Looking for analogue camera (135mm film)

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by charcoal_happy, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Does canon still produce 135mm film cameras, either reflex or viewfinder?
    If not, I'd like to be a bit informed before shopping for 2nd hand. Could you provide me a list or a brochure of the last generation of analogue cameras by canon, both reflex and viewfinder, that will work with today's slr lenses and ettl 2 ? Thanks!
     
  2. This might be useful - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/
     
  3. Canon no longer makes any film cameras. No Canon film cameras support ETTL2.
    If you want to cut out all the crap, you need either the Canon EOS 3 or the Canon EOS 1V. The EOS 3 is an absolute bargain on the used market, is built to pro standards and is one of Canon's best film cameras. The EOS 1V is the ultimate 35mm SLR but still commands relatively high prices and does not, in my opinion, offer much more than the EOS 3. Don't worry about the lack of ETTL2, all modern ETTL2 flashes are backwards compatible with older ETTL systems. The original ETTL is as good as you'll ever need.
     
  4. Do you already have a Canon dSLR? And, if so, why would you necessarily want a small-format film counterpart? Have you considered stepping up a format size or two for potentially a new and different experience?
     
  5. Thanks Jack.
    Is exposure metering and autofocus as reliable as it is today on the pro bodies?
     
  6. Do you already have a Canon dSLR? And, if so, why would you necessarily want a small-format film counterpart? Have you considered stepping up a format size or two for potentially a new and different experience?​
    Film is not small format, quite the contrary. I do own a digital full frame body with some lovely L glass but I'm bothered by the lack of dynamic range (not counting hdr, which doesn't appeal to me).
    In particular for b&w, I think the tonal range and grain character of film is highly superior to digital. You're free to correct me if I missed something.
     
  7. 135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.
     
  8. Is exposure metering and autofocus as reliable as it is today on the pro bodies?​
    I certainly think so. I shoot with a 5D MkII DSLR and the EOS 3. The autofocus on the EOS 3 is far superior to the AF on the 5D. It's faster, more accurate and has 45 selectable AF points including eye-controlled selection. It's exposure meter is at least as good. The EOS 3 also has a faster frame rate, especially when combined with the PB-E2 grip.
    I'm not sure how the AF on the EOS 3 and 1V compare to the AF on today's 1 series DSLRs but it is certainly very good indeed. For the money, any EOS user interested in shooting 35mm film would be insane not to consider an EOS 3.
    135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.​
    I think Charcoal is probably thinking along the same lines as me. If you already own a selection of Canon L glass then why bother moving to a different system for film? That would mean buying a whole new set of lenses. The EOS film system makes perfect sense.
     
  9. 135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.
    I think Charcoal is probably thinking along the same lines as me. If you already own a selection of Canon L glass then why bother moving to a different system for film?​
    Exactly ;)
    I'll keep an eye on eos 3 and 1V. Do you know a good canon 135mm rangefinder for travel and hobby? Something lightweight and compact.
    Am I confused or have others also observed the significant difference in tonal range between film and digital? Does someone else use film for hdr and b&w, and digital for commercial shoots?
    I don't want to start a hostile debate about film vs digitial. It's just and observation.
     
  10. Just to be pedantic, it's either 135 film or 35mm film, not 135mm.
     
  11. I have a 3 and pair of 1Vs - I prefer the 1V handling but the 3 is very close. You may want to check out the eye controlled AF on the 3 (it can be turned off). You will either like it or hate it (if you shoot in glasses you will probably hate it). Both are great camera - i suggest that if you do buy either body you get them without the motor drive. This is because the motors batteries add a lot of weight and size (making them the size of today's 1 series bodies almost) and the chargers are expensive. I doubt that you want to shoot the EOS 1V HS at 10fps given film costs. One of my 1Vs is set up as a HS model with the motor drive and the other as the standard body. The standard body is slightly smaller (but a little heavier) than the 5DII and is the one I would recommend. You may be able to find a "New" EOS1V as some of the stores never sold them all. In terms of AF I cannot comment on the latest 1 series bodies but my EOS1DIIN and my EOS 1V / 3 have very similar AF performance and the systems are almost identical.
    Canon has not made rangefinders for years and they are now collectors items so good ones can be expensive. For a reasonably priced film rangefinder (non Leica) I would suggest either the Contax G1 / G2 a Voigtlander or Konica Hexar. As You will discover (with the exception of the Contax) rangefinders (especially Leica M mount glass - even the Voigtlander lenses) can be expensive.
     
