Modern film equipment

[TheGreatSoprendo]

I guess this is a kind of postscript to the recent GAS thread, also related to where I've gone with my camera kit. I have both 35mm and MF gear, and there is a bit of a split going on between old and new:

1. Rolleicord and Pentax 645N in medium format with meterless mechanical simplicity of the Rollei contrasting with the autofocus, matrix metered, program exposure of the Pentax.

2. Nikon F2 and F100 in 35mm. Similar story, only with even more contrast really: the F2 is slow and deliberate, manual focus, manual metering, mechanical shutter, whereas the F100 has all the bells and whistles of modernity, including the ability to interact with the latest Nikkor lenses, advanced metering, vibration reduction and so on.

While I see that most people on here seem to prefer older cameras, and when push comes to shove I probably do too, I'm also really appreciating the benefits of a modern camera like the F100. So much so that last week I treated myself to Nikon's latest 50mm AF-S f1.8G lens, on the strength of its excellent reviews, and a brief period where Amazon were selling them for £139 delivered (including pouch and lens hood). By the way this is the first new lens I have ever bought in my life!! Of course it's plasticy, but it's an absolute joy to use. The focusing is near instant, even in low light, and the results, especially wide open or nearly wide open, are astoundingly good (better than older lenses in my experience, probably due to the aspherical element it has up its sleeve).

Therefore for the times I want to shoot quickly, this is a far better set up than any manual focus older SLR, and the results it gives are technically superior too. If I got myself a VR lens or two (maybe in future), I'd then get the benefit of 2-3 stops of light advantage for handholding too, which is arguably much more of a benefit to film shooters than digital, since you can't play around with ISO as readily.

I'm fully aware that these modern cameras aren't as engaging as their older cousins, and that there are compatibility issues using newer lenses (eg the modern Nikkors don't have aperture rings, so are no use on old bodies), but I do think there are good technical reasons why they are superior for picture taking. Of course modern lenses are going to be more expensive, but extremely competent cameras like the Nikon F80 are available for pennies, and fully compatible with G lenses, VR and all the other benefits of modernity. Also, there are arguable creative benefits to the enforced slow approach you get from an older camera, but as anyone who has ever chased children around with an MF camera knows, you don't necessarily get more keepers!

So my question is, despite the way most of us have approached using film with older kit, do modern cameras - and lenses from the digital era - actually provide a better way of shooting film?

 

[Andysnap]

I agree with you Francesco, modern stuff is fantastic but its nice to use and get good images from the older stuff. If i was only allowed to keep 1 camera and 1 lens it would probably be the F100 and 50mm f1.8, they just works perfectly as a team... but I would miss my Mamiya TLR every day.....

Andy

 

[excalibur2]

Well it boils down to horses for courses and what you like using and every member can only answer by saying what he\she likes
For me I just don't use my MTL3, Pentax S3 and Minolta srt much as I prefer modern cameras as they give you more chance of a good shot easily e.g. T90 with matching flashgun for fill in flash.... all the faffing around balancing the flash to ambient light the old way when the T90 can do it automatically...another e.g. that used to annoy me with the Pentax S3 is:- you take an exposure reading of your girlfriend, or whatever the subject, and go to take the shot and a cloud would cover the sun so have a cigarette or sandwich in the mean time , at these conditions shooting today would let the camera work it out for exposure on semi auto.....and so on for many other e.g.s

 

[Nod]

Better? Probably not. Easier? Hell, yeah!!!

My original foray into photography was way back in the Screw mount Pentax days (although bayonets were available, they were well out of my price range!) and completely manual. A built in meter was a luxury that only came later with an SP1000. Most of the lenses I ended up with were semi automatic apertures if that, with at least a couple of them relying on me remembering to turn the ring to stop them down before shooting. Changing lenses was a real chore as well - not least because all my rear caps were screw ons rather than slip ons so had to be registered and screwed down tight. I did occasionally get to play with a friend's Canon A-1 - welcome to all sorts of automation! Didn't make going back to the Pentax system easy.

Roll on to my current outing - automatic everything. The camera even knew what speed film was loaded! All modes available and AF faster than I could ever hope to MF even with microprism/split screens. What Dad always referred to as Mr Eastman's friend (power wind/motor drive) even took that effort out of the equation - the only thing I had to think about too much (other than composition and which was more important, DoF or shutter speed) was loading the film and even that was now a case of making sure the leader was on the red line before closing the back!

