably going to pay roughly $15/roll (give or take... but at least $10).

 

So 10 rolls later... there goes somewhere around $100-150.  You can see how 20 rolls later... you could just buy a modern digital SLR camera.

 

And this is just the economics of film and processing costs... there are far more advantages to digital... such as being able to adjust the images (with film where someone else does the processing... you're stuck with the result they give you).  And you can easily share digital photos, whereas print photos require that you go pay for extra prints.  Unless someone is really into the nostalgia of film photography (and most of those people want to do their own developing and printing) then there's really very little reason to stay with film.

 

Here's the link to Canon's refurbished store:  https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras#facet:&produc...

 

You can get a Canon EOS T5 with a kit lens for $280.  Or a slightly nicer Canon EOS SL1 ("body only" which means it wont include a lens... you would need a Canon EOS lens) for $330.

 

The Canon lenses that were designed for use on Canon EOS film bodies can be used on ANY Canon EOS digital body.  But the catch is it must be "EOS".  I have my original Canon AE-1 film camera... that's NOT an "EOS" camera and it used Canon "FD" lenses, not "EOS" lenses.  But if your friends camera is only 15 years old then it probably is an EOS camera (Canon introduced the first EOS models about 30 years ago).

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da

"And this is just the economics of film and processing costs... there are far more advantages to digital..."

 

And there are advantages to film.  Digital has not hit the same resolution level as film.  If you are just a snap-shooter, I am all in for a DSLR.  But if you are a purists, it is film.  Keeping with 35mm or FF format, they say it takes a 40 to 50 MP sensor to start to equal the resolution film.  And one other thing film has or doesn't have in this case, is 'edges'.  Film's transition from red, blue to green, whatever, is seamless.

 

With film it does not take a great camera to produce a great photo.  It does take a great lens, with digital it takes both.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

The other advantage of film is that properly cared for, it can be easily optically read 100 years from now. Not so much for digital.

 

Even now, if you came upon a cache of 3.5" floppy disks could you easily read them?


kvbarkley wrote:

The other advantage of film is that properly cared for, it can be easily optically read 100 years from now. Not so much for digital.

 

Even now, if you came upon a cache of 3.5" floppy disks could you easily read them?


Frankly, that's a silly comparison. It's like saying, "If you stored your negatives in a dank, humid cellar or in an attic where the temperature reaches 130°F in the summer and 20°F in the winter, would you still be able to get perfect prints from them fifteen years later?" Certainly there are precautions you have to take to ensure that digital media survive the ravages of hardware and software change, but those ravages are much more easily controlled than those to which film was/is subjected. At the very least, a digital image can be copied successive times with no loss of information. Try that with a film image and see where you end up.

 

And to answer your question: yes. As I type this, I'm sitting in front of an elderly Dell minitower with a built-in 3.5" floppy reader.  Smiley Happy

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Bob from Bean Town,

"Try that with a film image and see where you end up"

 

A print made from a neg or pos will not deteriorate no matter how many copies are made.  If you are not copying the neg or pos, that is.

Every time you save a jpg you damage it.  So what is the comparison there?  Either must have reasonable care taken. 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob from Bean Town,

"Try that with a film image and see where you end up"

 

A print made from a neg or pos will not deteriorate no matter how many copies are made.  If you are not copying the neg or pos, that is.

Every time you save a jpg you damage it.  So what is the comparison there?  Either must have reasonable care taken. 


Actually, continually subjecting a film image to a lot of bright light (as in an enlarger or projector) is not a good idea. Color slides, in particular, will fade faster if shown a lot.

 

BTW, Ernie, sorry about your football team getting eliminated a round early. We were pleased to watch the Patriots clobber the Steelers, but we'd have been just as happy to see them finish off the Chiefs.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

B from B

I am tending to agree about the slides but not with the enlarger.  It just isn't on long enough to really cause any damage.  I suppose if you made many thousands upon thousands of prints but not with even a few hundred.  With the archival papers we have now, I don't see much reason for more than a few hundred. The truth about it is both will out last us!

 

I am not a real big Chiefs fan although I used to shoot some sideline shots a long time ago.  I am a Jayhawk, crimson and blue, where football isn't mentioned much!  MPO, is the Chiefs will never win with Andy Reid and Alex Smith.  On a sad note, though, my Jayhawks did lose to WVa last evening.  Huggins gets paid and extra bonus $25,000 bucks every time he beats Kansas. Most coaches in the Big 12 get a beat Kansas bonus.  When tems come to Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, it is and they play like it is the superbowl or the championship game.  They all play out their collective butts when there.  The Jayhawks get no easy games at the fieldhouse.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


ebiggs1 wrote:

B from B

I am tending to agree about the slides but not with the enlarger.  It just isn't on long enough to really cause any damage.  I suppose if you made many thousands upon thousands of prints but not with even a few hundred.  With the archival papers we have now, I don't see much reason for more than a few hundred. The truth about it is both will out last us!

 

I am not a real big Chiefs fan although I used to shoot some sideline shots a long time ago.  I am a Jayhawk, crimson and blue, where football isn't mentioned much!  MPO, is the Chiefs will never win with Andy Reid and Alex Smith.  On a sad note, though, my Jayhawks did lose to WVa last evening.  Huggins gets paid and extra bonus $25,000 bucks every time he beats Kansas. Most coaches in the Big 12 get a beat Kansas bonus.  When tems come to Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, it is and they play like it is the superbowl or the championship game.  They all play out their collective butts when there.  The Jayhawks get no easy games at the fieldhouse.


Yale finally beat Harvard. That (and the Patriots winning the Superbowl, of course) is the best I can hope for in any football season. Basketball? Don't even go there. Even the Celtics have settled into a genteel mediocrity.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

with regards to the film / digital debate...

 

I had worked for 3 years in Pacifica and SE Asia and had amassed a collection of about 1000 marketable quality transparencies.  They were in my car on the way to a client when the car was stolen out of my condo's secure parking area.  When I got the car back the slides had all been burned at the side of the road.  I was devestated, not just from the commercial loss, but from the loss of many momentos of some great times in my life.

 

So for me digital has had one big advantage - the ability to back up the images against disaster:  either man-made or natural

Other things I like about digital are that during prolongued use in extreme temperatures (such as 45+Deg C), I don't have to worry about film degradation, and when I am in the middel of nowhere I can see right away if my image is acceptable.  In the film days I might have had to wait weeks before I returned to civilization so I could get the images processed.  On that subject I did a photo shoot for a tour around NZ over 4 weeks.  Just before leaving the country I took the film to a lab for processing.  The screwed up the lot and gave me the equivalent blank film as their compensation.  I had to go around again and shoot the whole lot once more, and of course each experience is unique so I lost some shots I really liked.

 

So, much as I love and respect film, I am happy to stick with digital.  I DO recognize that, like vinyl records and even cassette tapes, film is making a comeback and I think that is great.  I would never want to deny the chance for people to enjoy the specific delights of taking images the classic way.


cheers, TREVOR

"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris
Announcements