rob_sato

Nice. But that's like asking them to bring back film slr bodies. The bottom line with Nikon is that they are a business first and foremost. And where the money is is digital and full frame autofocus lenses. Zeiss already has the high end manual market and there is a whole world of used classic optics out there, Nikon and third party.

 

As my own real life example/pipedream: I wrote to Tamron once back when the whole landscape was shifting from manual to autofocus (late 80s). I had similar ideas along the lines of creating an interchangeable mount Adaptall 3 autofocus mount system to be backwards compatible with their existing Adaptall/Adaptall 2s. While I received interest, it was clear that all their R and D was going to go to the new moneymaker, autofocus lenses. And at that time, there was no practical way to make interchangeable mount ones. As history shows, Tamron did transition okay to the autofocus age, albeit , without their interchangeable mount lens system (which is what made Tamron lenses unique).

 

But hey, it's nice to dream. That's what casual conversations are for, right?

Knowing how each brand of digital camera varies from other brands and even

within their own line: All things being equal, which would (tend to) produce a

better image: A high megapixel setting with low/basic setting or a lower

megapixel image with a high/fine setting. EG: 6 megapixel camera with a

low/basic setting vs a 3 megapixel with a high/fine setting.

(Within reason, no way a 1 megapixel setting with a fine will be able to

challenge a 6 megapixel image at low...but within reason...)

 

Would they cross over at some point (same image quality level from both sides).

How much are you willing to spend? I use Tamrons too, great feature the Adaptall mount. Love the 35-210mm f/3.5-4.2. I'd suggest the N90s because it has a good deal of the F100's capabilities and is DIRT cheap right now on the used market. A fraction of the cost of an F100, F5 or F6. The only things that it lacks are vibration reduction lens capability (a vr lens can be used, and everything will work focusing/exposure except for the vr function) and G lenses have limited compatibility (can't use lenses in manual or shutter priority exposure mode because of lack of aperture ring on G lenses. I avoid them.)

 

Ebay, they're under a hundred .

Some information from long time Nikon user Ken Rockwell's website:

It is easy to see what kind of coating you have:

 

No coating: bright white reflections from the glass, just like a window, drinking glass or most TV sets. (Better TVs and computer monitors are coated so you see less reflections from room lighting.)

 

Single coating: dimmer blue or sometimes amber reflections when looking straight into the glass.

 

Multicoating; much darker reflections of many colors, especially green or dark red.

F/22 or 32. For $11 (gee, I just ran into someone who on here scored a 24mm f/2.8 for $5 and someone else who got a 50mm f/1.8 for $15, where are all you guys going? I wanna go there too...) and sharp negs, don't even worry about it. At those f numbers you're going to get diffraction (image fuzziness) and lose sharpness anyway.

 

The f/3.5 135mm isn't that well loved, but hey, it's a Nikkor and a decent one at that.

50mms as a class are the easiest film lenses to design. They can be made sharper, cheaper, faster and lighter then any other lens out there. The only ones that come close are the 35mm in the moderate wide angle class and the 85mm in the short tele class. And even there, it isn't even close (especially in terms of price).

 

Slow 50s like f1.7 and 2.0 are easy to make. F1.4s are a bit harder, but still doable with conventional technology. It's when they start to hit the f/1.2 class and faster that the limitations of regular technology set in. And all the exotic expensive stuff starts. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great balance between the speed and expense of a 1.2 and faster and the quality, compact size, sharpness and economy of a f1.7 and slower. And realistically, f/1.2 is only half a stop faster then 1.4.

 

That said, 50s are also hard to screw up. Compared to zooms and wide angles, they are much more consistent in quality.

 

The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor, no matter what generation is an unsung classic.

It may be overshadowed by the infamous Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2, the 105mm f/2.5 and other legends, but millions of copies of this lens were made and

many are still in use. Use it, enjoy it and don't worry about it.

