First SLR... "Classic" SLRs vs Canon EOS

[James G. Dainis]

I kind of thought the extra queen was to sneak onto the board when your opponent wasn't looking. I would say that 90% of the time when I see a chess board set up as background in a movie or on TV the white square is in the wrong corner.

[Moving On]

“White Right, Queen on her color”....

Just Checkmated the Wife in 10 minutes.

I think the board laugh got her flustered.

I told her to rotate it 90 degrees and she said “Which way”.....;)

She has been practicing on an iPad app and is getting better all the time.

I’m sure the days of my last shred of ego are numbered.....

[kmac]

On the other hand, if you have an interest in the history of photography and the development of cameras, you might well do what many of we members are doing, learning old skills, acquiring old manual cameras and trying them out

 

Good point Rick. I've gone to the extreme with old manual cameras now, recently purchasing 80-100 yr old Kodak folders. I get more joy out of refurbishing and using them than all my other cameras. The more work I have to do to get some film exposed in them, the more I like it. With one old 2A parts folder, I swapped the original three speed Kodak shutter with a new Polaroid Tominon 105mm f4.5 cable operated lens. The quality of the images blew my mind - all up cost for camera, the Tominon and NOS bellows was around A$100 + postages

 

The simpler the cameras the more reliable they'll be. However, Kodak said not to lubricate their shutters, but they're getting so old now they need a touch of oil on certain parts to keep the shutter lever from sticking, and the springs, which lose some of their tension over time, can do their job more easily.

 

I don't own any Canons or Nikons (just one Nikkormat with dead light meter I bought for a Russian mirror lens that has a Nikon bayonet attachment), but I do have a Pentax KM and it has two adjustable pots for adjusting meter accuracy and they're easily accessible once the top cover is removed. When buying though, it's best to know that the meter is already working and not erratically. The less electronics, the less worries - is my motto. Most modern SLRs will end up as display pieces, only those who have "little used" and "not abused" cameras will be the lucky ones.

[spmc]

Wow! I just got home from work. Firstly, thank you everyone for the many thoughtful (and sometimes quite detailed!) responses. I am so impressed by the expertise and enthusiasm in this community. This thread is a virtual encyclopedia on thoughts and recommendations for a prospective SLR newbie.

 

My experience with photography? 1) Disposable 35mm cameras, 2) Inexpensive point-and-shoot digitals, 3) Cell phone cameras, 4) a very nice Olympus "Tough" TG-4, and 5) an old box...

 

My interest in film, and photography in general, was accidentally awakened when an old (circa 1947) ANSCO Shur Shot Jr. found it's way to my house. It takes 120 medium format film and shoots a massive 6x9cm negative. I dusted everything off, cleaned up the optics, bought some Ilford HP4+ film, and shot a roll. Since I'm a DIYer kind of guy, I also bought a Patterson tank, changing bag, and developing chemicals. I was amazed that I could actually develop film at home and also scanned my negatives with a an improvised rig. With great advice from the digital darkroom forum I got better at scanning and post processing my next roll of film.

 

Anyway, the above experience with the old box camera got me more interested in the technical aspects of photography. The ANSCO box camera has one simple meniscus lens, one aperture and one shutter speed, so very little control of the exposure other than choosing my shots. I had previously been intimidated by the apparent number of variables involved with "serious" cameras (i.e. so many numbers, dials, etc), but having gone down this rabbit hole, I am now interested in learning more. As in, learning more about how to control and compose photographs.

 

My interest in film is somewhat atavistic. I like the history, chemistry, and process of turning light into images on a physical medium (even if I use a computer to process the final image). I think there is something special about the way film looks vs a digital image, but I admit that might just be a temporary

fetish...

 

Here are some of the ones I liked from my last roll on the box camera:

 

[Mike Gammill]

Another advantage to the FM2 is with its shutter speed range topping our at 1/4000 second, you can use any of the 500mm f 8 mirror lenses and not run out of shutter speeds- even in full sunlight with ISO 400 film.

I have the electronic FE-2 which also goes to 1/4000 seconds.

[orsetto]

Given that you started with a larger-frame roll film box camera, I suspect you might not enjoy a 35mm SLR as much. The smaller film doesn't give the same tonality, or handling / viewing pleasure during processing. OTOH, 35mm film is usually easier to digitize.

 

More sophisticated cameras with the same 6x9 film size as your Ansco might be problematic: the only options are old folding cameras or solid-body rangefinders. The folders tend to need expensive service and would likely be more expensive to buy than a good starter 35mm SLR. The solid rangefinders are huge, heavy, and again expensive. If you're willing to try the square 6x6 film format, some nice twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras like the Ricoh Diacord can be had for $150 or so. The gotcha with most 120 roll film cameras is they are completely manual (no meter), so you must use a handheld light meter or light meter app on your phone. Since you've been getting decent exposures with your box camera, you'd likely do well with a meterless camera plus the phone app to guide you on aperture/shutter settings.

