jimmy_james8

<p>"The Digital projectors have improved so much in the last few years that the quality either matches or exceeds that of the old noisy carousel projectors"</p>

<p>In which world?</p>

<p>Digital doesn't look any less clinical, with its dull color pallette and blatantly nasty bokeh, on a big silver screen than it does when viewed on those ubiquitous obesity-promoting computer monitors which now appear to be the photographic medium of choice for internet-addicted digiheads.</p>

<p>The fact is that skillfully printed negative film already looks better than digital--<em>especially</em> B&W--but projected transparencies are in another league altogether, with a sharpness and tonality compared to which the results of even the most advanced full frame sensor digital camera pale, even when projected. This is something more and more people are finding out today, especially the young who started out with digital and have since abandoned it for films like Ektar, TMax, and Velvia.</p>

<p>I agree that digital has many advantages over film, but these lie strictly within the spheres of economy and utility, not aesthetic quality.</p>

<p>Most people do not understand this because the snaps they take with digital look nice and colorful and bright on their HDTV's and their digital prints look so much better than the crap they used to get from CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens. But that is less of an argument against film than it is against the cheap processing many of those who used film in the past had become inured to.</p>

<p>Say what you like, you are all DEAD WRONG. Film will never go way in our lifetime. Color slide film will be around for DECADES yet, perhaps longer. Vinyl survived, Super-8 survived, and I assure you that there are TONS more people committed to color slide film projection today than there ever were to vinyl or small format movie making. <br /> Yes, the options will dwindle and the whole process will become a bit more expensive and inconvenient. So freaking what! You wan't convenience? Go drop a few grand on a Canon 7D and snap away to your heart's content. Ten years hence, how many among the extant heaps of these "convenient" photos will be worth looking at? How many are worth looking at now?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>pretty much all modern cameras can deliver results far <a id="itxthook0" href="../film-and-processing-forum/00akfr?start=80" rel="nofollow">superior</a> to what even good photogs could achieve with 35 mm film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A patently false statement. <br /> <br /> I, like many on this forum, are happy with and often use digital for casual everyday snapshots and for situations when convenience trumps all other considerations. I am also not, however, under the illusion that the results achived by digital are even remotely the aesthetic equal of those easily obtained with commonly available high quality films like TMAX 100 and VELVIA 50. Not even close. Perhaps you'll recall that there were certain troglodytes ten years ago who couldn't dump their cheap plastic SLR zoom kits fast enough for the then current breed of "modern" junk digital cameras, claiming that 4MP sensors rendered traditional 35mm picture taking obsolete! HA!<br /> <br />Photos from modern digital cameras exhibit excellent resolution and clarity, but they are still just as sterile and clinical in appearance as those produced by the 4 megapixel juggernauts of yesteryear when compared with the richness and tonality of a color transparency projected on a large matte screen through a Leitz projector lens, with which no monitor in existence can compete in resolution and color depth. Fine grain B&W negative film, shot in a forty year old all-mechanical Canon FTB QL and optically printed by a skilled photographer, blows even the latest FX digital cameras clear out of the water, even in 35mm. If you are experiencing "limitations" in your film images that you don't observe with digital, I assure you that the film itself is not the source of that limitation. <br /> <br /> In the hands of a skilled photographer, modern films are still far better looking when projected or skillfully printed than anything possible on an electronic computer monitor, and in the larger formats there is simply no comparison. Every comparison test ever published pretending to demonstrate vast digital superiority to 35mm (and by extension competitiveness with medium and large format emulsions) has been shown to commit serious methodological errors. It is true that a relatively cheap digital camera can often produce images on a computer monitor that look clearer than the average consumer digital film scan. To this I say: so what? Who wants to sit there and look at images on a 22" computer monitor? Kodak TMAX 100 has approximately 19.5 stops (!) of exposure latitude and can resolve, under ideal conditions, as much as 200 lp/m. Last time I checked, that was about TWO TIMES the resolving ability of even the most advanced practical digital SLR currently on the market. Fuji Velvia is not far behind at 160 lp/m (and vastly superior color). Even moderately priced professional scans of either film will yield more refined tonality and highlight rendering than any modern DSLR. And not only do these films not cost $3000 to shoot, I have found by experience that the people who tend to prefer them also generally seem to possess a much more advanced technique and superior taste when compared to the stereotypical meat-eating yokels I regularly witness stalking about triumphantly with their corporate-emblazoned "camera bling" dangling revealingly from sweaty, fake-tan encrusted necks. And that isn't even addressing all the other less easily quantifiable ways in which film renders superior images from an aesthetic point of view. And that is what photography is, in the end, all about; aesthetics, art, beauty; not mere technical gadgetry, and certainly not "convenience" (a thoroughly plebeian virtue if there ever was one).<br /> <br /> The opinions of "professional photographers" hardly settle the matter, though I know from personal experience that many prefer film over digital when commercial factors don't come into play. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that the community of tradesmen who make their livings taking snapshots of drunk ugly brides (and their even uglier bride's maids), miscellaneous consumer products, and big breasted bimbo beach goddesses, somehow also constitute the most exalted arbiters of photographic taste.</p>

