Which Film Camera

M

m4drx

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Name
Tharek
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I'm looking at getting a film camera. I've looked at everything from OM1 to Mamiya & Hasselblad medium format cameras.

This comes about from the fact that my first SLR was a 400d DSLR and I have not shot film at all. I feel like i've missed out.

I've still got my dads old broken Nikon FG20 which and I'm tempted to buy another of these for the nostalgic value of using my dads old camera.

Anyhow, I'm way in above my head with this so any advice appreciated. :)
 
I also have a variety of Canon EF L lenses so it would be very useful if there was perhaps an adapter I could buy to put these modern lenses on, albeit with manual focus
 
I don't think that there will be many adapters to convert EF to an older mount (and if they do exist, they'll surely be expensive). Have you considered a Canon EOS film camera?
 
m4drx said:
I also have a variety of Canon EF L lenses so it would be very useful if there was perhaps an adapter I could buy to put these modern lenses on, albeit with manual focus
Click to expand...

You would be stuck with the aperture wide open as well

your best bet would be to pick up an EOS film body so you can use your L Lenses

If you fancy something a bit different then there are many fantastic systems out there with wider arrays of lenses that can be picked up for very little moneys

Such as the Olympus OM series, Nikon FG/FE, Canons old FD mount bodies such as the A-1 and it's variants

And many more
 
So either you can get a (relatively modern) Canon film body which supports your L lenses natively, or you can buy into another system.

If the latter, choose your rough budget and perhaps format. 35mm is easy to get processed, the most universally supported format and gear is relatively cheap to access, especially for a newbie to film.
 
thank you for the replies guys.

I'm still researching but I did have the thought of finding the first EOS camera which would natively accept my lenses and I understand it is the EOS 650. I'm thinking of both buying one of these as a simple starting point along with an FG-20 to repair my dads camera as an alternative. His also has a 50mm lens I can use.

Perhaps in the future when I have learn some more about film photography, i'll look at the Mamiya/Leica & Hasselblad cameras for no other reason than childish curiosity.

Knowing as much about photography as I do, I feel somewhat like i'm looking out in to a new world...or more accurately, an old world! :)
 
m4drx said:
thank you for the replies guys.

I'm still researching but I did have the thought of finding the first EOS camera which would natively accept my lenses and I understand it is the EOS 650
Click to expand...

There's loads of EF fit film slrs :) they range from very cheap to professional models. the EOS 30 (not 30D!) gets my vote!
 
whats broken on the fg 20 ?
 
The EOS 650 was the first ever EOS camera in 1987 but there are tons of other models. The 650 does have that 1980's chunkiness to it which you might prefer over later models which are lighter. The best cheaper model is the Canon EOS 5 from the 1990's, can get it for around £50 or less and handles like a DSLR really, just with less AF points. Look up the manuals for the camera and find out what batteries they take as well, it tends to vary between CR123A and 2CR5 type lithium batteries.

Further down the line if you want to go with a more .manual Nikon system something like an FE/FE2 would be good. Nikon lenses aren't the cheapest, even the old manual ones but they are very well built and sharp plus you can easily adapt them to use on your Canon DSLR unlike the old Canon FD system lenses which can't be easily adapted.
 
For the full joy of film photography, I prefer a mechanical to electronic cameras.

And to really learn to read and appreciate light, get one without a light meter...you can get a hand held meter or just use your digital for metering, but after a while you can tell what exposure to use.
 
m4drx said:
I also have a variety of Canon EF L lenses so it would be very useful if there was perhaps an adapter I could buy to put these modern lenses on, albeit with manual focus
Click to expand...

Probably cheapest half-sensible way of getting to use these lenses for film as said above is a EOS-30 - they're actually a nice little camera and handle in a very modern DSLR-ish manner, which is useful if you're swapping between formats in a single shoot. They're cheap as chips, and one of the last film bodies released, so the AF and so forth is pretty much what you'd be used to with a modern digital - being more recent, they've probably got a bit better chance of not having the odd electrical gremlins that some of the earlier generation kit has (there are issues for example with internal memory batteries and LCD displays getting a little "past their best" in some of the 25+ year old kit)

Personally, I quite enjoy using a film camera that works like modern systems - though I also have kit that goes back to the more mechanical era's which has a different appeal - what I choose to shoot is normally dictated by my mood at the time - sometimes I just want to have all the decisions and thinking in my head, other times I want to be able to stick the machine on AV, dial in an aperture, follow focus automatically with back-button focus and concentrate on composition and framing. And other times, I want to put a sealed box on a tripod, with a pinhole in the front, press a cable release and count elephants for the exposure.
 
