Are film cameras more sexy than digital ones?

Can't you get handcrafted mahogony large format set ups and ****?

That's infinately more sexy than a DSLR :P
 
Congrats to you then desf. So the next time there is an R7 up for grabs you will not be interested, and you can leave the bidding to me.:)
Also re one of the latest posts with the Canon T90 and the Canon FD 35-105 lens. There are two such lenses now on ebay, and that model was supposed to be one of the greatest FD lenses produced. There was a 3rd such lens yesterday, in "outrageously " mint condition. It went for £36.:thumbs:
 
Of the Leica SLRs the R8 is the one I find incredibly sexy looking despite also looking a bit quirky.
 
CT said:
Of the Leica SLRs the R8 is the one I find incredibly sexy looking despite also looking a bit quirky.
Click to expand...

Never had one but always drooled over the R4

0208street03.jpg
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Are you going CT
Click to expand...

Well I'm interested - but I find these places pretty fatal for my wallet and there isn't anything I actually need or am looking for if you know what I mean. :D Common sense says keep away, but if I go it will probably be an impulse thing on the day.
 
I went into Jessops today looking for a dslr. Even with money burning a hole in my pocket I didn't find one that I wanted to buy. Even the Nikons at £600+ felt too small, light and plasticky, and didn't give me a good feeling regarding longevity, or taking the odd bump.

I had a Canon G12 in mind as well, but even that felt a bit toy like to me. Some of the higher end compacts seemed well built enough, but where's the viewfinder?

I've got nothing against digital as a medium, but the dslr cameras don't appeal to me at all, as much as I want one.
 
garry71 said:
Even the Nikons at £600+ felt too small, light and plasticky, and didn't give me a good feeling regarding longevity, or taking the odd bump.
Click to expand...

Most modern DSLRs are pretty durable things, they can take a lot. Just because the outside may seem plastic doesn't mean much, as many of the inner frames of the cameras have a metal subframe. So film cameras show their metal on the outside, digital leave it on the inside :) as for small/too light, consider a grip?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the Tseries cameras are a bit ugly - the T70 is possibly one of the most awful ugly cameras in my books, and although the T90 is slightly more rounded, I don't really get the love affair people seem to have with them. Maybe I just preferred their previous FD cameras!
 
I remember being in a camera shop years ago when a (then) brand new T70 was plonked on the counter by a guy giving me the hard sell. I pretty much recoiled in horror, but it was radically different at the time. I can't say I'm a lover of either the T70 or T90 to this day. Probably not too logical. :thinking:

Much as I love older film cameras, I think the modern DSLR is much more resistant to minor knocks and dents and there are no brassing and paint loss issues to worry about. I just wonder how many DSLRs will still be in use in 20 or 30 years time though?
 
CT said:
I remember being in a camera shop years ago when a (then) brand new T70 was plonked on the counter by a guy giving me the hard sell. I pretty much recoiled in horror, but it was radically different at the time. I can't say I'm a lover of either the T70 or T90 to this day. Probably not too logical. :thinking:

Much as I love older film cameras, I think the modern DSLR is much more resistant to minor knocks and dents and there are no brassing and paint loss issues to worry about. I just wonder how many DSLRs will still be in use in 20 or 30 years time though?
Click to expand...

Considering the A-1 and AE-1, I thought it was a bit of a disappointment. It comes down to dependence on electronics really though doesn't it? It's not even DSLRs when you think about it. How many electronics-reliant 80s-90s film cameras are currently in use? If we take the T90 for instance, a huge number suffer from LCD failure, from shutter failure and other electronic malfunctions. The only difference is is that film can always be updated, so the medium you put in your camera would always be fresh, whereas obviously the sensor in a DSLR isn't going anywhere. And that's the thing really, you can't put a Nikon D3s sensor in a Nikon D1, but you can put the latest Portra emulsion in a Leica III, and that's really what keeps cameras in use, aside from mechanics.
 
freecom2 said:
Considering the A-1 and AE-1, I thought it was a bit of a disappointment. It comes down to dependence on electronics really though doesn't it? It's not even DSLRs when you think about it. How many electronics-reliant 80s-90s film cameras are currently in use? If we take the T90 for instance, a huge number suffer from LCD failure, from shutter failure and other electronic malfunctions. The only difference is is that film can always be updated, so the medium you put in your camera would always be fresh, whereas obviously the sensor in a DSLR isn't going anywhere. And that's the thing really, you can't put a Nikon D3s sensor in a Nikon D1, but you can put the latest Portra emulsion in a Leica III, and that's really what keeps cameras in use, aside from mechanics.
Click to expand...