 

If you want to start cheap with a good 35mm SLR, check Goodwill stores or eBay for a Nikon Nikkormat FTn with 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor lens. These can be found for $50-$60 in full working condition or $40-$50 if the meter is dead. Bulletproof construction, great shutter, handles well, and if you decide you need a fancier SLR or would prefer a larger roll film camera, you could resell the Nikkormat and only lose perhaps $20 on the thing. Nikkormat was the boomer "Pentax K1000" bought by jillions of college students in the '60s thru mid '70s: Nikon's most popular camera for an entire decade until everything went electronic in the late '70s. So many of them are floating around that they go for minimal money nowadays. Anything slightly nicer would cost nearly double, anything less (generic no name) would be risky, tho you might find something like a nice Chinon Memotron with 55mm f/1.8 for around $35 in a dusty pawn shop.

Edited February 26, 2020 by orsetto

[William Michael]

Thank you.

 

A comprehensive response.

 

I think, in summary, when contrasting the 'classic' options of a film camera to a newer Canon or Nikon SLR, you'll probably have more DIY (fixing and fossicking) and collector's (historic) fun, if you pursue the classic options - on the other hand, a newer Canon or Nikon SLR will allow an easier and quicker path to the making of film photos, including access to a range of high quality, easily available, lenses.

 

WW

[rodeo_joe1]

Anyway, the above experience with the old box camera got me more interested in the technical aspects of photography.

Hmmm. If the technicalities of exposure control - varying aperture and shutter speed, coupled with ISO - are new to you, then film in not the best way to learn.

 

A digital camera that offers full manual control (doesn't have to be a DSLR) will be far better to learn on.

 

Using film to learn basic exposure technique is like learning to juggle with balls that mysteriously hang in the air for an indefinite period of time and come down at random. Sometimes they don't come down at all, and you're left wondering why. Was it something I did wrong, or did some outside force take a hand? You might never know!

 

Don't make life difficult for yourself. It's too short and time too precious.

 

Once you've learned the basics and seen the results you can get from a half-decent digital camera; then decide if you want to continue to use film. But be prepared to be very disappointed at the (lack of) quality that 35mm size film can deliver.

 

I think there is something special about the way film looks vs a digital image

I think you're mistaken. Especially since you're just turning your film negatives into a digital positive image to view them. There's no 'magic' in film that a (good) digital camera can't emulate or better.

 

I say this as somebody that used film professionally and for personal use for over 40 years - it was all there was then. My first decent digital camera was an absolute revelation and release from the tyranny of film use. That's when the fun came back into my photography, and I haven't looked back. YMMV.

The above is from a cheap (used) little digital camera FWIW.

Edited February 26, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Moving On]

A P-51 Mustang can’t touch an F-16........

 

But..........

[kmac]

A P-51 Mustang can’t touch an F-16........

 

But..........

 

But ..... the Mustang is more revered

Edited February 26, 2020 by kmac

[orsetto]

Film is film, digital is digital. Belaboring the point that film is more of a PITA to use than digital is irrelevant to someone who has already stated they enjoy the analog workflow of self-processing, unexpected results, etc. Yes, you can make digital look somewhat like film but those who really like film prefer actual film, from the cameras to the processing to the final look of the image (warts and all). One can argue whether using 35mm film today is still worth the trouble vs larger film formats or digital, but a lot of people do like the grainy, specific look of 35mm film imagery. To each his own: its a miracle we can even still buy film and get it processed at all, so if someone gets their jollies from 35mm or 6x6 or 6x9 or 4x5, more power to them for as long as those options continue to exist.

 

Re learning exposure techniques: while film and digital share some similarities, there are also a couple significant differences depending on the film involved. Modern digital sensors output amazingly versatile files that can be endlessly post-processed, while film typically has less margin to play with in one direction or the other (and has other properties like grain that may complicate major post-exposure adjustments). Techniques learned to expose bw negative film properly may not completely carry over to digital, and vice versa: each medium rewards or punishes different tweaks. A little mental flexibility goes a long way when alternating between film and digital photography.

[Moving On]

Gardeners go to grocery stores.

Fishermen go to Captain D’s.

 

It’s all good.

[rodeo_joe1]

Techniques learned to expose bw negative film properly may not completely carry over to digital, and vice versa:

Total garbage.

Exposure is exposure, motion blur is motion blur and depth-of-field is.... well, you get the idea.