Have to agree that if you have a load of canon full frame lenses then the eos 30 is a great camera. Good size, decent spec and good metering system. Also doesn't leak light which helps with film cameras! ;)
 
I'd second the above suggestions regarding an EOS body and would recommend the EOS3. They're £100ish on Ebay and make the crossover to film really easy. Also worth remembering that in the film world, only lenses and the actual film matter. Everything else is mostly to do with form and functionality.
 
had the same issue and just received mine first ever developed roll of film. :)
Do not go "modern" way with film eos. I have canon 7d and wanted a film, cameras are cheap as peanuts so I bought monilta xg-2 with 50mm F1.7 and later on minolta X700 and sigma 28mm F2.8. Do not go autofocus route it's not the same. Although half of my pictures are out of focus i am still pleased and there is something magical in B&W film pictures. Whatever you will buy at the end it does not matter as long as you have got a good glass, get 50mm for a start with aparature from 1.4 to 2.0 whtaever you can get. You will not regret.
 
I agree with Mark and Jim's suggestion of an EOS 30. (having bought Jim's EOS 30 from him recently I would say that!)

Joking aside, I was in the same situation as you, having a bag full of L lenses that I used on a crop sensor digital camera. I really wanted to use the 17-40L on a full frame camera to make full use of the wide end. The EOS 30 fitted the brief nicely and I haven't regretted buying it. The eye control is great and despite being relatively cheap now it feels well made.
 
Film cameras are bludy expensive to run.
Say it three times.....
David Baily used to say people would spend a fortune on kit, then barely put a film a year through it... and how his advice when people asked him what 'better' camera to buy, was 'DONT - Buy more film! - take photos'! Least I think it was DB.

What do they cost these days? £5 a roll? Same again to process? £10, for 36 frames... or 30p every time you press the shutter....

I've been scanning my life-time legacy of halide pics to the computer. Twenty years worth, I reckon that there's around 15,000 frames; about 500 (35mm) films...

It is interesting that as an 'enthusiastic' photographer, I took probably ten to twenty times the number of pictures the average snapper did, 'in the day'. But what is probably more revealing; looking back over a set I took over 5 weeks trecking round India.... I have, approximately 500 pictures in the scans file.... makes sense, I think I ordered ten or a dozen rolls of film to take with me. There's a couple of rolls of B&W as well... five weeks of photo taking... 500 pictures.. couple of folders down, is a set from this summer; same number of pics, one afternoon, a day-trip with my kids, shot on digital.

Digital is the conclusion of 'fast-photography', with highly automated, easy to use equipment.

We don't have to think too much about what we are doing, the camera can take care of so much for us, and we can get a lot of 'good' shots purely on a balence of probaility that IF we take enough, there HAS to be a couple of goodn's amongst them.

Step back, the last iteration of halide cameras, were almost there, with auto-focus, all they lacked was the rapid delivery of digital capture. Earlier cameras, like my old Olympus kit, was at the forefront of manual focus 'fast-photo', with sophisticated integrated metering, and the wonderful Vivitar 'one-touch' single zoom & focus ring lenses. Going back earlier, through the lens metering, had started the 'Fast-Phooto' ball rolling, letting you meter without taking the camera from your eye, while variable focal length lenses allowed you to change lens length without having to swap lenses, and compose your shot without walking so far....

SO!... if you want to get away from digital, and all digital IS, and the whole, 'fast-photo' way of doing things.... you have to cut out all that is 'Fast-Photo'.

You have to discount anything with an integrated light meter; anything with a zoon lens. Possibly even interchangeable lenses.

You need to go bare-bones, back to basics, and a selenium cell light-meter, and a fully manual camera, that MAKES you do the work and does NOTHING for you.

As a toe in the water excersize, rather than looking for a good film camera; I would set a budget, say £50, and I would go bargain hunting; start with a cheap selenium light meter, then see what comes along camera wise; maybe an old press camera, or some east european or chinese 35mm... doesn't really matter. More limited it is, the better. But buy it, then use whatever change to get film and go use.

Remember; 35mm you get 36 pics a roll, 120, depending on format, perhaps 10. And unlike digital, you dont get to see them until they are developed, and if they are no good, you cant delete them and re-take....

So... you don't waste film; you have to THINK about what you are about, and use your film wisely.

It was an experiment I did, probably 20 years ago, with an attic find 120 Voiglander, which had three aperture settings, three shutter speeds, and a fixed lens. I repeated it a few years later with a bellows press camera, that had similar limitations.

As an excersize in 'craft', it can be very useful. Frustrating.... you have to pick your subject matter, plan and take time to set things up. This can significantly improve your discipline, for landscapes or portraits; but getting more dynamic action pictures or candids, is a lot more awkward. But, the press photographers of old did it... no reason you cant.

And picking more challenging subjects like that will stretch your thinking and your eye and your technique, a lot more than buying a more recent 'fast-photo' film camera that, really does little more than make you pay per frame.
 
Whilst many people who shoot with digital cameras do indeed shoot large numbers, in a 'spray and pray' fashion, there are many who do not. I think it's a bit of a false assumption that shooting digital suddenly means people aren't able to make a considered shot.

The shutter count on the DSLRs I have owned is relatively low - sure, it's higher than the number that I probably would've shot if they were 12 shots and I had to change the film everytime (the number of shots I normally get with my choice of equipment, 6x6 medium format), but in the same way many people can take a poorly considered film photo, they can take a well considered, well timed digital shot.