The N6006 was a great older film slr. I love the simple N8008-like interface and built in flash. Hated the lithium battery. They have rechargeables now though. ;)

 

The N6006 can mount the lens in question (gee, did Nikon use every letter in the book to name this thing or what? ) but it will NOT autofocus because it is an AF-S lens. The 6006 will also not autofocus with AF-I Nikkors. The VR also won't work. The castrated "G" lens ( I hate those aperture -less things almost as much as I hate non rechargeable lithium batteries) has no f-stop control ring and can only be used in shutter priority and program mode. If you shot in apeture priority or manual, you will always be stuck shooting with that len's smallest f-stop (f16 or 22).

 

Basically, the N6006 is reduced to a manual focus, autoexposure camera with your lens. It's not worthless, but does have its potential limited. However, a limited WORKING N6006 is worth a dozen locked up dslrs. Since you already have it, I don't see why you can't keep it in your kit as an emergency backup body.

Opinions abound. My own included. I shot a lot of low budget weddings in the early 2000s. They were okay. Some of the photographers here have shown that they have had the exact OPPOSITE experience as you have with what one would assume would be similar clients. The bottomline is only YOU can decide and from the sound of it, you already have and are just trying to rid yourself of any vestiges of doubt. Even in a business sense, it makes sense. You make more per hour of effort with the "lower" end jobs. And you're happier. And less stressed. Sounds like to me, you are already ready to give up the 5k weddings because you yourself know that they aren't worth it for you.

 

Just a thought.

$5? Gee. For that, flare away! Seriously, just shoot the pics,digitally retouch them in Photoshop Elements or something, scan them if they're film, upload them if they're digital and enjoy.

The Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 was the cheapest 24mm wide angle out there for years, but that doesn't mean you can't take good pics with it.

 

That red stuff is definitely

lens flare. Maybe the baffling on the inside (the black paint which absorbs stray reflections) isn't totally dark or is chipped , or maybe the they scrimped on the lens coating. Or maybe both. Shooting into the sun directly is a tall order for any lens, especially zooms, wide angles, cheaper lenses and any combo of the three. Just shoot away and wipe it out in digital. And when shooting not directly into the sun, use a compatible hood (not too narrow or too wide) and keep the front and rear elements of the lens glass clean.

 

Excuse me, I'm gonna go look for a Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 in Nikon mount for $5...

Can you get your hands on a sample of this lens? Even top OEM camera/lens companies like Nikon and Canon can turn out defective gear. Rent an example or see if anyone in the local camera club has one. Call pros in the local area and see if they have that lens and ask if you could take a look. One famous advanced amateur photographer had to go through 4 samples of a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 before finding a good non defective example. Rare, but it does happen and you do have a legitimate concern. Those pro level zooms are pricey.

 

Make sure you have a full money back warrantee. I'd advise buying from a reputable online dealer like B and H or Adorama where you have a very liberal return policy in the event you aren't satisfied. Buy one from them, test them and if you're happy with it and the images, keep it. If not, return it for a refund or replacement.

 

Oh yeah, when you get an example, shine a light inside to check for weirdness like paint chips, dust and other stuff. Follow some combo of advice from all the other posters on the testing part. The best way to test any lens though is to go out and shoot what you would actually use it for and see if the results are what you want. There's no point in testing for stuff you don't use (Like the quality of f/16-f/22 on a digital slr...diffraction of course ruining any sharp images beyond say f/8-11 unless you're maybe using a full frame $5000 dslr.)

 

As always, good luck.

Bronica SQ/SQa/SQai series cameras give 6x6 at a very budget price. The main if you stick with the basics like an 80mm normal lens, 150mm moderate telephoto and maybe a 50mm wide angle. In all types of medium format slr systems, wide angles and zooms cost bucks. The SQ and its variants do pretty much most of what the more expensive Hasselblad can do. I don't know what kind of photography you intend to specialize in, but the ironic thing is for much wedding /portrait photography, Hasselblad's legendarily sharp Zeiss lenses often have to be toned down with Zeiss Softar or other filters to make them not so cuttingly sharp. Bronica's lenses are sharp, but I'm just saying that if sharpness is an issue on your mind for the quality of the lenses but you shoot portraits/weddings, it essentially becomes a non issue.