  12. When you say motor drive, do you mean battery grip? Is it an add-on that you can remove from the body?
    When mounting canon ef lenses on non-canon rangefinders, what functions do you lose?
    Thanks to everyone for the support!
     
  13. The 1v comes with two versions, without the motor drive, or 1v HS, with motor drive. But you can remove the base plate and add the motor drive yourself. The difference is that 1v HS comes with the motor drive already attached, hence no base plate. Also you can add a battery grip for extended battery power. But to achieve 10 fps, you need the motor drive (also requires additional batteries inside).

    The last of Canon film cameras, Elan 7N and 7NE (with eye control) support the latest E-TTL II.

    Hope this helps.
     
  14. I bought an EOS-1 on ebay for around 140 GBP, it uses all the standard EF lenses and works very nicely with them.
     
  15. I have exactly the same set-up as Philip: a 1V, 1V-HS, and 3. I got the 3 first and was very happy with it. ECF works for me even though I wear glasses. But since I got my first 1V, I must say that I haven't used the 3 very much.
    Given the low prices that these superb bodies sell for these days, it doesn't make sense not to get at least one of them if you want to shoot film and already have a stable of EF lenses.
    In my estimation, the dynamic range of the film I typically use - Kodak Ektar 100 - seems to be greater than the sensor of my 5DII. With film, I tend to get fewer blown highlights and more shadow detail, and generally better exposures.
     
  16. Do you know a good canon 135mm rangefinder for travel and hobby? Something lightweight and compact.​
    Not really the right forum for that question however, being a switch hitter I can lend some guidance. Here you go.
    Canon 7
    http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX
    Canon P
    http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ZjJv
    Canon IIF2
    http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ZfEM
    BTW, the recommend of the 1V and EOS 3 as good deals now is true but they are still rather bulky and not really inexpensive if your idea is a casual foray into film use.
    I have the EOS 1n, which is still bulky and a bit noisy but offers a sealed pro level camera that can be found for around $100. On days when I have the camera on the trail all day and want something light, compact and quiet I reach for the Elan 7e that I bought, nearly mint, for around $40. You don't need to spend hundreds to get a decent EOS shooter for film. Of course, nothing wrong if you do.
     
  17. When you say motor drive, do you mean battery grip? Is it an add-on that you can remove from the body?​
    Yes. Just like today's DSLRs, you can buy battery grips etc. You can also buy power winders such as Canon's PB-E2. Power winders increase the drive speed (fps) of the camera. You may want to avoid these as shooting a 36exp roll of film in 5 seconds is an expensive hobby!
    I'll keep an eye on eos 3 and 1V. Do you know a good canon 135mm rangefinder for travel and hobby? Something lightweight and compact.​
    The only Canon 35mm rangefinders are old classics from the 70's such as the Canon GIII QL-17 etc. Good cameras but finding one in perfect working order can be trial and error.
    Am I confused or have others also observed the significant difference in tonal range between film and digital? Does someone else use film for hdr and b&w, and digital for commercial shoots?​
    The dynamic range of digital versus film is well documented and is one of the last hurdles digital needs to accomplish. The only exception is slide film which needs perfect exposure and excellent scanning to get the best out of it. You're probably best sticking to the latest C41 emulsions such as Portra and Ektar. They have huge dynamic range and are very fine grain.
    When mounting canon ef lenses on non-canon rangefinders, what functions do you lose?​
    Everything. You will lose AF and aperture control. You need to forget about doing this as it's a waste of time. If you want something reliable and compact, buy something like a Canon EOS 5000 body. They are tiny, will accept all EF lenses and cost next to nothing.
     
  18. For what it's worth, I got a canon film body to go along with my dSLR thinking I'd use it a bunch for black and white. Turns out I didn't. I get better results(to me) with my digital images than 35mm film. I wound up with a Bronica ETRS however, medium format, that I greatly prefer for b/w than 35 or the dSLR.
     
  19. Please, to echo Walter elsewhere, it's a FILM camera. The word "analog(ue)" (probably pronounced ANAL - log) is anachronistic and somehow 'wrong'.
    Older EOS 1 model or 3 is best, as already suggested. Cheapest solution: one of the early EOS film models starting with the EOS 650 at around $20-30 for a body.
     
  20. I must correct some of the responders, the 1V has a built in motor drive whether in the HS configuration or not. In the HS or high speed configuration with the PB-E2 and NP-E2 battery one can attain a frame rate of 10fps, if used with 8 AA's the maximum frame rate is 6fps. The plain 1V without the aforementioned accessories will transport film at a rate of 3.5fps.
     