Digitally gained skills are totally and transparently transferrable to film, except they're more quickly, and usually more cheaply gained.

 

But that's just the mechanistic part of the photographic craft. Aren't we ignoring the far more important aspects of composition, lighting, developing an eye for a picture etc.?

to someone who has already stated they enjoy the analog workflow. .

You mean the half-arsed 'analog' workflow that ends in a digital image or inkjet print?

Edited February 26, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Moving On]

Dude sure knows how to make his point......

Been to lots of Rodeos.

[orsetto]

Total garbage.

Exposure is exposure, motion blur is motion blur and depth-of-field is.... well, you get the idea.

Digitally gained skills are totally and transparently transferrable to film, except they're more quickly, and usually more cheaply gained.

 

Motion blur is motion blur, agree. Disagree with the rest: DOF parameters change significantly at different film and sensor sizes. Even just between different film stocks (Portra vs Velvia vs TriX), or between different sensor generations (Nikon D850 vs Canon 5DIV vs Fuji X Pro), exposure techniques will vary because you'll need to bias within the performance envelope of the specific medium. Jumping between film and digital will have its own set of variations, depending on your preferred sensor and film type. Can you get away with applying exactly the same exposure habits to both? Sometimes, but sometimes not if you want optimum results from both.

 

Someone coming from digital expertise to film will get quite a shock if they try to play the same Photoshop games with film that they do with Nikon D850 files. Digital gives greater flexibility to balance original shooting parameters with post processing. But using film, you really want to nail the best exposure possible for that specific film during the shoot, which tends to be a compromise exposure that can't be expanded much with post tricks. A digital exposure mindset applied to film can result in disappointments, a film exposure mindset applied to digital can be unnecessarily constraining. Its like driving a Chevy Corvette vs a Chevy Suburban: both are wheeled transportation vehicles that will get you to a destination, but each has different strengths/weaknesses.

 

Aren't we ignoring the far more important aspects of composition, lighting, developing an eye for a picture etc.?

 

No one is ignoring that: OP is juggling several different types of digital and film camera at the moment, and has some idea of where they want to go creatively. OP says they even enjoy processing their own film, something I wouldn't do anymore if you paid me (and I hate scanning my film, so tedious). Some photographers simply enjoy the "craft" aspect to film photography, including the drudge work that one avoids with direct digital capture. After decades of film work, you're understandably glad to leave all that behind, but some newcomers find it fascinating.

 

Different approaches, different personalities, different expectations. Like many of us of a certain age, I'm in the middle: along with digital I still shoot some film mostly because I love using my old cameras, but if I could buy a magic affordable insert that would convert all those cameras to digital I'd be all over it. Unfortunately that doesn't quite work so well in practice, as anyone who's used a digital back on their Hasselblad 500cm can attest.

 

You mean the half-arsed 'analog' workflow that ends in a digital image or inkjet print?

 

Again, what some of us see as "half arsed" and tedious, others see as a zen craft or creative opportunity. Age and experience probably has a lot to do with it: if you're a retired pro who was forced to do their own developing and printing (or deal with lab stress), and hated every minute of it for decades, of course you'll have a hard time wrapping your mind around 20-somethings who think doing it on a smaller personal scale is actually fun.

[joe_hodge]

Gratuitous pic of my current SLRs:

 

 

Nikkormat FTn with 50/1.4

Bronica SQ-B with 80/2.8

Canon EOS 630 with 20/2.8

 

taken on iPhone :)

[Moving On]

Canon Elan II

More from the Bathroom Sink

Not bad for a $60 camera...A little photoshop to shorten the DOF would make it even better.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Moving On

[Mike Gammill]

Another cheap EOS is the Rebel K. Not as well constructed as the Elan II. The kit lens was a capable 28-90.

Snowy angel, Rebel K with Tamron 19-35, Plus-X

[spmc]

Lots of great things to ponder, friends. Thank you again! I am learning a lot by digging into the manual settings on my TG-4. There is only so much I can do with it's lens but making a decent negative scanning rig with it has taught me a lot. I'm a tinkerer by inclination and education. Old motorcycles, home recording, old manual typewriters, homebrewing, and more recently 3D printing are among the hobbies/obsessions that I have played with over the last 15-20 years. I do enjoy chemistry, process, mechanisms and "obsolete" technology.

 

35mm SLRs seem to be a "standard" for enthusiasts with common lexicon for requesting advice and receiving feedback, so I figured that would be a logical progression. I am now somewhat thinking that maybe I should keep playing with medium format and look into something a little more aperture and focus options than my box camera as my next step, since I like the pictures I am am getting. Maybe something like the Agfa Isola (Agfa Isola)? Baby steps?