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Easier undoubtedly, but I'm concluding better too: modern lenses often outperforming older ones, fast and accurate autofocus, even in low light (or in no light with an AF illuminator), clever metering which is more likely to be right, sophisticated TTL flash metering, vibration reduction/image stabilisation, and so on. All of these genuine advances in photography were made during the film era just as digital was taking off, so cameras like the F80, F100, F5, F6 and their Canon/other equivalents are pretty much state of the art, except not being digital - the technological advances in cameras since then have largely been related to digital sensor improvements, not the other stuff which we can still benefit from as film photographers.

 

[DNH]

Is it safe to say that for digital, you care more about the result, but for the film diehards here & our eclectic collections of cameras, maybe how we get the result is equally important for us?

What camera I use depends on what mood I am in & what I am trying to photograph. Some days I like the slow approach with a totally manual camera & a hand held light meter. At the other end of the scale there is a Nikon F5 with all its bells & whistles for when I want pretty much 100% accuracy guaranteed with less input from me.

Modern lenses may be better, but I have never found my 40 odd year old lenses a let down quality wise. I like using lenses from the same period as a body where I can. Maybe I am less demanding than others though?

 

[TheBigYin]

well - I'll be honest, for 35mm film, if I was only allowed one Film body out of all the assortment, there's no question which it'd be - I have a soft spot for the A-1 and the old manual focus lenses, and even a grudging respect for the tank-like qualities of the Fed3a. But I'd have to chase the quality glass, and as I've a bag full of EF lenses with little red L's on them then it'd have to be the EOS-3. I'll admit, when shooting "mixed media" there's a certain degree of reassurance that basically everything works the same way - and while I miss some of the tactile "clockworkness" of older cameras, at the end of the day that's all very much secondary to the end result, the Image.

For MF I'm very happy with the ETRSi kit as it stands, and wouldn't really be too interested in swapping to anything short of a 'blad with film and digital backs. That of course isn't likely to happen while I keep spending all my money on Bikes.

 

[excalibur2]

Easier undoubtedly, but I'm concluding better too: modern lenses often outperforming older ones, fast and accurate autofocus, even in low light (or in no light with an AF illuminator), clever metering which is more likely to be right, sophisticated TTL flash metering, vibration reduction/image stabilisation, and so on. All of these genuine advances in photography were made during the film era just as digital was taking off, so cameras like the F80, F100, F5, F6 and their Canon/other equivalents are pretty much state of the art, except not being digital - the technological advances in cameras since then have largely been related to digital sensor improvements, not the other stuff which we can still benefit from as film photographers.

Well when you compare digital lenses to film lenses or newer film lenses to older film lens and say "better" you have to define what you mean. If e.g, it's coatings against flare then very old lenses are inferior, but then some photographers can get some lovely results using flare.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Well when you compare digital lenses to film lenses or newer film lenses to older film lens and say "better" you have to define what you mean. If e.g, it's coatings against flare then very old lenses are inferior, but then some photographers can get some lovely results using flare.

Indeed. Modern lenses are usually inferior in construction, just to get that said first. But many modern designs are optically superior measured for things like sharpness, flare resistance, aberrations, coma. Modern zooms in particular are broadly superior to old ones. Things are probably closer with primes, but like for like the new ones are often a little better in most of these measures. Having said that, there are some old designs that are so good that they stand up easily in the modern era too (Nikkor 105mm f2.5 springs to mind). Then obviously there are optical features like ED glass, modern coatings, improved basic designs, aspherical elements and so on, and other technologies like VR and silent wave AF motors which are faster and quieter.

However, as many of us know and love, older designs, warts and all, can often produce a different look which is pleasing, even if technically flawed in some way, eg the dreaminess that you get with old fast primes wide open.

I guess the easiest conclusion, as said above, is 'horses for courses'.

 

[ChrisR]

My (current) idea is that if I want auto-everything I'll use digital, so if it's film, it's manual (though I do like an on-board meter and aperture priority; my MXs sadly don't have the latter).

 

[Steve T]

Well, i just fell in love with film cameras and this is my current feeling. Product photography, digital slr, family snaps and stuff, digital slr but soon to be camera phone.
Anything I care about and to be artistically creative, I will take my time and pictures with film. I'm not interested in pixel perfection or ease of this that or the other, I want to enjoy the whole experience and I also love the look of film. I have a few cameras now that I'm getting to know but the utterly mint A1 in black is the best looking camera I've ever seen, I bloody love it, it's so...
When I have the time I want a darkroom too

I don't like digital, its completely boring and too bloody expensive, plus camera phones are becoming an embarassment of quality and capability, all the best shots of my grand kids have been taken on an iphone.
Film is the new super cool kit for dads and grandads, youngsters are in awe of it and you can bullship them something horrible about it it has to done