  21. Depending on what you want the cheap 620 or 650 option is worth a shot.
    I recently shot a roll of film with my 23 year old EOS 650 using modern lenses and it still works great.
    (A single AF point that prefers to be perpendicular to a contrast rich line, auto exposure, automatic film loading and transport, it does it all...)
    And the viewfinder is positively huge. (OK, huge is an overstatement, however it's bigger than a 5D-ii's.)
    Regards,
    Matthijs.
    00ZpKX-430705584.jpg
     
  22. Yes, 35mm is small format. For proof, I give you 120mm film, commonly referred to as 'medium format,' and sheet film, commonly called 'large format.' Sort of sums it up pretty well there.
    My experience is that unless you are having special processing done, there is no objective benefit to shooting 35mm film over a 60D or better digital camera. And by 'special processing' I mean either carefully developing black and white yourself, or taking your C41 to a lab that offers a slow-processing service. While I won't argue that there may be lots of subjective benefits, there's nothing that translates to the final print objectively.
    Yes, the tonal range of the negative may be better, especially in the case of carefully developed black and white film. But unless you're prepared to print it in a wet lab yourself and spot-tone as needed, there's no extra usable range that will make its way to the final print.
    That said, I still shoot 35mm myself because I like the look. But I don't kid myself about knowing some magical secret to getting better photos that my DSLR-wielding buddies don't.
    If you want film, I strongly suggest going whole-hog with it. Why do most people want film? For the best tonal range. So why wouldn't you shoot medium format? You're already going to be paying $10+ a roll, so why compromise? You're probably not going to be shooting sports with film, so unless you want to take candids at night under available light, you're still paying half the cost of medium format, and getting between half and a quarter the information on the negative.
    You can use your lenses, sure. But I think if you really sit down and think about when you want maximum tonal range, definition, etc. - in other words, the photos that I really important to you - you'll see that you can probably take most of them with a single lens. Myself, I do almost everything in various formats with lenses that work out to a 60mm-90mm focal length on 35mm film.
     
  23. Zack, now it's my turn to be pedantic. It is called 120, not 120mm. If it was 120mm, then my 6x7
    camera would be 12x7
     
  24. I recommend you get a 7Ne r 7N. Inexpensive, solidly featured and great form factor.
    They support ETTL II. Not sure why other people state that film cameras don't.
     
  25. Johnny - my point on the 1VHS (or indeed a 3 with the PB-E2) is that the OP does not need the extra speed of the PB-E2 (10fps or 7fps on the 3) and that you cannot find the battery cover to turn your 1V HS back into a standard 1V. As I stated I own both versions of the 1V and have done for many years but these days I rarely use the 1VHS as it is just extra weight to carry. In addition the Ni-MH batteries (NP-E2 I believe) are getting old and the charger is very expensive if you can even find one these days.
    I would also take the 1V over a 1N or 1 as it is much newer and the AF is clearly better. I find that the AF in my (much maligned) 5DII performs as well as the AF in my 1N RS.
     
  26. Minolta X-700 - you can't go wrong with this camera. I've been, and still use them since their inception back in the early 80's. There are hundreds of them on e-bay at any given time. The MD and MD Rokkor lenses that go along with them are superb. Check out rokkorfiles.com, and Ken Rockwell has a good review. I've never seen/heard/read anything negative about this great camera.
     
  27. Canon EOS5 is worth a look - predecessor to the EOS3, well specified and yours for around $100 - just make sure the rear control wheel works.
     
  28. The EOS 5 (A2E) was a nice camera in its day but was infamous for mode dial failures.
    The EOS 300X (Rebel T2) also has E-TTL II. It is very small and light, and has the distinction of being the last film EOS body to be released by Canon.
    For my money, I'd go for EOS 1V, EOS3, EOS 30V (7NE), and EOS 300X (T2), in that order.
    The older models feel slow and clunky by comparison.
    Henry
     
  29. Chris Nielsen , Jan 05, 2012; 07:19 p.m.
    Zack, now it's my turn to be pedantic. It is called 120, not 120mm. If it was 120mm, then my 6x7 camera would be 12x7​
    Fair enough :)
     
  30. Film is not small format, quite the contrary​
    true, but 135 is known as miniature :)
    00ZpdV-431021684.JPG
     
  31. NTIM, but by this time we're already off so far that it doesn't matter if I just point out that in German 35mm is "kleinbild" -- literally "small picture".
    Even more off topic - Schmalfilm is 8mm movie film.
     