All fair points. To be fair to modern cameras, they're going to see more shutter actuations than most film cameras ever would, not being constrained by film and processing costs and we know that things like lcd screens have a finite life. Unfair comparisons in many ways - I never pick my DSLRs up and just play with them as I do with the film bodies. I rarely pick them up at all unless I'm going to use them and they're just a tool which I expect to work , which they do.
 
CT said:
Unfair comparisons in many ways - I never pick my DSLRs up and just play with them as I do with the film bodies. I rarely pick them up at all unless I'm going to use them and they're just a tool which I expect to work , which they do.
Click to expand...

This morning I was playing with my MX (somewhat unconsciously), and the frame counter went past 30 before I even realised! I love doing that, and it gives the shutter a bit of a workout, so it benefits everyone.

I think what you said earlier on,
CT said:
The convenience of digital is fairly obvious to us all, which is why most of us here have feet planted firmly in both camps, but if I had to get rid of my gear it would be the film cameras which would be the biggest wrench.:'(
Click to expand...
sums it up pretty perfectly really. That's why I get confused when people insist they must absolutely stay in one camp, when I find that a lot of people get enjoyment from dabbling in both.
 
freecom2 said:
This morning I was playing with my MX (somewhat unconsciously), and the frame counter went past 30 before I even realised! I love doing that, and it gives the shutter a bit of a workout, so it benefits everyone.

.
Click to expand...

I was in a photographic shop years ago and I pro who I knew only vaguely had gone bust and was selling his gear including two black MX bodies. The shop were offering him derisory money despite the fact he'd bought most of his gear from there in the first place. The guy was desperate and near to tears but they wouldn't budge on the price. In the end I told him that if we stepped outside I'm sure we could come a better arrangement which would suit us both if he could follow me to nearest bank.

We did the deal which suited us both - I got the two bodies, a cracking light meter and some other bits and pieces, but I wasn't very popular in the shop for a while afterwards. :D
 
CT said:
We did the deal which suited us both - I got the two bodies, a cracking light meter and some other bits and pieces, but I wasn't very popular in the shop for a while afterwards. :D
Click to expand...

:lol: but at the end of the day, both sides in the deal were happy, which is the best sort really! I normally like my cameras to be a bit bigger (think prosumer DSLR sort of size), but the MX has a size that somehow manages to work. And it just works, I like the LED metering display, shutter speed and aperture readouts in the viewfinder, the viewfinder itself. The only thing that I dislike is that the film advance throw is a bit long, although the K1000 has a similar amount - I've got a Nikon F2 which has a really short throw which is really nice, and a bit more ergonomic. I'm sure those black MXs look nice though!
 
I think the MX and ME are still actually the smallest ever SLRs. If memory serves the lever throw was a bit long on the MX but I think you could ratchet it if you preferred? Funnily enough, I'd have much preferred the MXs in silver. I hate the way the brassing shows up on black bodies.:gag:
The metering system in the MX was just inspired - simple 3 colour leds. Great build quality and although never targeted at pros, a lot snapped them up.
 
CT said:
I think the MX and ME are still actually the smallest ever SLRs. If memory serves the lever throw was a bit long on the MX but I think you could ratchet it if you preferred? Funnily enough, I'd have much preferred the MXs in silver. I hate the way the brassing shows up on black bodies.:gag:
The metering system in the MX was just inspired - simple 3 colour leds. Great build quality and although never targeted at pros, a lot snapped them up.
Click to expand...

ME is a little bit smaller than the MX but is limited to Aperture Priority only. Nice little street cam with a 40mm on. I really want a Black MX, but I'd settle for silver. I don't normally like it, but I quite like my silver ME, has a really geeky retro look to it. :D
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
ME is a little bit smaller than the MX but is limited to Aperture Priority only. Nice little street cam with a 40mm on. I really want a Black MX, but I'd settle for silver. I don't normally like it, but I quite like my silver ME, has a really geeky retro look to it. :D
Click to expand...

