What makes it good?

TopBanana

TopBanana

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,472
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to all-things-film, but what sort of things makes a film SLR body better than another one? I understand things in the digital world like sensor size, megapixel count etc, but with film I don't know - they don't even have any glass in them that would be different at each price bracket, do they?

Things I've thought of:
- number of auto-focus points
- number of auto-exposure points
- DOF preview facility (see my other post :D)
- Quality of construction (although I would have thought that extra weight was bad)

When my EOS 500N was new it was the bottom of the range, with the top ones being something like 5 times the price so there must be a considerable difference in quality of something! What would make the image quality better in one over another (e.g. if they used the same lens)?
I am confused! :thinking:
 
Well - for example - my EOS-3, which was pretty near the top of the range Canon body back when it was launched in Nov 1998 has a 45 point eye-controlled AF setup that's only really matched by the (x)D digital bodies. It's a big, solid camera that's weather-shielded, and has a 1/8000th second capable shutter that's rated for at least 100,000 cycles. Despite being a 12 year old design, it handles and feels very similarly to the modern (x)D kit, and looks like it came off the production line a few weeks ago.

A friend of mine had 2 of the first ones as they came out, when he was doing the ships photographer routine. Every night he'd bang 10 rolls of film through each of 'em, 6 days a week, 48 weeks a year for best part of 2 years. They're still working perfectly - a bit shiney around the grips, but they're still on the original film pressure plates, and haven't needed to see the inside of a canon service centre! (here's the maths bit - 36*10*6*48*2 - 207,360 frames! each camera, and then another 3 years of more normal pro. use after that! - probably best part of half a million frames between the 2 bodies)

The EOS 500N by contrast has far more in common with a EOS1000D - great value for money, and a good starter camera. With 3 AF points and a max shutter speed of 1/2000 it's never going to be something for all-action shooting though. On the upside, it does have a built-in flash (that I sometimes really miss on the EOS-3, as I seldom carry speedlights with me)

At the end of the day though, a film camera body is really just a box with a transport mechanism to move the film, and a shutter to let the light in for the right amount of time. Everything else is niceties, and won't necessarily mean you get a better picture.

Oh - and your 500N will absolutely amaze you with a few bits of that nice L glass on it :)
 
Last edited:
Until camera technology kicked in in the 1970s with exposure automation, quality was measured in engineering precision and sharpness of lenses. Even consumer level cameras were built to last decades and many 50 year old cameras are still around.

Costlier cameras were usually professional models and the price opened up an array of specialist application accessories. Current film users do so because they like the medium rather than any specific advantage over digital, although the price of film kit is much cheaper and quality still greater in larger formats. It's also pretty inexpensive to use if you process and print your own. The main change has been a swing from hard copy to screen sharing. If you want an archival image on paper film still has a lot going for it.
 
..or another way of looking at SLR film cameras is that the "goodness" is in the film so you can put a £1000 lens on a £2000 35mm film camera and get the same result as if you put the £1000 lens on a S/H 35mm camera for £5, providing it's working ok, and for most general shots.
But a better camera can do more so that's mainly the difference.
 
TopBanana said:
Things I've thought of:
- number of auto-focus points
- number of auto-exposure points
Click to expand...

Go back a decade or two earlier than when your 500N was launched in 1996 and it's quite likely that your 35mm SLR body would have neither of these or a limited subset of these features.

Canon's manual focus, electronically-controlled A-series offerings in the late 70s/early 80s offered, in order of increasing cost

  • AT-1: Manual exposure only
  • AV-1: Aperture priority exposure only (no manual exposure)
  • AE-1: Shutter priority or manual exposure
  • AE-1P: Shutter priority and program AE and manual exposure
  • A-1: Shutter, Aperture priority and program AE and manual

There was also the AL-1 in 1982 which was an early autofocus (actually focus-assist rather than full AF) attempt with FD lenses and offered aperture priority AE.

They all shared the same shutter and chassis mechanism. The more expensive models (i.e. A-1 and AE-1) allowed you to change the focusing screen. But, essentially, you paid for increasing options in your exposure modes, working up from no AE on the AT-1 through to all the bases covered on the A-1.

