Where to even begin with Film Camera

Tmetroff

So I started looking into film cameras to upgrade from my canon EOS Rebel X that I used for my old photography class. My only problem is.. where do I even start. I mean I have heard that the Nikon F series are pretty good, specifically the F4, the Nikon F-100 is another one that I was checking out. The problem with those cameras are that the lenses still seem to be expensive, where as the Minolta x700 is said to be decent and have cheap glass.

I know I am kind of vague on what I am asking here(I dont know much about film), but any advice/input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tyler

ziggy53

Good lenses command good prices, great lenses even more so.

Do you want/need autofocus?

How will you be using the camera and lenses?

Have you considered Pentax? (Potentially even more compatibility with old lenses than any other manufacturer.)

Tmetroff

richy wrote: »

What do you want it for? If you want something super robust and uncomplicated an FE2 is bulletproof (albeit because it lacks things like AF), if you want something ubercool then a nikon f6 or canon 1v is the top end. If price is a consideration you can step down a notch to something like the eos 3 (eye controlled 45 point fast AF system, fast fps which gets faster with the booster, weather sealed etc), not too sure on the f4/5, not used them, but the newer nikon film cameras will have a better flash system than the canons.

Minolta made some great film cameras, the 7000i and its brethren are amazing. I used one for ages. Sony buying konica minolta has pushed up the price of used minolta lenses (because everyone with a high pixel density sensor just has to put a 40 year old lens on it ) but theres still some good ones to be had. Minolta used to do a fair job of holding its own against canikon. Some of the minolta gear I bought many moons ago came from a retiring press tog who had papped for years with the gear. Last time I used it it was still working.

You can also look at medium format cameras. If you dont need the 35mm convenience and speed there are some benefits to moving to mf. Even 645 which is barely medium format gives you a much larger negative size so more detail. You can even get autofocus medium format 645's (mamiya, contax and pentax make them). Then there are 6x6 and 6c7 rangefinders or all the mirror type medium formats. As you weren't specific about your use this may be a viable option, it may not If you shoot portraits and landscapes medium or large format may be preferable to 35mm.

Thank you for all the suggestions and info!! I plan on using this Camera strictly for landscapes (I should have said that in the first place). It seems that I have alot to learn about Film cameras! The reason I am wanting to do more film is simply that I love developing my own film, I feel like I appreciate the work more.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Good lenses command good prices, great lenses even more so.

Do you want/need autofocus?

How will you be using the camera and lenses?

Have you considered Pentax? (Potentially even more compatibility with old lenses than any other manufacturer.)

Very true about the lenses (unfortunately). I do not need auto focus, seeing as I will be using the camera for landscapes, and I have not looked into them much but I will have to check them out!

Tmetroff

richy wrote: »

There is a compelling argument for medium format or 4x5 for landscape. Personally I use a mamiya rz67, its a fairly cheap system to buy into and has a revolving back which is a nice feature. It is very 'old school' compared to a modern 35mm film camera. However, the negatives are huge which gives you awesome detail. The mamiya is not light, the rz is a bit lighter than the older (and a bit cheaper) rb, but still hefty. It also uses roll film so can be a little easier to deal with than sheet film.
There are some cost implications. You can soup your film yourself and then scan it but this is getting more expensive these days (since nikon stopped selling the 9000 prices on it doubled and it was the benchmark for sub $10k scanners for medium format). b&w film will cost between 2 and 10 bucks a roll, $4 is probably the sweet spot. Souping will be around $6. A budget scan will probably be $15 for acceptable scans. Throw in postage you are looking around $30 for a roll of 10 shots of 6x7. Individual scans of frames for gallery quality will be more expensive. It all depends how much you will shoot, how much you want to do inhouse and what makes financial sense. b&w film is fairly easy to process if you have all the timings for each film and developer, c41 (typical colour negatives) and e6 (colour slides) are easy to process if you can maintain an accurate temperature, .5 of a degree can stuff you. b&w can be done in $20 tanks, colour tends to get more expensive. Some folks who do serious volume will spend $2-3k on a jobo alt processor. If you do enough scanning then a nikon 9000 or even a imacon might make sense. All this is for 120 medium format, things change a little with 4x5.
I do have a preference for mamiya, however there are plenty of other great medium format cameras out there.

