There is not much use in selling the film body after buying a digital body. YOu will not get a price you feel is fair and it can always come in handy as an emergency back up.

Good answers to the keep the film camera connundum. I sold off the MF gear and kept the 35mm.

Sid: Actually, for the high end Nikon and Canon 35mm SLR's (like the EOS-3), you can still get decent money on ebay.

As long as it's in Very Good or better condition. And especially if you have the box, instruction manual, all accessories, etc.

I'm waiting for what Nikon has in the pocket to replace the D100. Then I'll sell my 35mm gear, but that money will be invested into some Bronica or Hasselblad.

I sold one medium format (Mamiya), one 35mm (Canon EOS 1N) and still keeping Canon EOS A2E. Somehow, I still remember the feeling of first time holding this camera, focusing is fast, comfortable in my hand. And could not let it go.

I carry a near new Nikon N75 with a 24-70 Sigma lens. It is for emergencies if my D70 suddenly would fail. My 75-300 telephoto can be used with either camera. I carry only four rolls of 35mm film which goes back in the fridge when I return home. If I had a major D70 failure at the beginning of a trip, a few rolls of 35mm film is pretty cheap if and when needed. Went to Spain in May and never took the N75 out of my Lowe backpack.

Dale, was wondering what you thought of the nikon D70 since you own one. I have the Nikon n75 and bought a "cheap" but good digital, a canon a75 to see if i liked Digigal and truth be told, i know more about the digil than the N75, i really like Nikon, i had a real old one Nikon 4004S, that was not worth repairing and i upgraded to N75, i like my lens it is a 28-90mm D Quantary, with a macro, because i love the macro for taking close up's of flowers...I am a beginner, however i was the only one in the family who took the pictures and decent pictures..

I dumped both of my medium format units, kept the 35mm when I went digital. It has been a year now since I last shot film. The cost savings is tremendous; I have cut my cost of shooting weddings by 2/3 and the control I can achieve on both proofs and prints is fantastic.
Granted, digital takes a bit of time because of post processing and the learning curve is steep, but the results are worth it. I had spent 20+ yrs. in the wet darkroom and glad that I finaly came out of the closet!

Wow! Sorry about the long delay in answering. You've probably done whatever you wanted to do long ago. I'll just add a bit to try to help. First, I love my D70 and even went on two trips to Maine recently, the second without even a single backup film camera. The only thing I have learned that might be of value is that one must be careful with exposure. Use the histogram. I recently took a bunch of flash shots at a reunion that was in a tent with open sides.
The human figures tended to be underexposed and in some cases, to make them bright enough to print I had to add a lot of "photoshop" to them and in a few cases could not get the faces bright enough to make good prints. Overall the results were pretty good and the old guys whom I am sending prints to won't care, but I know I could have done better.
I don't foresee getting rid of my N75 "backup" camera but if I carry it, I will only pull it out and use it if the D70 should fail.

Even properly exposed shots outdoors often require some brightness and contrast adjustments in Elements 3.0 in order to optimize print quality and impact. But, once "fixed," the results are superb. I have had a 20 x 28 made of Halfdome in Yosemite via the photochemical print old process and it is gorgeous with plenty of detail and beautiful color.

Peter,

I believe anyone going to digital for the first time should not sell their film cameras until using digital for a while. It does not work for all for various reasons. I went back to film after using digital and still use film 100 percent of the time. Ronk and many find digtical does what they want but not all will find that true for themselves. True is the fact you can get beautiful prints from digital, but all is in the eye of the beholder. I myself feel the difference between prints made from film and digital are quite different. Monte Johnson.

Early on when everyone was switching over to digital capture it may have been worth selling off the film based camera's because you could still get a fair and decent price for the equipment. In todays market I don't feel you would get just compensation for the equipment.

I migrated to the digital capture gradually by initally purchasing a Coolpix 5000 with two adapter lens' (wide and telephoto) primarily because that is all I could afford at the time and secondly I wanted to see if I would be happy with the print quality (long time darkroom worker)so I did not sell any of my film based camera gear at the time.

I have since purchased the Nikon D70 and primarily use that camera 90 percent of the time. I still revert back to the film based camera's when I am looking to make larger than a 8 x 10 print. I will either photograph with the 645, 6 x 7 or the 4 x 5 format depending on final output size. The prices for the digital backs are still too costly for me to entertain the thought of purchasing one. So for me at this time the medium and large format film based camera's are still the camera of choice.

For the most part my film based 35mm camera's just gather dust but that may change since my son is now showing an interest in photography and I would like him to learn the correct fundamentals of f stop, shutter speed and depth of field relationships (all are non auto focus camera's).

I think that is the key. Depending on what size you want to print it limits you in the price range most of us can afford. Monte Johnson.

Any market for film cameras is centered around higher quality cameras. Even Film SLR and lens are generally worth under $100. credit card payments online