<p>As many have observed with much chagrin, digital has given rise to an entire generation of sorry individuals calling themselves "photographers", who have yet to master the bare rudiments of photography; things like exposure, composition, lighting, and posture/breath control, while nourishing a feverish preoccupation with technological gimmickry and the acquisition of mass-produced goods which more closely resembles a mode of consumption characteristic of rootless post-modern globalist consumerism than it does the pursuit of a serious art. The problem is that gadget-geekery can't purchase any of these things with their credit card, and thus buy into the marketing rhetoric which pretty much blatantly insinuates that the key to making great photos is to just buy one of these overpriced high-pixel dinguses, and leave the rest to them. For most of these people, the "study" of photography often does not extend much beyond the act of reading (or even skimming!) through a thick camera manual translated from the original Japanese.</p>

<p>Digital is clearly an inferior photographic medium for reasons having nothing to do with image resolution, that great bugaboo of pixel-obsessed digital geeks everywhere. Besides its characteristically flat, clinical appearance and garish tonality, digital promotes a kind of sensibility that is inimical to the imperatives and tastes of genuine photographic culture. It is a phenomenon driven primarily by consumerism and the tasteless yielding to the dubious ideals of crude self-gratification and convenience-at-any-cost that have become the hallmarks of the insidious social and economic leveling forces of post-post-modernity.</p>

<p>Anyone who cares about photography as an art-form, should also care about preserving the medium of film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree that the EOS-3 is a great camera. I own one myself, purchased in EX condition on eBay for less than the price of a cheap kit lens during the recent mad rush to digital. It is, however, also notably missing the more substantial feel of the Eos-1 and the F5/6, has no built-in viewfinder blind, and the flash sync speed tops out at 1/200 instead of the typical 1/250 pro-level standard. For those who find these specific features relevant to their style of photography, it may thus fall just the tiniest bit short of ideal.</p>

<p>From a purely subjective point of view, I have found nothing in the 35mm world to ever compare with the superior ergonomics, build, speed, simplicity, and elegantly fierce shutter clap of the original Eos-1/1n. But hey, that's just me!</p>

<p>As I said, I'm sure he's very nice, but I don't see any reason to contact him at this point. He fixed the problems I asked him to fix and he installed new seals. I don't see what complaining about the scratched mirror, marred screw heads, and horrible oil smell will accomplish. More than a week later the camera continues to smell like a sewing machine that's been drenched in multi-purpose oil. My hands still pick up the smell after merely handling the camera. Which makes me wonder, if this guy is a pro, why is he using this noxious sh*t to lube the cameras? <br /> I'm sure there are many who find his service sufficient to to their meager expectations, and to them I commend his service. However, short of the unlikely event that Garry remains the last camera repairman on earth in the wake of a nuclear holocaust, he will never toch a single one of my cameras ever again.</p>

<p>The N80 is a great little camera. The only gripe I have with them, however, is that the rubber on the film doors tends to degrade and get sticky over time, and especially with use. Nikon USA, of course, could not care less about the problem (ask me how i know)!</p>

<p>The EOS-1v by FAR has the better heft and build quality, though both are of course wonderful cameras that represent the pinnacle of 35mm SLR technology. The F6 does incorporate a manual rewind knob, which is somewhat of a quaint throwback to the era of finely crafted all-metal manual SLRs of the storied F-series, but given the proven reliability and convenience of auto-rewind over the past thirty years, this doesn't seem to present much of an advantage. The interchangeable prism, a fixity of the earlier F-series, was scrapped in favor of a fixed pentaprism similar to that of the successful F100, of which the F6 appears to be a souped up version, with a flavor of some of the old F-series features and structural qualities.</p>

<p>Personally, if I were looking for a Nikon which rivals or surpasses the redoubtable EOS-1 series in toughness and build quality, I would look no further than a Nikon F5. But then you have the problem of a perpetual brick which will always require no less than eight AA batteries to function. That's not exactly a desirable quality when looking to take a camera out for a mere roll or two of shooting. With that said, I'd take a like new F5 at $500 dollars over a new F6 at $2500, any day.</p>

<p>Frankly, I can't even see much reason to bother with either right now, when virtually unused F100 bodies are still available for less than $200 on eBay and elsewhere. I got mine from a camera shop in NY two years ago for $200, mint & boxed. It is a 2000 model, prior to the rewind shaft upgrade by Nikon, though it looks and functions like a new camera. At around the same time, I was able to pick up an EOS-1v HS (my dream camera) in excellent condition, with only 118 rolls through it, for $175.00--out the door. Hard to believe, but true. People hear through the idiotic rumor mill that film is headed for an imminent demise, and begin dumping their expensive gear for pennies on the dollar.</p>