 

[excalibur2]

Well, i just fell in love with film cameras and this is my current feeling. Product photography, digital slr, family snaps and stuff, digital slr but soon to be camera phone.
Anything I care about and to be artistically creative, I will take my time and pictures with film. I'm not interested in pixel perfection or ease of this that or the other, I want to enjoy the whole experience and I also love the look of film. I have a few cameras now that I'm getting to know but the utterly mint A1 in black is the best looking camera I've ever seen, I bloody love it, it's so...
When I have the time I want a darkroom too

I don't like digital, its completely boring and too bloody expensive, plus camera phones are becoming an embarassment of quality and capability, all the best shots of my grand kids have been taken on an iphone.
Film is the new super cool kit for dads and grandads, youngsters are in awe of it and you can bullship them something horrible about it it has to done

Also it depends on what you are interested in as if your hobby is say flying insects...I'd prefer a digital camera as I wasted half a roll of film to get a reasonable shot of this humming bird moth and it really need machine gunning to get the pic you want.

Nothing to boast about but at least it roughly shows the moth and had to crop as it needed a wider angle of view lens as I didn't know what flower it was going to choose. Looking back I should have saved my film and just copied a picture off the net.

 

[Strapps]

My (current) idea is that if I want auto-everything I'll use digital, so if it's film, it's manual (though I do like an on-board meter and aperture priority; my MXs sadly don't have the latter).

My thoughts are broadly similar, to the extent now that if I'm going somewhere that I'd have previously taken a 35mm camera, I now pick up the XP instead. That might have more to do with it not being the size of a DSLR too, though.

I don't think I was fully converted until I got the adapters for using manual focus lenses, that's giving me the best of both worlds, but the Fuji lenses are some of the best I've ever used.

I can see my film use becoming mainly MF and maybe LF in time, though I'll never sell my T90 and I'll be getting my ST-801 back tonight to give me a manual metered SLR to use with M42 lenses. And I might keep my Electro GX as it took so long to get in the first place!

 

[pingu666]

you can easily have both, i do

 

[excalibur2]

you can easily have both, i do

Nah wouldn't buy a digital camera....lucky I'm not into the hobby of flying insects and just quick digital snaps of stuff bought at the bootie .......my son's parked his 400d at my house and it's handy for that.

 

[skysh4rk]

So my question is, despite the way most of us have approached using film with older kit, do modern cameras - and lenses from the digital era - actually provide a better way of shooting film?

For me? At the moment, the answer is unequivocally no.

I find that modern electronics and features just get in the way of how I like to shoot and are more prone to failure. I also think that it's risky to invest in electronics-laden cameras, film or digital. Yes, old manual film cameras can fail too, but they're easier to repair, if they do.

I briefly dabbled with the relatively modern Fuji GA645 and it was nearly a very costly mistake. I've streamlined my camera fleet since then as a result.

 

[Strapps]

Forgot to add, I have an F100 at home with the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S lens and I think I've used it twice. The problem is a lack of soul, I don't feel any connection with the camera and for me, that's an important part of choosing which I'm going to take out with me.

 

[Andysnap]

^^^ Strangely its just the opposite for me, I love my F100 and have said many times that its the camera I want to be buried with. However, on a day when I have just me to worry about I will always go with the Mamiya C330, maybe just shoot a couple of slow rolls and enjoy the process of taking pictures.
If I'm walking with the Current Mrs Snap then I almost always shoot digital or F100 as this reduces the nag factor considerably.

 

[RaglanSurf]

The F100 was a real revelation to me, if I look through my Lightroom tags it's the camera I've used more than any other in the past couple of years.

Like Andy it is the camera I pick when I want to just get the shots without thinking about the kit and the fact that I can use all my Nikon lenses from the newest VR lens to my 1960's 55mm f1.2 makes it the most useable camera in my collection.

 

[Andysnap]

^^^ We're F100 buddies.....

 

[Strapps]

If I'm going out and don't want to be nagged, I'll take the XP or the GX. The F100 is a big lump to lug around and while the results are excellent, I can't help wondering how much is down to the camera and how much I've contributed.

 

[Andysnap]

If I'm going out and don't want to be nagged, I'll take the XP or the GX. The F100 is a big lump to lug around and while the results are excellent, I can't help wondering how much is down to the camera and how much I've contributed.

I know what you mean but on those occasions where I'm just recording the day and want to enjoy whatever else I'm doing its perfect. It is a big lump but so am I, I've carried al ot more than a little camera around in front of me for years.....