 

The only drawbacks compared to the Hassies I can really see are the lack of a mechanical shutter (a pain in the butt if the battery dies, which is why when I shot weddings, I had a lot of backup batteries. And some Bronicas give limited mechanical shutter speeds, at 1/500 second usually.) The other is that some models lack 'bulb'. My old SQ went down to only 8 seconds. An occasional limitation for long exposures.

 

A complete Bronica system is cheaper then ever, approaching or equalling 35mm equipment prices. Someone said look at KEH earlier, they are right.

 

Other alternatives in the lowbuck medium format range I would recommend are the Bronica 645 ETR series SLRs. They are often even cheaper then the SQ's . They are very similar in terms of operation and features. In the 6x7 range, I would recommend the venerable but nearly invulnerable Mamiya RB67. This monstrously large workhorse gives something even Hasselblad can't , a bigger image area and negative. And it has mechanical shutter speeds. It is bigger and heavier. But it is surprisingly cheap (at least the early models are, the last model can be pretty pricey and so are the RZ67 electronic sisters of the RB67, not to be confused with each other). Wide angles are disproportionately pricey though compared to the normal and tele lenses in the lineup.

 

Bronica has stopped making cameras as of 2006, but there are tons of them out there. They have dropped in cost so much that replacing them seems to be more economical then fixing them (except for special purpose stuff like ultrawide lenses, zooms, etc). There are however, a large number of independent third party camera repair shops that you can look up online who could help you. Whatever you ultimately choose, I wish the best of outcomes with it.

I would personally recommend Tokina AT-X type lenses. They are commonly used among working professionals as more affordable alternatives to Nikkors and Canon L glass. I myself have owned several examples of their lineup including a 28-70mm f/2.8, 20-35mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8. Tokina has extensive experience with fast constant aperture zooms at an affordable price. Their old manual focus 80-200mm f/2.8 was one of the first to offer that speed and focal length among third party manufacturers. They were also the VERY FIRST company to create an f/2.8 28-70mm , before Canon, Nikon, etc. I had that model for over a decade.

The lenses (especially the older models) are ruggedly build and made to withstand pro level wear and tear. I wouldn't get a variable aperture f/2.8-4 personally. I either use constant aperture f/2.8 s fast single focal length primes ( 24mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.2-1.8, etc) or go straight to high ratio variable apertures (35-200 f/3-4.5, etc.) If I have to put up with the annoying inconvenience of a variable aperture (especially for metered manual exposures) , I'd rather go straight to a zoom with a high ratio. 28-70mm is too short a range to put up with a variable aperture. Just a suggested recommendation. Whatever you decide, good luck.

 

Tokinas are super cheap on the used market.

If you can't afford the Nikon 20/24mm I'd recommend the Sigma counterparts. They have an ultrafast trio out there 20/24/28mm f/1.8s.

Wide open they may be a tad softer then the Nikkors but are a full stop and a third faster and cost a lot less. I wouldn't bother switching from an f/3.5 to an f/2.8. F/1.8 is a stop and a third faster then 2.8 and TWO stops faster then 3.5 . A huge difference. The speed advantages aren't really there for a 2.8. That's only half a stop and you give up the flexibility of a zoom. Where a prime really shines is high flare situations when all the glass in a zoom would create flare problems or when you have to have the speed wide open.

I'd go for the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 myself, just because it is pretty wide and still can be useable with a digital. Be careful though, you have to take into account the fact that all the Nikons and Sigmas that have been bought up are based on the 35mm film format. If they are put on a digital, their mm changes. The 20mm becomes a 30mm, the 24mm becomes a 36mm and the 28mm becomes a 42mm in digital None of them are nearly as wide as your 18mm-70 (which is equal to about a 27mm lens in digital.