It seems I have quite the decision to make! As for developing, my university has everything I need and is free for me to use! Which is nice. And as for color/black and white I normally prefer B&W when I shoot film. As for how much I will shoot.. not as much as I shoot digital. I mainly want to shoot film when I am traveling and want to get some shots of the landscapes.

Again, I really appreciate the advice!

Art Scott

there are still old Pentax's around I am sure.....I see a wide variety of Manual Focus film cams at one of the local cam stores here.....everything from 35mm to the larger of the Medium formats (6x7) including twin lens 6x6........or you can look into the Russian brands that take pentax, nikon lenses......Kiev is one of the brands and I have owned and shot several Kievs and had absolutely no trouble....the store I bought from was in Atlanta Ga but may be gone now but I think there is still one in NY...KIevUSA.com

ziggy53

For the 135 format (FF 35mm) the Russian made FED cameras can be a great value. Specifically I have:

FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)

These are based on an older Leica design, moreso the lenses, and the lenses really are splendid "if" you find good copies. Considering their age, these cameras even load film better than a similar Leica. They are prone to light leaks and you do have to be careful about cocking the shutter prior to changing the shutter speed. Other than that they produce splendid results. You "may" be able to use Leica lenses on this camera, LTM39 mount, but the rangefinder cam may, or may not, be accurate to focus.

I also have a Kiev 60 medium format camera and 2 lenses. The Kiev is similar (a little) to a Pentax 6x7 in that it looks and handles like a traditional 135 format camera but with a medium format 6cm x 6cm negative. While not quite as much negative space as the 6x7 format, it's still much larger than 135 format and you can make wonderful 8" x 10" landscapes from it.

Here are some of my Russian cameras:



I would be remiss if I didn't mention that my best landscapes come from a modern digital camera on a tripod, using a panoramic head and multiple overlapping exposures. With a longer focal length lens, generally a true macro lens, you can produce images with enough detail to fill even extremely large prints with nose-to-the-print quality. It can be truly breathtaking. It's a technique that our "Baldy" uses somewhat regularly:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

MarkR

And of course, if you do go the Pentax lens route, you can then use those lenses on any Pentax DSLR. (M42 lenses require an adapter.)

You can go here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/ for a good overview of the lenses available. You'd probably want to look at the K-, M-, and A- lenses if you decide to go that route. (A allows the camera to control aperture.) F and FA lenses allow autofocus.

Grainbelt

I went thru this a few years ago, and settled on Pentax. Huge quantity of glass around, and a number of different bodies to choose from depending on the level of automation you desire, from fully manual with no meter all the way up to bodies with TTL flash and what amounts to program mode (with A-series lenses that have an 'A' position on the aperture ring).

By far my favorite to use was the Pentax ME, with its massive bright viewfinder. It is an Av only camera and you set the aperture on the lens ring. A hugely rewarding shooting experience, very simple and robust design. The one I kept, however, is the Superprogram, which is one of the last of the manual focus bodies with metal construction, and does offer both TTL flash and an Auto mode. I use it in Aperture Priority almost all the time and really enjoy shooting with it.

That was a fairly lengthy post but speaks to the complexity of the choice. One good thing is that you can buy and sell these fully depreciated cameras with little loss other than shipping, so feel free to try out a few.


Here's the ME with the M 40mm F2.8 pancake lens. Almost pocketable, except for the weight.

Matthew Saville

Tmetroff wrote: »

So I started looking into film cameras to upgrade from my canon EOS Rebel X that I used for my old photography class. My only problem is.. where do I even start. I mean I have heard that the Nikon F series are pretty good, specifically the F4, the Nikon F-100 is another one that I was checking out. The problem with those cameras are that the lenses still seem to be expensive, where as the Minolta x700 is said to be decent and have cheap glass.