The pros got the F-1, which was mechanically controlled, didn't need a battery to keep shooting.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Go back a decade or two earlier than when your 500N was launched in 1996 and it's quite likely that your 35mm SLR body would have neither of these or a limited subset of these features.
Click to expand...

agreed.

As said earlier, the optics and the film are the only things that matter in terms of your final image aesthetics/quality. That said, your main priority when choosing a film body should be its durability and reliability - you want a solid all-metal body. Take a look at a Nikon nikkormat from 1969 and you'll have a good idea of what you want in a film body. An accurate center weighted light meter is also a plus, and if you just want speed and ease, you can pick up a modern professional body for dirt cheap. Nikon F100 was a $2600 body back in 1999. now they are going for $200 in mint condition.

Also consider your brand. Since most film specific stuff is bought and sold at you local used market (craigslist here), you might find a gold mine of cheap equipment depending on the brand you settle with. Minolta's and Pentax's have a nice selection of used 35mm bodies as well as a wide assortment of high quality optics which are now cheap because no one uses them. Since I'm a Nikon user, I had a huge selection of old bodies and lenses to choose from, plus I'm able to use F-mount lenses from the 60's on my digital bodies. surprisingly, my DX lenses are very usable on my F100 with not-so-bad vignetting.
 
Well then, I've now bought myself an EOS5! I can't believe that I only paid £25 for what would have cost over £800 new - there certainly are some bargains to be had in the film world.
Immediately I've noticed:
- Auto focus is much faster
- I like that it has more AF points, and IMO the eye-controlled focusing is pretty funky.
- Depth of field preview is pretty useful
- There are more metering modes
- I can't believe that it can take 5frames per sec - the precision in lining up the negative at that speed is quite something.
- It's very quiet in terms of shutter noise and film transport.
I think that all the extra features should help me, but as everyone has said they won't improve image quality.

Does anyone have any suggestions for getting good lens at a good price? [I generally like taking portraits of friends/family] It seems that Canon EF mount lenses are still pretty expensive, even second hand. Would I be better off getting an EF-M42 adaptor and then getting the cheaper M42 lenses? But will I lose the auto-focus functionality? Will most lenses give better image quality than the 28-80mm kit lens I've got?

And what colour negative film qould people recommended that will work well for portraits and give a bit of punch with the colours? I've got far too many pictures with cheap film where it all the colours just look washed out.

Thanks for all your help!
 
TopBanana said:
Does anyone have any suggestions for getting good lens at a good price? [I generally like taking portraits of friends/family] It seems that Canon EF mount lenses are still pretty expensive, even second hand. Would I be better off getting an EF-M42 adaptor and then getting the cheaper M42 lenses? But will I lose the auto-focus functionality? Will most lenses give better image quality than the 28-80mm kit lens I've got?

And what colour negative film qould people recommended that will work well for portraits and give a bit of punch with the colours? I've got far too many pictures with cheap film where it all the colours just look washed out.
Click to expand...

EF lenses are expensive, primarily because they work with the current crop of digital cameras. If you do go for the EF option, I'd give the same advice as I would or full frame digital - if you can possibly stretch to it, get one with the red stripe and a little L on it. If not, get the USM version. If you cant afford either, buy manual lenses and an adaptor. Don't waste your money on the old plastik kit lenses, the AF's probably no faster than manually focusing anyway, and they sound like a food mixer when focusing :lol: Edit: one exception being the EF-50mm 1.8 or nifty fifty - get one for £70 or so new from Kerso who advertises on here, and if you don't like it in 6 months, you'll probably get £65 on fleabay for it!

As for colour Neg. film - I've found Ektar 100 a good all-round film.

Oh - and congratulations on the EOS-5, very nice camera. Just one thing, if you like the 5, don't try a EOS-3 or 1V, unless you want to spend all your lens-money :lol:
 
Last edited:
****Would I be better off getting an EF-M42 adaptor and then getting the cheaper M42 lenses?****

Everyone (except Nikon or Olympus owners..smirk) should own a M42 58mm Helios 44m or Meyer 50mm lens or Pentacon 50mm (same as Meyer) for a few quid, you see many attached to Praktica camera for about £8...get a good copy and they are sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top