I also have a little Samsung EX1 which I can hang from my belt and this produces excellent shots as well.

 

[Strapps]

Ah, if I'm taking grab or record shots then it's digital all the way - easier to share and cheaper to machine-gun if wanted.

At least my XP looks like an old rangefinder though so I'm shooting in the spirit of film

 

[StephenM]

Is it safe to say that for digital, you care more about the result, but for the film diehards here & our eclectic collections of cameras, maybe how we get the result is equally important for us?

The reverse is true for me. I'll use film when the result is the most important thing, and digital when I don't care overly about the quality. But I don't use 35mm (the smallest size I use is 6x6, and my main cameras are 5x4; I'll concede higher quality to digital than 35mm colour film).

On the "how we get the result" front, I find that the biggest single thing I can do to get a better result is to use a tripod - and camera shake isn't the reason. The effort I go to to place the tripod in the best position is what makes the difference, with second place going to being able to study the image on a ground glass carefully - edges and corners - without the framing altering. Large format, apart from other advantages, means you use a tripod. Well, it does if you're using a field camera or monorail which is all I've used. But the overall process doesn't concern me either way.

I'm not a collector of cameras, and only have the 35mm stuff I've had from new. A forced switch of system when my Exakta's shutter died (and a suitable replacement was no longer made) meant I switched to Olympus in 1974. An OM2 was added in 1977, and an OM4 in 1984. And at that point, for features I actually wanted/needed 35mm camera development stopped - as did my buying.

 

[Steve]

I briefly dabbled with the relatively modern Fuji GA645 and it was nearly a very costly mistake. I've streamlined my camera fleet since then as a result.

Was just curious what you meant by this. I'm thinking of getting a GA645 and getting rid of my 35mm kit with the idea that the GA645 would be used as a general point and shoot and carry around.

 

[ChrisR]

Was just curious what you meant by this. I'm thinking of getting a GA645 and getting rid of my 35mm kit with the idea that the GA645 would be used as a general point and shoot and carry around.

I'm curious too. I do worry it might be a bit soulless, but the lenses are supposed to be great, and it's "easy" MF. I did get a bit worried when I read some of the manual for the GA645Zi; diving into menus and button presses to change thngs doesn't quite fit with my idea of what film should be about...

 

[skysh4rk]

Was just curious what you meant by this. I'm thinking of getting a GA645 and getting rid of my 35mm kit with the idea that the GA645 would be used as a general point and shoot and carry around.

The lens is great, if you can get the camera to work; I had countless troubles with the electronics on the camera.

For one, the camera would inexplicably change exposure settings. I'd set the camera for f/4 and 1/500 and the next thing I'd know the camera would change to f/22 by itself. This happened constantly with both aperture and shutter speed.

I had another issue where the flash would go off for every single shot, whether it was in the up position or not. The flash wasn't visible in the photo if I left it in the down position, but there was a slight burning smell, so I couldn't risk using it for fear of damaging the camera further. Unfortunately, this started just as I'd arrived in Slovenia for a few days, so I then had no camera in a beautiful country. I had to send it back to LCE for them to sort out repair, which they were fortunately able to do, as parts are scarce.

The final straw was when the focusing mechanism stopped working three days before I left for China for my honeymoon. The camera refused to focus within 5 metres and was again in need of repair. Fortunately, LCE kindly offered to refund my money for the camera, which they didn't really need to do as I'd bought the camera months before.

These were all faults that just couldn't happen with my SQ-A or other cameras as they have no autofocus, flash, or electronic exposure dials that could fail.

If I could pick up a GA645 for £100 or less, then I'd be willing to risk it, as it really would make a great lightweight medium format travel camera, but I just wouldn't be willing to risk spending much more than that without a very good warranty or insurance, as the camera really could just become an expensive paperweight.

If you google it, you'll find my experiences are not unique with this camera.

I'm curious too. I do worry it might be a bit soulless, but the lenses are supposed to be great, and it's "easy" MF. I did get a bit worried when I read some of the manual for the GA645Zi; diving into menus and button presses to change thngs doesn't quite fit with my idea of what film should be about...

There's not much to worry about if the camera works. There aren't really many menus—maybe to set the date—but after that it's just point, focus, and shoot for the most part. The autofocus worked fairly well, but I definitely had more out-of-focus photos per roll with the GA645 than I ever do with my SQ-A.

I'm not sure that I'd call it soulless, when it works, the camera does exactly what it was designed to do very well.

 

[Steve]

The lens is great, if you can get the camera to work; I had countless troubles with the electronics on the camera.

