Looking for analogue camera (135mm film)

<p>Does canon still produce 135mm film cameras, either reflex or viewfinder?</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This might be useful - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/</p>

<p>Canon no longer makes any film cameras. No Canon film cameras support ETTL2. </p>

<p>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.</p>

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?

<p>Thanks Jack.</p>

<p>Is exposure metering and autofocus as reliable as it is today on the pro bodies?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Is exposure metering and autofocus as reliable as it is today on the pro bodies?</p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>135 film is small format; I was just wondering if you might consider shooting larger format film (120, or even sheet film) instead.</p>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly ;)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>I don't want to start a hostile debate about film vs digitial. It's just and observation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just to be pedantic, it's either 135 film or 35mm film, not 135mm.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>When you say motor drive, do you mean battery grip? Is it an add-on that you can remove from the body?</p>

<p>When mounting canon ef lenses on non-canon rangefinders, what functions do you lose?</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the support!</p>

<p> </p>

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.

<p>I bought an EOS-1 on ebay for around 140 GBP, it uses all the standard EF lenses and works very nicely with them.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you know a good canon 135mm rangefinder for travel and hobby? Something lightweight and compact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really the right forum for that question however, being a switch hitter I can lend some guidance. Here you go.<br /> Canon 7<br /> <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX</a><br /> Canon P<br /> <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00ZjJv">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ZjJv</a><br /> Canon IIF2<br /> <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00ZfEM">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ZfEM</a></p>

<p>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. <br /> 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.<br /> <br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you say motor drive, do you mean battery grip? Is it an add-on that you can remove from the body?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When mounting canon ef lenses on non-canon rangefinders, what functions do you lose?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Please, to echo Walter elsewhere, it's a FILM camera. The word "<em>analog(ue)</em>" (probably pronounced ANAL - log) is anachronistic and somehow 'wrong'.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Depending on what you want the cheap 620 or 650 option is worth a shot.</p>

<p>I recently shot a roll of film with my 23 year old EOS 650 using modern lenses and it still works great.<br /> (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...)<br /> And the viewfinder is positively huge. (OK, huge is an overstatement, however it's bigger than a 5D-ii's.)</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p><div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>My experience is that unless you are having special processing done, there is no <em>objective </em>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 <em>subjective </em>benefits, there's nothing that translates to the final print objectively.</p>

<p>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 <em>usable</em> range that will make its way to the final print.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>I recommend you get a 7Ne r 7N. Inexpensive, solidly featured and great form factor.</p>

<p>They support ETTL II. Not sure why other people state that film cameras don't.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>