  32. The point is:
    • 135 film is larger than every digitial consumer camera with a cropped sensor and
    • 135 film has a significantly larger dynamic range than every digital camera of 24*36 size or smaller.
    Since aps-c has become the new standard, 135 film is a "step up" from that standard in terms of size and DR.
     
  33. 135 film has a significantly larger dynamic range than every digital camera of 24*36 size or smaller.​
    Really? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?
    I have shot with film for over fifty years, and lovely as Kodachrome (my most common film) was, it certainly seems to me that its "dynamic range" was considerably less than what one sees even with APS-C, much less 35mm-size, digital.
    BTW, I have looked into that here in previous posts, and those that purport to show that film has greater DR also have references (actual charts, not just shots out the window, oooh) to seemingly more rigorous tests that show the opposite.
     
  34. Really? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?​
    This afternoon I took a picture of a landscape. No backlight or any extreme lighting conditions. I measured the sky and the ground separately. There was a difference of 4 stops. On a sunny day, the difference is normally much bigger. I exposed for the sky, the brightest part, and took the picture.

    Result: the sky was properly exposed but the ground was much darker than how I saw it with my eyes. The rgb histogram showed slight clipping on the left side and none on the right side. I used ISO 100, in case you wonder.

    I think there is no better fact-based source than taking the picture yourself.
    This leads me to beleave that my camera has a dynamic range of four or five stops, which is as much as slide. If you can explain how you can capture 9 to 10 stops of EV with digital in a single shot, which is what color film captures (b&w film captures even more!), I'd be happy to hear it.
     
  35. I have shot with film for over fifty years, and lovely as Kodachrome (my most common film) was, it certainly seems to me that its "dynamic range" was considerably less than what one sees even with APS-C, much less 35mm-size, digital.​
    Kodachrome (or any other slide film for that matter) has less dynamic range than just about any digital sensor. The same cannot be said for C41 and B&W films. They have huge DR. I use a 5D2 which produces beautiful photographs but the range of tones captured when I shoot Portra 160 is sensational, way above what I can capture digitally.
     
  36. "Fact" means that, not a personal opinion based "taking the picture yourself" -
    For example, I just took a bunch of pictures this cloudy dark afternoon on a ISO 400 C/N 35mm film and the results which I have just been working with are far less "real" in my eyes with less "range" than I think I would have got had I shot on a digital camera. If you shoot RAW and use ACR or some such, even in a single shot, I just don't see those film advantages you all claim.
    You believe in the advantage, so you see it. Real experimentation (called double blind) requires that the person judging the result and the person administering the test do not know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.
    As for the advantages of "film", now suddenly it's not film, but only some kinds of film..... If you mean only C/N film, then you should say so, not claim some abstract superiority of FILM in general.
     
  37. Really? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?​

    Look out for pictures of coloured crayons very soon!
     
  38. "Fact" means that, not a personal opinion based "taking the picture yourself" -​
    I didn't use the word "fact" - I was merely giving my opinion.
    You believe in the advantage, so you see it. Real experimentation (called double blind) requires that the person judging the result and the person administering the test do not know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.​
    I didn't use the word "advantage" - In fact, digital has far more advantages than film in my opinion.
    As for the advantages of "film", now suddenly it's not film, but only some kinds of film..... If you mean only C/N film, then you should say so, not claim some abstract superiority of FILM in general.​
    I think you're confusing me with the die-hard film fanatics that shoot nothing but pictures of coloured pencils. I have NEVER claimed "abstract superiority" of film. I shoot film because I enjoy the nostalgia and I get results that are "different" from my digital work - not necessarily better. If you'd read my previous post you'd see that all I said was that slide film has less DR and C41 has huge DR. And with Portra 160 I can capture a range beyond that of my 5D2. That's all I said. The rest of it was in your imagination.
     
  39. Jamie, you're not the only one in this discussion. I was mostly responding to comments made by others, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
    I was the one requesting "fact-based" discussion to which you replied with a personal opinion.
     
  40. If you shoot RAW and use ACR or some such, even in a single shot, I just don't see those film advantages you all claim.​
    Perhaps that's because the film advantage only manifests itself when you develop film properly. There's a lot of latent image captured on film that only shows with appropriate development.
    You believe in the advantage, so you see it. Real experimentation (called double blind) requires that the person judging the result and the person administering the test do not know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.​
    Just take a look at images containing sky or interior/exterior shots. The difference is so clear.
    If you're happy with your digital camera, good for you. Perhaps you aren't very demanding and haven't discovered the true potential of high DR of film.
     

Share This Page