<p>Whatever any of you do, buy now while the time is ripe! These deals won't last forever. Once the supply of really high quality 35mm SLR bodies in nice condition dries up, the prices will go up, way up! So buy your dream camera today!</p>

<p>I say cheat, steal, lie to your wife if you have to! After all, the dream only comes once.</p>

<p>The day they stop <em>shooting</em> movies on film is the day I stop going to the theater.<br>

Most of the films coming out of Hollywood today are, in any event, tasteless crap. <br>

In my opinion, Kodak should find a way to get into the movie business itself; there is definitely more money to be made there than in printers.</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

No, the camera is unfortunately still in the same locked condition, with the red self-timer light glowing when battereis are installed but total unresponsiveness of the LED display and shutter. It looks like I have a paper weight on my hands. I have 7 other Nikon film cameras so I guess it's not a huge loss. But the camera was purchased as working. I just wish I had gotten to it before the return period ran out. </p>

<p>If there is no Gold, let them eat Superia!</p>

<p>I have an MF-21 back I use with an old Nikon N8008s and I still never fail to get a kick out seeing the 1-1-88 date appear on the LCD whenever I install a pair of fresh disc batteries for a weekend photo outing.<br /> Most of my female students were not yet born by this august date in the hallowed annals of analoguery, though are now all grown-up and perfectly legal!<br /> And here I am grasping the same N8008s.<br /> It's mind blowing and depressing all at once.</p>

<p>I've owned the earlier non-D AF Nikon 50 f1.8 for a number of years. Mine seems to have lots of debris stuck between its elements; how it got there is anybody's guess. I only paid $45 for it from someone in a tiny used camera shop near Scranton, PA who was just dying to get it off the N8008 sitting in his truck, but that was at least 11 years ago. <br /> The funny thing is, even with all that debris, I've gotten much better results from this lens than I ever did with Canon's equivalent EF 50 f1.8, with all my prints and slides appearing quite a bit more colorful, with higher contrast and sharpness as well.<br /> <br /> I often toy with the idea of upgrading to the Nikon 50 f1.4 D, but given the increased cost and the great output of this old little lens, I am never able to justify it.<br /> Besides, it is a more historically accurate accompaniment to my Nikon N8008s, and looks just about nearly as cool attached to my F100 and N90s bodies.<br /> For reference, I have also used the Canon EF 50 1.4 with an EOS-1, 1v, 3, and A2e; and at many times the price, I fail to see a massive improvement in the quality of the photos obtained by the latter.</p>

<p>If Kodak and Fuji stop selling film, then I'll buy it from Eastern Europe and China.<br>

Problem solved.</p>

<p>The problem is I had just spent 2 hours detailing the camera inside and out before realizing it was FUBAR. Now I have a sparkling clean N8008s with a new focusing screen and a pristine film chamber, that doesn't even work. Ugh.<br>

<br /> Remind me to NEVER purchase anything from Hunt's Photo & Video ever again!</p>

<p>Recently tried to use a very clean N8008s. After inserting fresh batteries, I noticed that the self-timer light comes on but the camera itself won't switch on and I can see nothing in the LCD panel. The shutter won't release either. Anyone have any idea what this might mean?</p>

<p>Well, I'm sure he's a great guy and all, that he's economical and amenable to dealing with problems in a friendly manner. The problem is that, at least in this case, his work does not appear to conform to professional standards of repair. SLR mirrors are supposed to be cleaned with a colloidal solution, not crudely wiped in such a way as to leave blatant smear marks and scratches behind. I'm sure he already knows this, so why the dirty, scratched mirror?<br /> To be sure, the camera seems to operate smoothly and he did fix the shutter speed indicator as I requested. The thing is, the service was advertised as a complete teardown and servicing, and from the dust remaining in the mirror box and film chamber it doesn't seem as if that was really done. That and the other problems I mentioned puts this guy at the bottom of my list for classic camera repairs. By all means, send him your broken beater cameras if you have $60 burning a hole in your pocket, though if I had known how sloppy the work was I would have never sent him such a nice camera. My SRT went 50 years whithout so much as a tiny mark on its mirror, until it met Garry's camera repair. I'm not happy.</p>

<p>Frank:<br>

Yes, it was Garry's. I will never use him again for anything. The scratched mirror coming from a "professional camera repair shop" is just apalling. I could have done a better job on it myself. <br>

The thing I find most offensive though is the smell of the oil he used on the camera. I can only imagine how much of the stuff got pumped into the mechanism for it to still smell so strongly after being exposed to circulated air for an entire day. <br>

