35mm Cameras?

[therabbit14]

Im going to need one. I have like an early 2000 nikon 35mm film camera but nothing special. Im looking at the Nikon F5 or the F6. Anyone ever own these? I dont care about the weight so im leaning more towards the F5.

[SS904]

Not a Nikon user, but I have owned and used the Canon equivalent in the EOS 1n model. It was a beast. Heavy, fast FPS and it had some nice features that lesser EOS film bodies didn't have. Also, there were some "consumer modes" that the lesser bodies had that the 1n didn't. I had an EOS 7E (Elan) around the same time. Same sort of relationship (minus the IQ difference) you see with the current 1D models compared to say the 50 and 60D models. The biggest advantage in my opinion, while comparing bodies of the same vintage, is AF ability and robust build. Plus, I'm big gear head and just love the way the good stuff feels. Thing is, with 35MM, the camera is not much more than a light tight box to hold the film. The IQ comes from the film choice, lens and user skill. What are you missing with the camera you have that the Nikon pro body will offer?

[TheX]

I still have an F2 Photomic. Got it in the 70's, still works.

[therabbit14]

yea i was looking at the canon ones too. and then i ran across some very very very rare monochrome cameras too. kodak took the f5 and the canon equivalent and put digitial crap in them so you could take a digital photo. but anyways i like the big heavy fast cameras. im leaning to the F5. i might look at the canon too.

[idleidolidyll]

Originally Posted by SS904

Thing is, with 35MM, the camera is not much more than a light tight box to hold the film. The IQ comes from the film choice, lens and user skill. What are you missing with the camera you have that the Nikon pro body will offer?

Actually, that still applies with digital.

'Film choice' is now a decision of light balance, B&W, Sepia etc and it still has a significant effect on the final image.

Lenses are still the main contributor to quality. My wife and I both use Sony cameras. She uses the DC lenses of average quality and I use a couple of Zeiss lenses plus a 'G Series' telephoto. When we swap lenses on bodies; the difference is immediately clear.

User skill however, remains THE main determinant in quality of images. The vision of the photographer, the understanding of light and colour and their affect on subject matter and the photographers ability to direct or manipulate the elements within a scene to produce THAT shot are paramount.

The last of the film cameras and the latest digital cameras were all too much for most non pro photographers. If you have a sound understanding of light and can picture in your mind the final result you desire; manual control of the camera is still the best way to go except where the action is happening quickly in changing light. About the only advance that really made a difference is auto focus for aging eyes and even that is only useful if you use the focus aids to select the focal point yourself rather than allowing the camera to select a centre spot opr overall focus.

In the end, the images of Robert Capa, Ansell Adams, Nagey and co are all still great images despite the box used to capture them and the medium they are stored on. To become a great photographer one must still use the most important tools in our set of tools constantly: your mind and imagination.

And as a parting shot; I still shoot film but as a working photographer, I must also use digital. Digital does have significant advantages and the main one for most pros is turn around time. I recently shot a World Championship mountain bike race; my deadlines were pretty much the same or the next day except for one US mag with a 2 week lead time due to its pre-booked schedules.

I use film for effect nowdays and will often load 5x4, 120 or even 35mm into a pinhole camera and shoot moody images for arts sake.

The images attached are all from film; 2 are pinhole and 2 are from film cameras.

If you already have Nikon; stick with it. Your lenses are the most costly thing to replace.

[idleidolidyll]

Originally Posted by TheX

I still have an F2 Photomic. Got it in the 70's, still works.

excellent camera: I have the old F with a photomic head made in the late 1960's.

i also have a selection of old 1940's and 50's box cameras and use those occassionally for effect

[DUCeditor]

As usual what camera to get depends on your needs and goals.

I expect to get back into film photography at some point - likely upon retirement. If/when I do it will not be to do witt film what I can do with digital which is to take images on the fly. To me the beauty of film and all that goes with it is that it rewards deliberation. There is no 'take a quick peek and do it again.' What there is is just the opposite: The opportunity to make a multitude of permanent decisions each of which will determine what the image is.

Since I will then be thinking slow I will use a camera that requires thought at every stage -- no shortcuts. And to me that means no automation.

In the Nikon family there are a host of cameras that would serve that purpose well.

An old Nikon F - sans meter - would be the basic. Mechanical shutter. manually set everything. This would require hand metering and I would likely when possible ignore reflected readings and use multiple incident readings -Thus forcing myself to consider how light is falling throughout the frame.

The Photomic F2 mentioned by TheX would also work beautifully as would/could the electronic shuttered F3.

As likely I will go to a larger format. I have a full 6x7cm Pentax system that I shaped like an enormous 35SLR. Its SMC Pentax lenses are superb.

But perhaps even more tempting would be to go with a viewfinder camera as I mentioned in an earlier thread -- perhaps even going so far as to use Gumbichromate materials. (Fun With a Ninteenth Century Camera) Now thats antedigital! (Note, I did not say anti digital)

-don

[SS904]

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll

Actually, that still applies with digital.

'Film choice' is now a decision of light balance, B&W, Sepia etc and it still has a significant effect on the final image.

I completely agree with everything you posted, except the quoted.

Sensor, onboard image processing, and even software for post processing continually improves. While you can create many "film" styles with camera’s onboard processing, and even replicate those same attributes in post if you're shooting RAW, the characteristics of the camera's sensor will forever have an impact on final output. Pixel size and density, higher ISO noise handling capabilities and output resolution are all permanent once the camera is manufactured. You cannot take a Canon 10D and update it with the latest greatest sensor or image processor boards as they come out. In film, you simply had to change film to completely change the cameras output. In many cases, if you needed a fast frame rate for sports, you just had to add a booster grip. In digital, it seems we often faced with choosing a camera based on what we intend to shoot. Need the highest frame rate and ISO capabilities for fast action? You may have to choose a camera with a crop sensor and lower resolution file than say a 35MM format digital. I like to shoot indoor low light fast action sports. That dictates high quality fast lenses, but also a fast upper end camera that in the world of Canon also means a lower resolution 1.3 crop sensor. My 1D3 can get away with pretty clean ISO 3200 shots with usable 6400 shots if exposed correctly. The 1D4 ups the ante by a full stop. If these were film cameras, I wouldn’t have to dish out the price of a used 996 to get that better ISO, I'd just have to buy the better film. All I’m saying is once you buy that digital, you’re locked in to certain features that you could simply change, to some extent, by changing film with a film body. Add to that the fact it is not ALWAYS about outright image quality, it is often about just getting the shot. With digital, you have to consider all of those aspects when choosing, because you are sort of locked in once you have a certain camera. It still all comes down to the photographer, after all Ansell Adams had no L lenses, but it is true that buying a digital takes a bit more consideration toward balancing price point with intended use than a film SLR did.

[DUCeditor]

Good thoughts Dan.

-don

[therabbit14]

well im not sure if my 35mm camera actually works anymore. i only bought it because i needed a cheap lense for my work. it was 50 bucks for the camera with the lense. can't beat that. there was no way i was bringing my 18-35mm to take pictures of cars in rain/snow/ice conditions. the camera was sitting on the edge of my window for about a year now collecting dust and a girl that was over the other night knocked it over. if i go for canon which i wont as the 1n or 1v is like over a grand used and im finding a lot of good F5's for 300 and for 500 bucks i can buy one mint that was never used in the field. i do have a very old canon 35mm film here with 2 telephoto lenses. my nikon is an f60.