[Summerleft]

Well have been toying with the idea of getting a film camera now for some time, I don't want anything to complicated! purely for a hobby/learning experience etc although if I get used to it I could see myself using it for the business in some circumstances.

But being a Digital Bird I don't really know what would be the best


What d'ya think ?



(nice big open question for discussion )

[Dabhand16]

If you go for MF, you will find lenses etc expensive. Unless, that is you go for a twin lens reflex without interchangable lenses!

At the cheap end there are the Chinese made seagull, or the Russian models. Yashica used to do a really good twin lens reflex - but I can't remember the model name. I bet Les can though.

Years ago I wanted a twin lens reflex, so I bought a Rolliecord 5b a 1959 model.

The 35mm route will be cheaper if you want to get a system together.

[silkstone]

One of the cheapest routes to high quality, if you don't mind manual focus, is to get a decent Canon A-1 or AE-1 which date from the 1980s, and some Canon FD lenses (eBay) which are mostly of excellent quality but sell for peanuts because they don't fit Canon EOS cameras.

I had an A-1 for about 15 years until it finally broke , and in may ways it was the best camera I've ever owned. I wish they did a digital version!

[JMitchell]

I have an ae1 thanks to angela, and I think it's great! It takes good clear pics, obviously depending on the lens, is built very ruggedly, and with the motor drive can shoot up to two fps!
Another plus is that they're cheap, and the lenses go for tuppence on ebay. I recently bought a 28mm f/2.8 for £30!
I think it is well worth having one and experimenting in the darkroom, cos it gives you a much better understanding of the digital concepts that are now floodng the Market. Plus there is the irreplicable quality in the darkroom.

[silkstone]

It's good to hear that another AE-1 has found a good home.

One thing worth mentioning is that the FD lenses date from a time when there was usually a significant difference in image quality between prime lenses and zooms, and it's best to stick with primes. As well as Canon, there were some other good FD mount lenses including the Tokina AT-X series.

[WOODY]

SUMMER, IF YOU WANT TO GO FOR MEDIUM FORMAT YASHIKA -MAT WAS A VERY GOOD
TWIN LENS REFLEX CAMERA, I STARTED OFF WITH ON OF THESE. ROLIEFLEX MADE ONE AS WELL, AGAIN A VERY GOOD CAMERA. MAMIYA MADE,( I DON'T KNOW IF THEY STILL
MAKE) VERY GOOD MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERAS. BRONICA AND IF YOU WANT THE BEST
THEN HASSLEBLAD.

AS FOR 35MM FILM, THE LIST IS ENDLESS, I HAVE A CANON A1 WHICH I HAVE HAD
SINCE 1980, STILL IN PERFECT WORKING ORDER, THEY ARE GREAT CAMERAS THEY
WERE WELL BEFORE THEIR TIME.

ALSO THE CANON F1 WHICH WAS MAINLY USED BY PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS, PURELY
MANUAL, NO AUTO ON THESE, BUT GREAT CAMERAS IF YOU CAN FIND A GOOD ONE
THAT IS NOT TOO BATTERED.

NIKON MADE AND I THINK STILL DO VERY GOOD 35MM FILM CAMERAS.
PENTAX IS ANOTHER CONTENDER. TO MANY TO CHOOSE FROM.

BEST OF LUCK

[Les Meehan]

Summer

It all depends on your budget. Certainly, 35mm is the cheapest route and I have to agree with those that have mentioned the Canon A-1 and AE-1. I have had two A-1's since 1980 and both are in excellent condition and I still use them now. They have never let me down in 27 years!

On the MF side, I have used a Mamiya RB67 for, again, 27 years, with never a glitch. Totally manual, without any batteries, bellows focusing allows close work and interchangeable backs giving a 6x7 cm neg. Wonderful camera and lenses (have you seen my 'Blackstone Edge' shot in critique? Prime example of RB67 quality). The only down side to the RB is it's size, one hefty piece of kit BUT sits well on a decent tripod. Also, dirt cheap second-hand!

The other MF to consider is the Bronica SQ-A, again I have had one of these for over 15 years (although hardly used it) without problems. Smaller and lighter than the RB, with the 'speed grip' possible to hand hold in good light or with flash. Gives very sharp 6x6 negs with the Zenzanon lenses. I have the camera, waist level finder, two 120 backs, pola back, 80mm and 200mm lenses for sale if interested. I have always used the RB67 simply for the bigger neg size.

Heck, why not go the whole hog and go LF with a 4x5? OK, that might be pushing it a bit for you but if you want a real photo experience LF is the business. I love using LF for the versatility of image management it provides and with a neg of 20 sq inches compared to 1.5 sq ins of a 35mm neg. Getting all gooey just thinking about my beloved LF gear!

Mind you you could go the other way and buy an Olympus half-frame camera, gives 72 frames on a 35mm roll. Neg so small when you blow it up to 10x8 you have a picture of a grain of developed silver halide!

Dabhand: what do you mean "I bet Les can though", I'm not that flippin old! Yashicamat 124 was the TLR camera copied from the Rollieflex.

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Les Meehan

Dabhand: what do you mean "I bet Les can though", I'm not that flippin old! Yashicamat 124 was the TLR camera copied from the Rollieflex.

See! I knew you would know. As soon as I saw Woody's post it clicked.

[Summerleft]

don't think its possible to be more confused than before, well actually......





will re read the above posts 4 times

[JMitchell]

Not to be a party pooper or put a downer on anything, but Summer I think that you would probably be better off going for a 35mm, rather than MF or LF. They take a bit of learning, and require much more time input (IMO), than "normal" 35mm film cameras. So basically, what I just told you to do was ignore everything after Silk's second post

[Summerleft]

you meanin because I'm a woman I might not be of the learnin type Jack ......











waits for reactions