Options

Inexpensive Canon film body for long exposures

mwgricemwgrice Registered Users Posts: 383 Major grins
edited November 26, 2006 in Cameras
Anyone out there have any recommendations for an inexpensive Canon film body? I'm thinking of getting one for long exposures. I think the K2 and the T2 are relatively new and cheap, and it looks like they'd accept my 24-70mm f/2.8L.

Comments

  • Options
    jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
    edited November 6, 2006
    I have an old Canon Rebel G (not Ti or 2000) that takes all my EF lenses, including the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. It is the predecessor to the K2. K2 is only $134 @ B+H. If you want to go less expensive, you may have to go to e-bay or the used section of your local camera store.
    "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
    -Fleetwood Mac
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,698 moderator
    edited November 6, 2006
    Not sure what your criteria for inexpensive is, nor how important a film body is to you.

    The Canon EOS 3 is an excellent film body and you can probably find them used rather reasonable. They are excellent with great AF.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    mwgricemwgrice Registered Users Posts: 383 Major grins
    edited November 6, 2006
    Under $200 is what I would consider inexpensive. This is a good start, thanks.
  • Options
    JusticeiroJusticeiro Registered Users Posts: 1,177 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2006
    If you are doing super long film exposures, do you necessarily need a canon body?

    More and more, if I decide to go through the extra effort of using film, I find 35mm a bit unsatisfying. You can pick up some quality medium format gear for a nice price.

    My personal experience is with Pentacons and Flexarets. I currently use a pentacon 6 TL with an 80mm Carl Zeiss Jena. You can pick one up on ebay for, likely, around $150-$250 dollars.

    The advantages are that the CZ glass is often very good, I use a pentacon 6/canon adaptor to mount some of my glass to my 20d body- I did this a lot more with my 300mm before I got the 70-300 IS. Once you develop a medium format neg you will find it hard to go back.
    There are also disadvantages.

    The 300mm lens weighs a lot. The whole Camera can be tough to carry around. A flexaret or other TLR, however, isn't so bad.


    Frame spacing is an issue of you aren't very gentle with the film advance lever. (again, this is an issue peculiar to the pentacon 6).


    If you are doing primarily wide angle shots, I really would consider a rolleicord, or a Yashica MAT, or something like that. Very easy to use- no film advance problems, good glass, and economical. If I wad doing it again, knowing what I know now, I would probably go this route. The fact is, that a MF SLR just isn't worth the weight to me anymore- although I am now emotionally attached to my Penti, because we've travelled some interesting roads together.

    52233336-M.jpg

    Couldn't possibly sell it, even for a sexier model.

    Here are a few shots that I took with my medium format, from scanned negs (the actual photos are better quality:

    74734827-M.jpg

    74734844-M.jpg

    Here's a few digital shots I took using the lenses with adaptors:

    Orestogor 300mm
    64396084-M.jpg

    64396085-M.jpg

    CZ JEna 80mm

    54249487-M.jpg


    My Flexaret was stolen a few years ago, but the meopta glass was comparable.

    Anyway, jsut my $0.02
    Cave ab homine unius libri
  • Options
    mwgricemwgrice Registered Users Posts: 383 Major grins
    edited November 12, 2006
    It wouldn't have to be a Canon body--I was just thinking that a Canon body would be reasonably cheap and I wouldn't need to buy any more lenses.

    The funny thing is that my wife just found an old Nikon EM in the basement. My dad bought it for me in high school, and I had completely forgotten about it. ("You can be pretty oblivious sometimes," my wife says.)

    I guess I'll find out if it still works tomorrow. If I remember correctly, I had some mechanical problems with it when I was just of college.

    The nice thing about this particular camera is that apparently you can run it in bulb mode without the battery. So as long as the shutter works I can still give it a try.
  • Options
    surlysurly Registered Users Posts: 77 Big grins
    edited November 25, 2006
    mwgrice wrote:
    The nice thing about this particular camera is that apparently you can run it in bulb mode without the battery. So as long as the shutter works I can still give it a try.

    Good catch. Newer Canons will eat your batteries if you go for thos looong night shots
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited November 25, 2006
    Ebay is full of AE-1's. I have one & whilst its 25 years old its still a great body.
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited November 26, 2006
    What type of long exposure are you contemplating?

    I've seen 12hour exposures from 1dsMkII bodies (star trails) and
    Nikon digital bodies. I'm certain additional post processing, like
    noise ninja, was done.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    CrismateskiCrismateski Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited November 26, 2006
    mwgrice wrote:
    Anyone out there have any recommendations for an inexpensive Canon film body? I'm thinking of getting one for long exposures. I think the K2 and the T2 are relatively new and cheap, and it looks like they'd accept my 24-70mm f/2.8L.


    I had the elen 7e, and loved it. I have seen them going on ebay for about $100
Sign In or Register to comment.