I know I am kind of vague on what I am asking here(I dont know much about film), but any advice/input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tyler

It TOTALLY depends on what you want to shoot. If it's landscapes you're after, like myself, then I HIGHLY recommend getting something classic. I got a Nikon FM2, and AIS lenses are NOT that expensive if you avoid anything f/1.2 or f/1.4. Read up on Galen Rowell's favorite lenses, such as the 20mm f/4 and 24mm f/2.8, both of which can be had for just a couple / few hundred bucks if you watch Ebay for a couple weeks.

Also check into the Olympus OM system, the OM1 is a "basic" classic, and the OM4 is a legendary, advanced classic.

Of course the Canon AE-1 is great too, and again, the older manual focus lenses are rock-solid yet cheap.

I can only speak to the sharpness of Nikon lenses however, and as a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of wide angles, I gotta say you might be happiest with Nikon. I still use my old AIS 24mm f/2.8 today on my full-frame DSLR, and it is just INSANELY sharp. You can even shoot it wide open for star photos at night.

I can't recommend anything else that is either cheap plastic (beginner autofocus film SLRs and lenses) ...and unless you plan on shooting portraits or birds, I don't really think you need an F100, F5, or F6 lol. That would be a bit overkill in my opinion. You could get an F3 or F4 and get some more advanced features, but personally I just love the feel of the classic, older cameras. There's just something about them that is theraputic for me as a camera geek who loves simplictiy and outdoor adventures...

=Matt=

Tmetroff

richy wrote: »

I would double check they have exactly what you need, i.e. the right reels for 120 or 4x5 (or even 8x10) and the best lenses for the enlargers, but you should be set. 120 is a compromise, it gives you a much larger neg than 35, but much smaller than large format, but much of the portability and flexibility of 35mm but mostly without the shiny toys of large format. The fuji 680III is a 120 medium format camera that shoots 6x8cm format but does have limited tilt, rotation and shift etc like larger formats and you can get limited TS lenses for mamiya. It all depends where your sweet spot lies.
35mm is great, but it is a huge trade off in image quality for the convenience. Keh and Adorama have loads of used medium and large format gear cheap. People left it in droves and lenses that were routinely 2-4k can now be had for a few hundred. They have not gotten any worse, just cheaper. I have no experience in putting together a large format system, others should be able to help you there It sounds like you are in an ideal situation for film having a fully stocked free to use darkroom.

I will make sure to double check with the photography department but they should have what i need (hopefully!).
And I agree with you about the 35mm being a huge trade off. And I am definitely lucky to have free access to a darkroom, which is why I need to take advantage of it while I can . But I am also able to come back even after I graduate and use it for free, which is really cool!

Art Scott wrote: »

there are still old Pentax's around I am sure.....I see a wide variety of Manual Focus film cams at one of the local cam stores here.....everything from 35mm to the larger of the Medium formats (6x7) including twin lens 6x6........or you can look into the Russian brands that take pentax, nikon lenses......Kiev is one of the brands and I have owned and shot several Kievs and had absolutely no trouble....the store I bought from was in Atlanta Ga but may be gone now but I think there is still one in NY...KIevUSA.com

Unfortunately the closest cam store from me is around two hours away , which is why I am thankful I can get information from you guys here at the forum!! I looked into Kievs and they are really cool cameras.

ziggy53 wrote: »

For the 135 format (FF 35mm) the Russian made FED cameras can be a great value. Specifically I have:

FED 5 and a 55mm f2.8 Industar (61) L/D lens (Zeiss Tessar design, the radioactive one)
FED 5 and a 5cm (yes, 5 centimeter) f2.0 Jupiter 8 (Zeiss Sonnar design)

These are based on an older Leica design, moreso the lenses, and the lenses really are splendid "if" you find good copies. Considering their age, these cameras even load film better than a similar Leica. They are prone to light leaks and you do have to be careful about cocking the shutter prior to changing the shutter speed. Other than that they produce splendid results. You "may" be able to use Leica lenses on this camera, LTM39 mount, but the rangefinder cam may, or may not, be accurate to focus.

I also have a Kiev 60 medium format camera and 2 lenses. The Kiev is similar (a little) to a Pentax 6x7 in that it looks and handles like a traditional 135 format camera but with a medium format 6cm x 6cm negative. While not quite as much negative space as the 6x7 format, it's still much larger than 135 format and you can make wonderful 8" x 10" landscapes from it.