The 20mm focal length would be your best bet for an overall lens.

Good luck and hoped this helped.

Kiron/Vivitars 28mm f/2s with a properly working aperture are dirt cheap. I'd say, I've never paid over $35 -40 for any of my copies. Like it's been said, watch out for the stuck aperture problem. The cheapest repair rate I've seen is nearly $50. Just get another one.

 

It isn't aspherical like the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 and it probably can't hold its own against say the (much more expensive) Nikkor 28mm f/2, but the price for the speed more then make up for it. A 28mm f/2 that's cheaper then a Nikkor 28mm f/3.5. That's a huge speed difference.

 

The old cliche of photo lenses, fast , cheap, good, pick any two applies to this lens. But when you're shooting hand held f/2 wide open with a 1600/3200 speed black and white film (rendering chromatic aberration moot), the whole argument of how sharp is it goes out the window. It becomes, can I get the picture: period? An f/2 allows more yes then no.

Check out the local fashion photographers when you get to London and maybe Paris to offer to assist. Schlep equipement, bags, gear. Observe, listen, stay out of the way unless needed, ask the right questions, be reliable and work hard. College is great. The College of Real Life can be just as good. Cheaper too tuition wise. You just pay the dollar equivalent in sweat, that's all. You choose the conversion ratio.

Ahhh. The N90s, N8008 on 'roids. Nice camera. Well, what is your budget and what angle lenses do you have so far? A 24mm f/2.8 prime is a good beginning lens if you don't know what to get. It is fast as the fastest zooms (but cheaper), it is just wide enough to be on the fence between standard wide angles and ultrawides. It is still useful as a general purpose lens because with the right use, it can go both ways. Ultrawides (20mm and wider ) can be tough to tame sometimes. Look on ebay for used Sigmas and other third party brand ones if you can't afford a Nikkor.

Keh and other used camera companies are good. For ultrawides, I don't think it really matters too much if it's af or manual because of the depth of field issue. Unless you're gonna use it wide open a lot. I have a Kiron 24mm f/2.0 I'm sending in to be repaired. It is manual focus, but faster, lighter and cheaper then any zoom. If 24mm's are a little too extreme or expensive, 28mm f/2.8s of every type are dirt cheap and common. They also give good image quality like the 50mm lens because it is hard to design a bad one. Tokina and Sigma made AF ones. They should be easy to find on ebay.

Jason, that's what the second entry about the Diacord was for. To address that.

Okay, Jason. For a hundred bucks. Just get the Diacord. lol.

Good. Light. Cheap. (Rearranged intentionally) Okay, let's address all these points, at least to some degree. Medium format gear is getting dumped left and right by wedding/portrait pros in favor of digital. There are tons of stuff out there. Let's take a rough look.

 

Good? All medium format is good compared to 35mm. A Leica or Contax with Zeiss lenses might be the 35mm image maker king supreme to many people. But, a lower priced medium format camera will at least equal and probably beat it. A good big one will beat a good little one every time.

 

Used Leica prices are still nuts even in this digital crazed era. Hasselblad prices also hold their own, especially lenses.

 

 

First let's look at what is not good (in my opinion). Chinese TLRs.(Not Japanese branded but Chinese made....fully Chinese branded and made here) Pearl Rivers, Seagulls, etc. They fall apart. Russian cameras. Yeah, some of it is good, but quality control is so notoriously inconsistent that it really can be playing Russian roulette (Kievs, etc).

However , Lubitel TLRs (166 Series ) though, are incredibly cheap. $20-35 on ebay for one with a 75mm f4.5 len.

 

Zeiss and other foldable rangefinders. Sharp enough, but fragile and expensive to fix.

 

Holgas, Dianas, other "toy " cameras. Unless "artsy" soft focus is what you are intentionally looking for, avoid.

 

Obscure makes like Koni-Omega and unreliable ones like older Bronicas (EC-TL etc).

 

Of course, if you find a full system for screamingly cheap (say under $200)and it all works because you get to test it to your full satisfaction, why not?