I bought an ME when they first came out - in fact I used the two black MXs alongside it for a while and I loved it - I was crazy for that red led going up and down in the viewfinder. The only thing you had to watch was the centre/bottom weighted metering pattern which took 100% notice of whatever was in a small circle in the centre of the viewfinder. If you were doing a landscape and you happened to get the sky in that circle it was guaranteed massive under-exposure if forgot to add some EC.
 
CT said:
I think the MX and ME are still actually the smallest ever SLRs. If memory serves the lever throw was a bit long on the MX but I think you could ratchet it if you preferred? Funnily enough, I'd have much preferred the MXs in silver. I hate the way the brassing shows up on black bodies.:gag:
The metering system in the MX was just inspired - simple 3 colour leds. Great build quality and although never targeted at pros, a lot snapped them up.
Click to expand...

I've just learnt to live with it, it's not too difficult if you extend your thumb a bit further - it's just odd using another camera and the initial shock when it doesn't need to advance as far! Some people love the brassy look, but I guess mine hasn't been used enough for it to ever reach that stage anyway. Yes, it's very nice, and a lot easier to see in the dark than the needle metering of the K series.
 
My Yashica Electro 35 GSN is by far the sexiest camera I own, makes my D300s look like a giant slug.
 
Judge for yourself: average digital camera looks like this:

D3S_2764-600.jpg


or, for half the price, you could get twice the sexiness (and twice the quality...)


Mamiya 645 1000s by retrogamer1990, on Flickr


But yes, they are for different uses. Film is for when you want to be slightly more 'arty' IMO. Digital is for when you're messing around or covering an event, or you need a quick turnaround.
 
The Mamiya 1000s is a nice bit of kit, but just lacks the convenience of interchangeable mag backs.
 
That D90 doesn't look ugly..I'd have one if it was selling for £60 inc lens.
 
I don't think DSLR's are ugly per se but they're just not as 'sexy' as older film cameras. It maybe just that retro/nostalgia thing but as has been said above I don't play around with my D300 but I do with my Voigtlanders, the whole experience is just nicer.
I think I've said this before but I feel I take a picture with digital but I make a picture with film.

Andy
 
This is actually quite an interesting thread!

Personally, I look at my D700 with the grip and 24-70 on and think... Phwarrrr :D Yep, I really do like the look of a meaty DSLR.

Indeed though, I really do appreciate the look of a nice old camera. I loved the look and feel of my old FM2n, my current RB67 and my Miranda RE. I wouldn't say I was as partial to it as some on here, but I do definitely see the appeal :)
 
When my sons park their Canon 450ds on a table in front of me, I'm just not interested in playing with them......that's one definition of not being sexy ;) Mind you the devoted digital guys would say I'm in a time warp of the past ;)
 
just a bit of ''Old meets New''
.
3d97721e.jpg
 
Yardbent said:
just a bit of ''Old meets New''
Click to expand...

The Nikon non-AI glass are absolutely superb things. I have an AI-converted Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8, and it looks like someone used it to stop a runaway aircraft, the screws are all missing, the focus ring is squeaky, and yet it still produces really nice images.
 
These are some of my cameras...


51zgbc.jpg


2md5t1k.jpg


2ai4ime.jpg


2z53vcj.jpg


mhbog9.jpg


2cqkyds.jpg



IMHO the Mamiya 6 isn't doing it like Veronica the two range finders and the F3, despite it being a range finder and Medium Format :shrug:
I reckon there must be a chronological cut off point for sexy cameras, but with a few exceptions thrown in.
 
Last edited:
The F3 and the old Bronny are definitely X certificate sexy Joxers - while the Yashicas are certainly parental guidance jobs. :thumbs:
 
What about the 6, if it isn't sexy, why isn't it ?
Does it look too modern, are we saying curves are out, even small radius curves.
Is it the lack of chrome detail, or is it just an ugly shape generally.
The Yashica is a sweet camera, I find the lack of detail, the plainess of it appealing, simple, no fuss and frills beautiful.
 
Of all those cameras, I think the Zenza-Bronica has a certain old elegance to it. Not stunning, but at the same time just... suave. As for the Mamiya, I think that the plastic-look is the turn off.
 
I have recently formed the opinion that yes they are lovely to look at and use!!!

5850147614_593e19dd60_z.jpg


5850113656_e6b6f7da54_z.jpg
 
I can't remember if it's been mentioned already, but surely the Rolleiflex?

031_Rolleiflex_T_1958-xxxx.jpg


Not 'sexy', but once again I think very elegant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top