Here are some of my Russian cameras:

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that my best landscapes come from a modern digital camera on a tripod, using a panoramic head and multiple overlapping exposures. With a longer focal length lens, generally a true macro lens, you can produce images with enough detail to fill even extremely large prints with nose-to-the-print quality. It can be truly breathtaking. It's a technique that our "Baldy" uses somewhat regularly:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

Thanks for the advice! I will have to look into those models! And I just read that article you linked and it is awesome, has definitely inspired me to try to get similar results .

MarkR wrote: »

And of course, if you do go the Pentax lens route, you can then use those lenses on any Pentax DSLR. (M42 lenses require an adapter.)

You can go here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/ for a good overview of the lenses available. You'd probably want to look at the K-, M-, and A- lenses if you decide to go that route. (A allows the camera to control aperture.) F and FA lenses allow autofocus.

Thanks I will have to check that out if I decide to get a Pentax!

Grainbelt wrote: »

I went thru this a few years ago, and settled on Pentax. Huge quantity of glass around, and a number of different bodies to choose from depending on the level of automation you desire, from fully manual with no meter all the way up to bodies with TTL flash and what amounts to program mode (with A-series lenses that have an 'A' position on the aperture ring).

By far my favorite to use was the Pentax ME, with its massive bright viewfinder. It is an Av only camera and you set the aperture on the lens ring. A hugely rewarding shooting experience, very simple and robust design. The one I kept, however, is the Superprogram, which is one of the last of the manual focus bodies with metal construction, and does offer both TTL flash and an Auto mode. I use it in Aperture Priority almost all the time and really enjoy shooting with it.

That was a fairly lengthy post but speaks to the complexity of the choice. One good thing is that you can buy and sell these fully depreciated cameras with little loss other than shipping, so feel free to try out a few.


Here's the ME with the M 40mm F2.8 pancake lens. Almost pocketable, except for the weight.

Through the reasearching I have done, I seem to find alot of Pentax lovers. Have not really found anything negative about their cameras for the most part. And thanks for the time for posting this, as someone fairly new to film I have alot to learn.. and every little bit helps!

Matthew Saville wrote: »

It TOTALLY depends on what you want to shoot. If it's landscapes you're after, like myself, then I HIGHLY recommend getting something classic. I got a Nikon FM2, and AIS lenses are NOT that expensive if you avoid anything f/1.2 or f/1.4. Read up on Galen Rowell's favorite lenses, such as the 20mm f/4 and 24mm f/2.8, both of which can be had for just a couple / few hundred bucks if you watch Ebay for a couple weeks.

Also check into the Olympus OM system, the OM1 is a "basic" classic, and the OM4 is a legendary, advanced classic.

Of course the Canon AE-1 is great too, and again, the older manual focus lenses are rock-solid yet cheap.

I can only speak to the sharpness of Nikon lenses however, and as a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of wide angles, I gotta say you might be happiest with Nikon. I still use my old AIS 24mm f/2.8 today on my full-frame DSLR, and it is just INSANELY sharp. You can even shoot it wide open for star photos at night.

I can't recommend anything else that is either cheap plastic (beginner autofocus film SLRs and lenses) ...and unless you plan on shooting portraits or birds, I don't really think you need an F100, F5, or F6 lol. That would be a bit overkill in my opinion. You could get an F3 or F4 and get some more advanced features, but personally I just love the feel of the classic, older cameras. There's just something about them that is theraputic for me as a camera geek who loves simplictiy and outdoor adventures...

=Matt=

Thank you for posting this, and I have to agree on the older cameras there is something about the history of them that makes them so fun to shoot! The FM2 is actually one of the cameras that was up pretty high on my list believe it or not. When I look online on prices, though, I find a huge jump in prices everywhere I look. Were there different version of this model that made one slightly different from another? And also thanks for the suggestion on the lens, that would have been the next question :]. What is the biggest difference between the FM2 and lets say an F4 quality wise, is the F4 just more up to date? Because the price between the two are within $100 of each other.