 

 

Okay.

Light. Well, you can start off with a rangefinder. Any 645 Fuji rangefinder is light. But they don't have interchangeable lenses. Or backs.

 

Any 645 slr will do. Mamiya, Bronica and Pentax all have reasonably priced system SLRS in 645 on the used market(equal to or cheaper sometimes then Mamiya C Tlrs). They all have a good selection of lenses. The Mamiya 645 has some special lenses (Fast f1.9 and soft focus )while the Bronica has flash sync at all shutter speeds and interchangeable backs for most of its models (with a couple of exceptions). The Mamiya's drawback is that it has a slow flash synch (1/60 second) and most of its backs aren't interchangeable. I believe the Pentax's drawbacks are the same as the Mamiya. A 645 slr makes the lightest medium format system camera because of its somewhat smaller image size. If you are moving up from 35mm , this is a good way to start because it handles in some ways like a 35mm. With 220 film, you can get 30 or 32 shots a roll of film depending on the brand of camera. They are also relatively cheap.

 

 

In the slightly larger 6x6 square format, if you can live with one lens, the Ricoh Diacord TLR is obscure and vastly underrated but a good choice (Ricoh has always been an underrated camera maker in general). They have good normal Riken Tessar type lenses or in some cases triplets. They are somewhat harder to find then the much more famous (and vastly overpriced) Yashicamat 124 series TLR. I would put a 50 year old Ricoh Diacord against a new Chinese Seagull Tlr any day of the week for reliability. They go on the used market for well under $100.

 

For system cameras, it is a tossup between the Mamiyaflex interchangeable lens TLR C series and Bronica SQ series SLRs. The TLR has a somewhat more limited lens selection (especially wide angle) and no interchangeable backs. On the other hand, they are fully mechanical and robust as tanks. They need no battery to operate and are much quieter and allow you to see the expression of the subject WHEN the shutter is being tripped. They are good for low light handholding because their lack of a slr mirror cuts down on image sharpness robbing vibrations from the mirror return slap.

 

They suck for macro and critical closeup work because of their parallax.

 

The Bronicas have a good lens selection and are great for all around work. They have interchangeable backs which allow you to shoot 6x6, 645 and even 35mm images. They do have mirror blackout and high vibrations. They need batteries to operate. Both the Mamiya and Bronica are about roughly even in price on the used market. There are lots of both out there.

 

In general, the normal standard lens (75mm, 80mm ), with an interchangeable lens camera will be cheapest followed by moderate telephotos (135mm, 150mm.) Wide angles can be shockingly expensive.

Condition matters too. Minty gear will cost more then very good or good. Avoid zooms unless you get a bargain. They are useful, but superexpensive and slow.

 

Mamiya RB67s. These are MONSTERS. But they are beautiful, robust monsters. They are all mechanical, something most Bronicas are not. They use a 6x7 image size, bigger then the standard square format or 645. They are also heavy as the blazes. They can be possibly be used 35mm style (with accessory adaptions like rapid focus gear,useful for getting high quality portrait/fashion work done ) , but the smaller, lighter 645s are naturally better suited for that.

 

They literally have one big edge. Their BIG image with NO cropping to get a rectangular image vs 6x6 which is often cropped (thus reducing it to roughly 645 quality).

 

RB67s, normal and medium telephotos (especially the older ones) are plentiful and cheap. If ultimate image quality is what you're going for, it's hard to go wrong with one of these tanks.

 

Light it's not. Cheap and good it is.

 

So. Let's see. Good. Just about any recent undamaged medium format gear is good, especially with proper technique.

 

Good and cheap. The RB67 is good and cheap. But not light.