For one, the camera would inexplicably change exposure settings. I'd set the camera for f/4 and 1/500 and the next thing I'd know the camera would change to f/22 by itself. This happened constantly with both aperture and shutter speed.

I had another issue where the flash would go off for every single shot, whether it was in the up position or not. The flash wasn't visible in the photo if I left it in the down position, but there was a slight burning smell, so I couldn't risk using it for fear of damaging the camera further. Unfortunately, this started just as I'd arrived in Slovenia for a few days, so I then had no camera in a beautiful country. I had to send it back to LCE for them to sort out repair, which they were fortunately able to do, as parts are scarce.

The final straw was when the focusing mechanism stopped working three days before I left for China for my honeymoon. The camera refused to focus within 5 metres and was again in need of repair. Fortunately, LCE kindly offered to refund my money for the camera, which they didn't really need to do as I'd bought the camera months before.

These were all faults that just couldn't happen with my SQ-A or other cameras as they have no autofocus, flash, or electronic exposure dials that could fail.

If I could pick up a GA645 for £100 or less, then I'd be willing to risk it, as it really would make a great lightweight medium format travel camera, but I just wouldn't be willing to risk spending much more than that without a very good warranty or insurance, as the camera really could just become an expensive paperweight.

If you google it, you'll find my experiences are not unique with this camera.



There's not much to worry about if the camera works. There aren't really many menus—maybe to set the date—but after that it's just point, focus, and shoot for the most part. The autofocus worked fairly well, but I definitely had more out-of-focus photos per roll with the GA645 than I ever do with my SQ-A.

I'm not sure that I'd call it soulless, when it works, the camera does exactly what it was designed to do very well.

Thanks for the detailed reply RJ. I can totally understand why you lost faith in the camera given those problems.

 

[ariel7515]

...I find that modern electronics and features just get in the way of how I like to shoot and are more prone to failure. I also think that it's risky to invest in electronics-laden cameras, film or digital. Yes, old manual film cameras can fail too, but they're easier to repair, if they do.

I totally agree with you, nothing better than a full mechanical camera. I have a few cameras with electronics like a F-801s or even my favorite Yashica FR1 with electronic shutter, but those were gifts, and they work absolutely fine, but I know one day they will cease to function without the option of repair.

I briefly dabbled with the relatively modern Fuji GA645 and it was nearly a very costly mistake. I've streamlined my camera fleet since then as a result.

Same happened to me when I've bought a Nikon D5100 camera, a very costly mistake, and now I basically use it as a negative scanner or, like Dean here, as a cheaper to machine-gun if wanted.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

I agree that when they do stop working they can be virtual write-offs, but actually, these older electronic SLRs have proven themselves extremely reliable on the whole. And mechanical cameras may not always be easily repairable either, given the shortage of spare parts - and, importantly, expertise - as time marches on.

 

[ariel7515]

I agree that when they do stop working they can be virtual write-offs, but actually, these older electronic SLRs have proven themselves extremely reliable on the whole. And mechanical cameras may not always be easily repairable either, given the shortage of spare parts - and, importantly, expertise - as time marches on.

Yes, of course you are right, cameras are human made machines and all will fail sooner or later, but if you don't find a spare part for a mechanical camera you always have the option to do it yourself or to pay someone to do it for you, expensive yes, but possible. With electronics you don't always have that option, if a the printed circuit or microchip were made specifically for the camera, you will not be able to find it in a store. The only advantage, for now, is the variety of cameras still available to buy and cannibalize for spare parts.

 

[excalibur2]

...and the answer is:- buy a Canon T70 body.... going for £5 -£10, if it stops working then throw it away. My two have cost me 11p per week to use since I've had them...beats a hire shop

 

[robhooley167]

Who actually wants to use a T70 though, there are so many exciting cameras out there so why would you go for Darth Vader's ugly sister?

 

[RaglanSurf]

Who actually wants to use a T70 though, there are so many exciting cameras out there so why would you go for Darth Vader's ugly sister?

I once ended up on a blind date with Darth Vader's ugly sister and she looked like Jennifer Lawrence in comparison to the T70.

 

[excalibur2]

Who actually wants to use a T70 though, there are so many exciting cameras out there so why would you go for Darth Vader's ugly sister?

Actually someone wanted the cheapest film camera for his FL\FD lenses, and I said "a T70" and he bought one.

 

[excalibur2]

I once ended up on a blind date with Darth Vader's ugly sister and she looked like Jennifer Lawrence in comparison to the T70.

Ah..but they are all the same with the lights out great comparison for the T70 if you think about it