Looking for analogue camera (135mm film)

[d_f11]

<p>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.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>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.</p>

[HenryUK]

<p>The EOS 5 (A2E) was a nice camera in its day but was infamous for mode dial failures.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For my money, I'd go for EOS 1V, EOS3, EOS 30V (7NE), and EOS 300X (T2), in that order.</p>

<p>The older models feel slow and clunky by comparison.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZpMi"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2346076">Chris Nielsen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 05, 2012; 07:19 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough :)</p>

 

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>Film is not small format, quite the contrary</p>

</blockquote>

<p>true, but 135 is known as miniature :)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>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".</p>

<p>Even more off topic - Schmalfilm is 8mm movie film.</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<p>The point is:</p>

<ul>

<li>135 film is larger than every digitial consumer camera with a cropped sensor and </li>

<li>135 film has a significantly larger dynamic range than every digital camera of 24*36 size or smaller.</li>

</ul>

<p>Since aps-c has become the new standard, 135 film is a "step up" from that standard in terms of size and DR.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>135 film has a significantly larger dynamic range than every digital camera of 24*36 size or smaller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Really</em>? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?<br /> I have shot with film for over fifty years, and lovely as Kodachrome (my most common film) was, it certainly <em>seems</em> to me that its "dynamic range" was considerably less than what one sees even with APS-C, much less 35mm-size, digital.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Really</em>? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?</p>

</blockquote>

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

<br />I think there is no better fact-based source than taking the picture yourself.<br>

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 <em>in a single shot</em>, which is what color film captures (b&w film captures even more!), I'd be happy to hear it.</p>

<p> </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>I have shot with film for over fifty years, and lovely as Kodachrome (my most common film) was, it certainly <em>seems</em> to me that its "dynamic range" was considerably less than what one sees even with APS-C, much less 35mm-size, digital.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>"Fact" means that, not a personal opinion based "taking the picture yourself" -</p>

<p>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, <em>I</em> just don't see those film advantages you all claim.</p>

<p>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 <em>not</em> know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.</p>

<p>As for the advantages of "film", now suddenly it's not film, but only <em>some kinds of film</em>..... If you mean only C/N film, then you should say so, not claim some abstract superiority of FILM in general.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Really</em>? Can anyone provide an actual fact-based source, as opposed to anecdotal opinion, to support this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

Look out for pictures of coloured crayons very soon!</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>"Fact" means that, not a personal opinion based "taking the picture yourself" -</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't use the word "fact" - I was merely giving my opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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 <em>not</em> know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't use the word "advantage" - In fact, digital has far more advantages than film in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the advantages of "film", now suddenly it's not film, but only <em>some kinds of film</em>..... If you mean only C/N film, then you should say so, not claim some abstract superiority of FILM in general.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I was the one requesting "fact-based" discussion to which you replied with a personal opinion.</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p>If you shoot RAW and use ACR or some such, even in a single shot, <em>I</em> just don't see those film advantages you all claim.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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 <em>not</em> know whether an image is one or the other when the test is done.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just take a look at images containing sky or interior/exterior shots. The difference is so clear.<br>

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.</p>