 

Good, cheap and light. The Ricoh Diacord TLR (Tessar type lens) is a good cheap and light non system camera. The Lubitel might squeak in, because it is SO cheap and light. It weighs much less then the Diacord, but has a slower lens. Much easier to find then the Diacord...but it is a Russian camera with its unreliable/manufacturing defect prone nature...if you can get one for a song ($20 max)and test it then maybe it could be considered Fair, cheap and light. BTW, it only uses 120 film. On the other hand, for not much more then the price of a Holga, you can actually take fairly sharp pictures and not worry about damaging, losing or getting it stolen because it is so common and cheap.

 

The 645 system slrs out there, Pentax, Mamiya and Bronica are also good cameras. The older ones are really priced good. The Pentax is rarer and priced somewhat higher. The Mamiya ia in the middle. The Bronica is the most common and cheapest.

 

The Bronica SQ series of square format is also good if a tad heavier and a bit more expensive then its 645 cousin. The Mamiya C series system TLR is a different animal but in its own unique way, also a good choice.

 

My PERSONAL favorite is the Bronica ETR/ETRS/ETRSi 645 right now. They are somewhat cheaper then the other 645 offerings and have full flash sync and interchangeable backs. They also have at least one mechanical backup speed shutter (1/500 second). And they are somewhat cheaper then the equally excellent Bronica SQ/SQA/SQAi series of 6x6 SLRS.

 

Whatever you choose, you probably can't go wrong as long as it is undamaged and reliable.

 

Good luck and hoped all this medium format rambling helped some.

First off, if you're going for speed, 6x7 isn't the format for that. You have two choices from a less then break the bank point of view. Use a faster film or change systems to a smaller format like 6x6 or 645 where lenses of f/2.8 and faster are available. What is the iso of your current standard film? If it is 100 in anything, 400 will still generally look really good, especially because of your big neg. If you're already using a high speed film then maybe some ultrafast. Unfortunately, your options are limited beyond iso 1000-1600 for 6x7.

If you're shooting chrome, try the new Provia 400x. It's rated at RMS 11, finer grained then some older E6 Ektachromes and equal to the original (Pre Velvia) Fujichrome 100 of the late 80s early 90s. It can be pushed well too. Good luck.

All film goes bad eventually if unused. Film has organic materials in it which shift in quality with age. Side effects include color shift, contrast changes , excessive graininess and more. High speed films are more susceptible then slower ones. Color films are more vulnerable then black and white ones. Slide films more fragile then negative ones.

 

Heat, humidity and poor general storage conditions are important factors on how the film images may turn out. Travel photography involves other risks like repeated x ray exposure. The best way to deal with uncertain film is simply not to use it or keep film stored in either refrigeration or outright freezer conditions until needed. Keep in mind to allow the appropriate thawing time when preparing to use cold stored films. Cold storage makes them last much longer then the official expiration date on the cannister if properly implemented.

I would avoid trying to long term storage anything over iso 400. Even under freezer conditions, background radiation can seep in and fog it. This particularly applies to "push" films like Tmax 3200, Delta 3200 and others.

 

Old film is fun to play with, but avoid taking any pictures of value on them to prevent disappointment. A good rule of thumb is "when in doubt, throw it out." Hope this helped.

Well, this isn't that bad a lens. Panagors are actually made by Kiron, or at least they were. Kiron used to make some really good but obscure lenses back in the 70s and 80s. Their most famous lenses were the Vivitar Series 1 classic generation lenses. The Panagor will come out to roughly 300mm f/3.8 equivalent on the long end. It is a constant aperture which means that it doesn't change f stop when you zoom from the short 85mm-205mm. Lenses in this range were among the first decent to excellent zooms (80-200mm f4.5 Nikkor and 70-210mm f/3.5 Vivitar Series One). It is easier to design this type of zoom well (medium telephoto, medium speed lens) then any other type of zoom. The only problem is you won't have any in camera metering. And no autofocus. You might have focus confirmation, many Nikon AF film and Dslrs do have that capability with manual focus Nikon mount lenses. You would have to use an external light meter or guess your exposure via the lcd. Truly old school. Maybe this odd but interesting combo of old and new will help you learn more about being able to read light and judge it without a meter. Good luck.