They do say that sometimes having only basic settings or no settings to deal with means you can focus more on good composition and technique - some amazing photos have been produced from P&S cameras (of both digital and the film variety).

For the fun, and the variety, and the tactile feel of many film cameras, it's a great hobby. And I understand the point you are making. But it's not quite as clear cut as that, IMO.
 
I'd recommend a Rolleiflex or Yashicamat 124g - no interchangeble lenses, waist-level viewfinder in which everything's "ass about face", and contemplate the fact that a lot of Bailey's work was done using a Rollei, and the Yashica was the mainstay of many wedding photographers...... Try the "metering is for cissies" method - look at the light, and know what the exposure is.......:D

I did some years of weddings using Nikon FM2s, MD12 motor drive and a large Nissin hammerhead gun on a bracket -that's fun to try keeping up with at a wedding - turn one way, it's a 250th at f8, fill flash at 5.6 - (manual focus too), take the picture, turn towards the shady side, it's a 60th at 5.6, fill @ f4, (manual focus again), take picture and turn back towards the sunny side....... manually rewind the film and reload before the next guest arrives..... a dozen films later your arms will be aching from the strain, and one of my fingers on my right hand has a decided permanent bend from hanging the weight of the camera off it.......
 
***I'd recommend a Rolleiflex or Yashicamat 124g - no interchangeble lenses***

H'mm in my book that's a minus :(
 
excalibur2 said:
***I'd recommend a Rolleiflex or Yashicamat 124g - no interchangeble lenses***

H'mm in my book that's a minus :(
Click to expand...

No. Of my sixty film cameras, the one I would keep if I was only allowed one would be my Rolleicord TLR.


Steve.
 
Whaddya need extra lenses for, you've got feet!:D

On those two TLR cameras, you've got a "standard" 80mm lens (equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera) - as I said, Bailey and many wedding photographers used nothing else to produce stunning shots - it's real "back to basics" photography - the lenses are good and sharp, it's down to your expertise and the "decisive moment" to get a good photo - an amazingly good exercise!
 
Even Rollei bought out the tele and wide angle Rollei...I had the tele Rollei and got rid of it as it was too limited......and is a 80mm lens the best for head and shoulders in fact in 35mm terms a 50mm lens is just a general purpose lens and who uses em now. :(
 
excalibur2 said:
***I'd recommend a Rolleiflex or Yashicamat 124g - no interchangeble lenses***

H'mm in my book that's a minus :(
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? Greatest camera I ever owned was a 50 year old Yashicamat. Stunning medium format from a good prime.

Second best is a FED3, which is closer to the cameras of Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Beaton et al.

Gets you back to focusing, composing by moving and exposing correctly using sunny 16 rule.

Seriously, get something like a Fed or Zenit or Yashicamat. It'll take a while, but you'll be happier once you've managed to put some Ilford through it and developed it in a cupboard.
 
excalibur2 said:
Even Rollei bought out the tele and wide angle Rollei...I had the tele Rollei and got rid of it as it was too limited......and is a 80mm lens the best for head and shoulders in fact in 35mm terms a 50mm lens is just a general purpose lens and who uses em now. :(
Click to expand...

Me. Only lens I take out with me.
 
***You're joking, right? Greatest camera I ever owned was a 50 year old Yashicamat. Stunning medium format from a good prime.***

I'm not doubting the quality of the lens, it's that I prefer a MF with interchangeable lenses and know my RB67 with 180mm lens is great for portraiture and my 65mm lens is great for large groups and landcapes, so your fixed lens cameras are limited otherwise... why the explosion of other lenses to use other than the standard lens esp for 35mm.
 
Last edited:
"so your fixed lens cameras are limited" - but that's the whole point!.........add interchangeable lenses, then ttl metering, a prism that turns it all the right way up, a polaroid back, hey, why not go digital while you're at it?

The fella wants a film camera - try the real "back to basics jobbies" and he'll learn a lot.....look at all the great names who used non-interchangeable lens cameras, or just one lens (Cartier-Bresson for instance) - it didn't slow them down one jot!
 
*****add interchangeable lenses, then ttl metering, a prism that turns it all the right way up, a polaroid back, hey, why not go digital while you're at it?***

You don't have to buy them at first but they can be available once you get experienced. :shrug:
A fixed lens camera stays a fixed lens camera maybe you can attach some sorta lens on your Yashica for macro work :D
 
Organnyx said:
I said, Bailey and many wedding photographers used nothing else to produce stunning shots
Click to expand...

For many years my father used just a Rolleicord and a Rolleiflex for weddings.

To see what you can do with just a Rolleiflex, look for images by John Gay.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
For many years my father used just a Rolleicord and a Rolleiflex for weddings.

To see what you can do with just a Rolleiflex, look for images by John Gay.


Steve.
Click to expand...

....and what extra results would they have for using a camera with interchangeable lenses but I suppose Bailey took some great shots with a trip ;)
Do the 35mm digital guys at weddings just use a 50mm lens :shrug:
Anyway I really can't see the argument as it is a fact that a camera that can use interchangeable lenses is more versatile, so I would always recommend them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top