The F50 is a low end Nikon SLR from 1994, and besides the fact that you can swap lenses, it basically is just a glorified point and shoot. 
It has some stupid scenes modes, PASM modes, basic AF, TTL metering, 4 stupid buttons instead of wheels, NO diopter adjustment for the viewfinder (that sucks), no DOP preview button, no remote, and easy film loading: there is really not much to say about that piece of plastic: exposure is right, AF is right too: set it in Aperture priority mode, frame, shoot.
The viewfinder is large and clear enough, it handles well even if the plastic is a bit slippy. Just worth 20 bucks with a cheap lens. 
The Kodak UltraMax 400 is the "new" Gold Max 400. Well, it is just the same with a new name in my opinion. Nothing special about that film: it's not bad, not good, can handle mostly any situation, behaves well at developing and behaves well at scanning. It's cheap and versatile. that makes it quite a good all-around film.
It turns out my F50 works as intended, exposure is right, no light leaks, AF is good: nothing to report.
Actually, the camera model and the film don't really matter. Any camera in working order will take well exposed and focused images. And any film will make good images too. The differences in films are supposed to be basically: sensibility, color balance, grain and curves. But in the end, all that remains after you scan it is basically the grain, sensibility and in some measure the curves. 
Even with software technologies that are supposed to get the colors from the neg, you won't really get it. On top of that, since you're very likely to adjust your photo in LR or another software, the original colorimetry will mostly be gone. 
What is really important is the process of shooting film. But that is not the topic here: slow, deliberate shooting, being limited to 36 exposures in a roll, waiting for the film to be developed, scanning it, etc. 
It's just fun and different, something I enjoy from loading the film to scanning and working on the negs on my Mac. If you have some spare change just give it a try: buy some used working camera, a couple rolls of film, and shoot.

You may also like

Shooting the Minolta Maxxum / Dynax 7D in 2022
The short lived most advanced Minolta DSLR was released in late 2004. It became later the foundation for Sony's A-mount cameras. It featured the first in body stabilization in a DSLR, a 6MP CCD sensor and loads of controls. This camera is a photographer's delight. The body feels right, the controls are great and natural: coming from a film SLR, you just feel at home with the Minolta 7D. And You can use all the now often cheap quality Minolta lenses, as well as the more expensive Sony A-Mount lenses.
Olympus OM-D E-M5
August 2018 I bought that little camera for $150. Definitely a bargain considering it was sold boxed, in a not too bad condition, with less than 6.000 clicks, and included two batteries and charger, a 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3 zoom lens, a 45mm F/1.8 prime lens, the tiny Olympus flash, a couple filters (ND1000 and CPL) and a (slow) 64GB SD card that I just trew away and replaced with a Sandisk Extreme Pro.
Fun with the DXO ONE in 2023
In 2015, Dxo decided to sell a tiny camera that connected to the iPhone. They used the 1inch 20MP sensor from the Sony RX100 m3 that I really love a lot, 32mm equivalent lens that is pretty bright: F/1.8 and shoots RAW.
Shooting the Nikon D200 in 2022
The D200 is a camera I always loved. At the time it came out, it was a hell of a camera for the price Nikon asked. Shooting it in 2019 is still a pleasant experience. 2005 specs? that's outdated, nobody wants that. Photos taken with that camera will be ugly, especially compared to the Sony A9 ($4500), the Nikon D850 ($3000) or the Canon 5D mark whatever ($2700). Or will it not?
Shooting the Sony Alpha 77 mk II in 2022
I wrote about the A77. But what about the noticeably more expensive used A77m2? You’ll have to pay $600 to $800 to buy a used one in good condition. Is it worth it? The A77m2 came a few years after the A77. in my opinion, the improvements are mostly marketing stunts. Despite a lot more AF sensors, a so-called new AF system, better video and a bigger buffer, I keep thinking the A77m2 used isn’t a very good deal.
Shooting the Olympus OM-D E-M1 in 2023, 2024 and later.
One month ago, I was fed up with travelling with camera gear. Air travel became a miserable experience: arguing with check-in people, Unpack all that expensive shit at security, having gear damaged in the plane when frantic fellow passengers trow their hard cases in the overhead bins. I want to travel light: then a classified caught my eye: EM1, grip, charger, 2 batteries and 45-150 for 300.
Shooting the Nikon D2Xs in 2022
During summer 2005, after a very long wait, the Nikon D2X was released. At the time my go to camera was the Minolta 7D that replaced my Nikon film cameras for my digital needs. I also shot the Nikon D70 but I prefered the Minolta. Both cameras were quite slow, and 6MP only. I wasn't really convinced by the Nikon D1/x/h/d2h. Soon after buying the D70, the D2X was announced, making me question that early GAS compulsive buy.
Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF APO
How good can be a Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF lens from 1990? Simple answer: definitely worth 89 bucks BUT there are lots of BUT...
Shooting the Nikon D70 in 2022
2004... Jesus, time passes quite fast. I won't review that Nikon D70, the specs sheets and reviews are everywhere on the internet. Only 3 figures are significant anyway: 6.1 megapixel CCD sensor, 1\/8000th second max shutter speed and 1\/500th second x-sync. I decided to buy and shoot this camera again with the Nikkor 18-135. For 20 bucks, what could go wrong?
Nikkor Plastic 70-300 F/4-5.6 AF-D ED
This Nikkor 70-300 has been one of the most poorly reviewed Nikkor lens ever.
Back to Top