Has anyone else here ever had their camera come back to them from a CLA smelling like a sewing machine?</p>

<p>Just received my SRT-101 in the mail this afternoon, back from its trip to a often recommended camera repair outfit for a complete overhaul/CLA. To my great disappointment, the camera came to me positively reeking of multi-purpose oil (think fishing reels), with marred screw-heads, and a smudged/lightly scratched reflex mirror (which was previously somewhat fogged though utterly scratch-free) that looks as if it has been cleaned with the tail end of an under-shirt. Price was $45.00 + $8.00 shipping.<br>

You get what you pay for I guess. Ugh.<br>

Can anyone here recommend a competent repair tech able to do professional, meticulous work on my (nice) Canon FTb QL? I certainly don't want to send it to this guy.</p>

<p>Nothing beats the Olympus XA. It is as small as a pack of cigarettes, has adjustable f-stops and exposure compensation, and the lens is sharp sharp sharp! If there is a better compact 35mm out there, I've never seen it.<br>

I've shot some images on Velvia 50 with my XA that you would swear were taken with an SLR and $$$ lens. <br>

Oh, and perhaps the most important thing: the shutter has an extremely light touch, which makes hand-holding in low light conditions with slow film a breeze. This allows for results that are simply not possible with the clunky shutter release on most compacts.</p>

 

<p>OK. I just telephone two different Walmart stores in my area and spoke with their respective Photo Centers. Both confirmed that Walmart SEND OUT service is still available. According to the employees I spoke with, the film goes to FUJI for processing, is picked up twice a week, and takes 7-10 days to be returned. Both prints AND negatives are returned.<br>

<br /> I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have FUJI develop my film than do it in my bathroom.<br>

<br /> As far as I'm concerned then, nothing has changed. I never found any 1 hour film processing service to be of remotely creditable quality, so the loss of CVS, Target, or Walgreens 1 hour is to my mind no big loss.<br>

Properly processed and printed, I still prefer the look of consumer grade C-41 film to digital. And with films like EKTAR & PORTRA, it's not even a competition. There are even a few places that still do optical prints if there is anything particularly nice you'd like to enlarge. It costs a little $$, but the results make the EPSON produced stuff look like crud.<br>

VIVA LA WALMART!!!</p>

<p>Buy yourself a basic slide projector and screen. This will beat any computer monitor in the world for color and resolution.<br>

Problem solved.</p>

<p>Opinions vary greatly on this issue.<br>

My wife, for example, prefers lubrication.<br>

I, on the other hand, love to leave everything dry.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>The KING.<br /><br /> <img src="http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9709/eos1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>You can currently get an EOS-1 in EX+ condition from KEH (YMMV) for $148.50, with free shipping until this evening.<br>

EX+ should be quite nice. This camera body was built by Canon to exacting professional standards, with a 1/250 sec flash sync and 100% viewfinder coverage. It can auto-focus down to -1EV and will accept all modern EOS lenses. Much, much better than an Elan 7, which was designed as a consumer unit. <br>

And yes, I just bought one from them in "EX" condition two nights ago with PB-E1 booster for $134.00 shipped.<br>

A steal, IMO. <br>

I already have the 1v, but what the hell, it's only money.</p>

<p>Canon FTb QL<br>

Purchased on that auction site recently (with clean FD BL 50 f1.8 S.C.) in excellent condition for $22.50. I'll probably have it CLA'd soon, even though everything still works.<br>

The build quality of these old Canons must be seen to be believed. I'd compare it to a Leicaflex<br>

The problem is that it becomes an addiction. <br>

I'm serious.</p>

 

<p>The marks you are seeing are superficial scratches from the film having come into contact with the blades. Nothing to worry about but don't keep doing it or eventually you will end up with more than superficial scratches , ie. bent or wrinkled shutter blades. Short of plunking down the $700 B&H Photo is currently asking for a new one, it is difficult to locate a used example (even in the finest cosmetic condition) whose shutter does not show at least some kind of superficial marking. I have a LNIB F100 that was clearly not used for more than a few rolls but even then it has some very slight markings that appear to the naked eye upon close inspection.<br /> My answer to these kinds of worries (of accidentally damaging your sole remaining film camera) has been to acquire as many film cameras now, while the time is still ripe. To this end, I recently purchased 3 REALLY nice Nikon N90s (one of which is LNIB, and no sticky backs) and an second N8008s with MF-21 multi-function back. All this for less than the cost of a single SB-26 flash, ten years ago!<br>

Buy them up now before the prices skyrocket! And they will. Believe me!<br>

<br /> I picked up an EOS-1v HS last year for $175. No, that was not a typo you just read. The film counter says it has had 118 rolls shot through it though I suspect it may be lying.<br>

LOL</p>