Try Ektachrome 64. It is in the same grain class as Fujichrome 400x (RMS 11). Plus its color palette is very "old school" (Makes Kodachrome look saturated) . Watch out for the infamous "Ektachrome Blues". E64 had a tendency to go blue in photos shot in open shade. A warming filter may be necessary. Kodachromes are also good. K64 for good skin tones, but if you want grain, try Kodachrome 200 (old stock might still be out there). You could also try pushing Ektachrome 64 for more grain.

 

110 film is still out there. I saw a few rolls of 110 Max 400 from Kodak at Walmart last week. But the things you can do with a 110 camera can be limited.

 

My dream come true; limited run old school film production on Kodachromes 25 and 200, Tech Pan 25, Panatomic X, Ektar/Royal Gold 25, Ektar 100/125/1000, Royal Gold (All), Agfachrome 1000, Scotch Chrome 640t/1000, Recording films 2475/2484, Agfapan Vario XL, Agfa Iso pan 1000, Konica SR-G 3200, and more. Yum.

Maybe you need to get some landscape photographer's trickery involved like using graduated neutral density filters. I was testing a digital cam with latitude similar to slide film today and noticed that I could not approximate the brightness range I saw in a landscape between the sky and the foreground subject on the camera with out blowing out the sky or blocking up the foreground. Slide film is the same in terms of it's very narrow latitude. Velvia 100 is a contrasty film which blocks up easily in the shadows but will easily blow out the highlights too if it is not properly metered. It is a beautiful but tough film.

 

Look into filters or stick with negative film, because at least it has the details there when you scan them.

 

Good luck.

Hi Will. Welcome to the wonderful world of photography!

 

Seriously,

if you want prints here are some suggestions. 1)Get the slides you shot developed normally with E-6 processing and then have them scanned by a lab to be made into prints. Most photo labs can do this. Costco and probably even Walmart has this capability. Bear in mind, that prints from slide films have a lot more contrast then prints from print films.

 

2) Go out and get another good film, this time for prints. If you don't want slide films again, don't buy anything with the word "chrome" written on it (Fujichrome, Ektachrome, Kodachrome) because that's guaranteed to be slide film.

Also look and see what kind of processing it uses. If it says E-6, that means it is a slide film (Stands for Ektachrome 6). If it says C-41, then is for color prints.

 

Print film has different characteristics from slide film. You can get away with a lot more mistakes in print film. But you have a lot less control unless you do your own printing.

 

Slide film quality drops really fast above ISO 100 (with the possible exception of the new Fujichrome 400x), but color print films can be of good general purpose quality up to at least Iso 400 and sometimes 800 (Especially the Fuji films)

 

My favorite color print films are Kodak High Definition 400 (available in 3 packs of 24 exposures each at your local drug store or Walmart) and then anything by Fuji followed by whatever else by Kodak.

 

Color print film is at the mercy of the photo lab technician who prints your pic. I've been to two labs in the same chain and they both printed the exact same negative totally different. One good, one terrible. Never settle for a bad print.

 

Color print film doesn't have as much sharpness as color slide film because it has a second generation image (the print) as the final product while in slide films, the slide itself (first generation) is the product.

 

Also, color slide film is a lot like digital.In general it can take slight underexposure a lot better then overexposure. (There are exceptions like the original Velvia 50 which could take slight overexposure well). Your Velvia 100 is often rated at iso 125 or even 160 by some shooters so they won't wash out the high lights or bright areas of the pictures.

 

Color negative is the opposite. It can take overexposure. A lot of it too! Up to four stops in some cases and still be able to make good pictures. Underexposure though is bad. Even a little underexposure with negative film can make all your blacks muddy greyish brown and give you bad general picture quality.

 

Good luck.

 

Anyway, finish up your Velvia 100 (you were right it is a good film, just not what you were looking for) and go get a good Kodak or Fuji Iso 200-400 color print/negative film (Kodak Gold, Kodak Max, Fujicolor) and have fun.