Tmetroff

I suppose if I wanted to go all out I could always get the Fuji G617 Panorama :P

Matthew Saville

Tmetroff wrote: »

I suppose if I wanted to go all out I could always get the Fuji G617 Panorama :P

It is certainly my aspiration to one day own a 617 camera, or a 4x5 with a 617 back heheh. But, that's like, a retirement present for myself some day? :-P

To answer your earlier question, yeah the differences between the FM2 and the F4 are just going to come down to your personal needs and preferences. The F4 is going to have much more functionality, namely autofocus and a built-in winder, but in my opinion it looses a bit of that classic look and feel. (That, and it is VERY dependent upon batteries for it's operation, while my FM2 hasn't had it's metering-only battery changed in years lol...

So, it just depends on what you're looking for. :-)

=Matt=

Photogbiker

The F4 is much more robust construction (think photojournalist) and has some more features. Nikon folks can answer more specifically.

My thought is aligned with Richy to an extent. If you really want to get into fine art landscape B/W you need a larger format than 35mm. The RZ he suggests is fantastic. I have an old 4x5 Super Graphic that is a lot of fun. I can go all day and only shot 10 frames and feel like I've accomplished a lot.

But I further agree with him that this can get expensive. If you are wanting to shoot film and get proficient at photography you can't beat a 35mm. Get the skills down, practice your developing (pushing/pulling) and get proficient. Then step up to a more expensive per click format.

I'll throw in a suggestion of a Minolta X700 system. It was my last manual focus before going EOS AF. The lenses are great and reasonably priced, and plenty of modes to allow creativity or quick shots. This system also had some great accessories that not all mfr's offered at that time such as auto-bellows for macro.

One point for the Pentax, though, is a great tilt/shift lens. You might find one of these to be a favorite for landscape work to control depth of field and perspective. I used to know an architectural photog that had a beat up $50 Pentax K1000 with a $1,000 (at the time) tilt/shift lens. He taught me the camera just conveniently held the film, the lens did the work.

Good luck and help keep film alive.

cosney

To add in if you already have a canon persumambly you will already have lenses - if they are good quality ones then think about a EOS1v... you can pick those up secondhand quite reasonably.

I have a friend that almost solely uses one (she has crossed the digital line yet) just borrow digital if needed.

Tmetroff

Thank you for all the help guys, I ended up going with a Nikon F-100. It came with Nikon AF-S 17-35mm 2.8, Nikon AF 28-200, Nikon 50mm 1.4, Nikon
Speedlight Sb-28, and a camera case. I paid a whopping $250... man I love craigslist

Matthew Saville

Tmetroff wrote: »

Thank you for all the help guys, I ended up going with a Nikon F-100. It came with Nikon AF-S 17-35mm 2.8, Nikon AF 28-200, Nikon 50mm 1.4, Nikon
Speedlight Sb-28, and a camera case. I paid a whopping $250... man I love craigslist

You got a 17-35 for $250? Dude, I'll pay you double that for it! :-D

=Matt=

Tmetroff

Matthew Saville wrote: »

You got a 17-35 for $250? Dude, I'll pay you double that for it! :-D

=Matt=

haha my brother actually told me the same thing :P. And yeah I really lucked out! Guy didnt know what he had

jmphotocraft

Score!! I paid $350 for a Nikon FM2N with a 50/1.8 and 28/2.8. Try some Ektar 100 film...

jmphotocraft

richy wrote: »

Matt, This reminds me I fancy myself a fe2 (best ever looking camera?)

No, best looking camera ever has to be a Leica, and I will go with the IIIf.



hold one in your hands and you'll understand.

jmphotocraft

richy wrote: »

Think drunk gorilla with a paper airplane and you'll understand why I wouldn't touch one lol.

Now that is funny right there!

I have tried a leica, I greatly respect their quality, just not a fan of the looks which I acknowledge is highly subjective. I agree entirely there is something very special about the pre plastic fantasic era cameras looks wise (fuji acknowledged this with the x100).

I think the rounded ends and seamless body make a Nikon FE or Pentax MX look clunky.

BTW the beach shot is a perfect example of how beautiful and capable film still is!

Thanks. Although this should be no surprise, I'm pretty sure there are a few beautiful pictures out there that were captured on film. ;-)