 

This is my current scanning rig, using the Olympus TG-4, an LED light panel, and my custom 3D printed negative holder. I can fully resolve the film grain on HP5+ negatives so not that bad, I think. My aunt says she has an old German enlarger in storage. Now I'm thinking, darkroom?...

 

[kmac]

A 40yr old neg brightened up a little. My digital cameras I have to-day would have blown most of the whites out.

The original scan was 30MP, 6753 x 4515 pixels. The scanner faithfully reproduced everything in this neg as far as I'm concerned.

 

The camera was only the Pentax KM, nothing fancy. To-day a good one is $90 or less. Film is still needed for trying out old cameras

if you make a hobby of it and inclined to show an interest in old stuff.

 

 

 

[rodeo_joe1]

Even just between different film stocks (Portra vs Velvia vs TriX), or between different sensor generations (Nikon D850 vs Canon 5DIV vs Fuji X Pro), exposure techniques will vary because you'll need to bias within the performance envelope of the specific medium.

Absolutely irrelevant if you're a complete beginner trying to get your head around the effect of aperture and shutter speed variation, and the relationship between the two.

 

Take this simple 'five finger exercise' example: The brief is to produce a panned shot showing a (fairly) sharp moving subject against a blurred background.

 

With digital you can simply take a suck-it-and-see approach. Varying the shutter speed until the background blur looks right, and then practising the timing and muscle-eye coordination needed to release the shutter at the right moment during the pan.

 

With film OTOH, you'd have to take precise notes for each shot, and compare the results to the notes, just to arrive at a suitable shutter speed - a day and a film wasted later. Then you'd have to go back and hope that your panning technique was good, because there's no way you could meaningfully couple your panning technique to the results seen hours later. You might never get it right.

 

That's just one example. There are many others where instant, or at least very rapid feedback makes the whole learning process smoother, quicker and easier using digital photography over film.

Even just between different film stocks (Portra vs Velvia vs TriX), or between different sensor generations (Nikon D850 vs Canon 5DIV vs Fuji X Pro), exposure techniques will vary because you'll need to bias within the performance envelope of the specific medium.

Fancy words, but nobody should get that anal about such a simple procedure as exposure. For a start, a 50 year old mechanical camera ain't gonna have a shutter or aperture mechanism that allows fine-tuning and consistency of exposure within less than about half a stop.

My digital cameras I have to-day would have blown most of the whites out.

Then your not using your digital camera properly. And certainly not using 'Expose To The Right' metering or shooting RAW.

 

Sloppy technique will give poor results no matter what equipment you're using.

Edited February 27, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Moving On]

Not all Bliss is Ignorance.....

 

;)

[kmac]

Then your not using your digital camera properly. And certainly not using 'Expose To The Right' metering or shooting RAW.

 

Sloppy technique will give poor results no matter what equipment you're using.

 

I only have compact digital cameras, only the exposure can be adjusted in those cameras to under-expose for highlights, and then of course the rest of the scene is under-exposed trying to get the highlights right. It usually takes 3/4 to 1 stop under-exposure to get highlights tamed. My turn hasn't come yet to have expensive digital equipment, but when it does, I still won't let go of film, not with all the old film cameras I wish to try, even if it means trimming sheet film to fit, which I do often. I'm trying Kodak 2As, a 3A and just bought a No3 to shoot readily available Shanghai 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" - It's all good fun

[BeBu Lamar]

I find it's hard to recommend. I have about 40 cameras and the oldest was made around 1950's. The newest around 2000. My favorite camera is the Nikon F3HP made around 1980's but it's just me.

[stuart_pratt]

Exposure is exposure,

 

Quite. I recently had the misfortune of going to London to look at a Leicaflex SL, allegedly fully functional with accurate meter, from a reputable dealer too. I'm on the hunt for one to send to Germany to get CLA'd so I've got something to see me out!

It was in great shape, shutter speeds all good, clear viewfinder (rare), non-plastic lens release, all the good things. When I checked the meter against my D700, using the flat light brown pavement outside, it was reading at least two stops over, and more, pointing at a flat grey sky. ‘Oh, it’ll read differently to your DSLR’ I was told by the proprietor, who, one would hope, knows about these things. Oh really, I said. 'How’s that? Surely ISO is ISO (or ASA for old school), it’s calibrated to a known and world-wide standard, or should be'. I think at this point he realised I was, at least fairly familiar with such things and he retreated trying to con me into buying something that was billed as fully functional, but which was essentially, faulty. I didn’t get any sensible answer, because there is none – it was bust.

 

Needless to say I didn’t buy it, and I won’t be patronising his shop in the future.