Who uses what camera

[Claff]

Claff: Yeah, it’s a closely-guarded secret that you can get good pictures out of just about any camera that has some decent manual exposure settings in it. A good DSLR just makes it easier.

You are correct. I can pretty quickly get to shutter speed on the G6 but haven’t quite figured out how to work full manual mode. I’ve been spoiled by the D100 that has two adjuster wheels so I can quickly work both shutter and aperture simultaneously. The G6 has one wheel and in manual mode it works shutter speed, haven’t yet found out how to change aperture… but I never read the book, and I’ve only had it for like three years.

Another thing the G6 has over the big ol Nikon is that said Nikon (still!) needs a sensor cleaning and the little creepie crawlies are really bugging me. They don’t exist on the Canon.

[Elsinore]

I had a string of forgettable film cameras going back to childhood–everything from the old disk film, to 110, to 35mm. I had some Vivitar 35mm camera that I used in grad school and on my honeymoon; it took decent pictures, though had some vignetting (which was kinda nice in some pictures). I think at least one or two pictures taken with that camera found their way into Farktography at some point.

In 2002, Zeke and I were expecting mini-Elsinore, so we got a digital–an HP Photosmart 812 4MP camera–figuring we needed a better camera with which to document our offspring. The camera was $500 and had no manual controls, but we thought it was awesome, and it could hook directly into our HP printer (now ask how many times we used that feature–if you guessed a big fat zero, give yourself a cookie).

In fall 2005 I started getting more interested in photography, and I needed a camera with manual controls to really start learning. I got the Canon A620 for Christmas, and it’s been a great camera, but I quickly ran up against its limitations for high iso noise and shot-to-shot delays, etc. Sooo, after much research, I got the Canon 30D with a 50mm f/1.8 lens for Mother’s Day 2006. I now also have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (excellent lens), a Canon 75-300 IS f/4-5.6 (meh, it’s ok), and a Lensbaby 3G with macro, telephoto, wide angle, and aperture shape accessories (VERY fun little lens). The A620 does still see use, cause it’s a great grab-and-go camera–it’s a great combination with the 30D.

I have also used my Dad’s old film SLR (a Canon AE-1 Program which I have on extended loan), and for Mother’s Day this year I got a Seagull Twin Lens Reflex camera that shoots medium format 120 film. I just dropped off 2 rolls of b/w film this week, so we’ll see how they turned out!

That is when I got my Sigma SD10.

Ya know, I thought there was something about your Apples Over Oranges shot this week. My Dad has an SD-10–he loves it.

[QuickSilver]

Ya know, I thought there was something about your Apples Over Oranges shot this week. My Dad has an SD-10–he loves it.

Thank you again for your help without which there would have been no apples over oranges photograph for you to compare. I guess all Sigma SD10’s give themselves away with the way the colors are handled. Quite differently because of the Foveon sensor.

[sleeping]

I started out digital – I had a couple of Olympus compacts, and then I bought a D70. After that, though, I discovered that all kinds of amazing film gear can be got very cheaply on ebay. I hardly use the D70 for anything serious these days unless I’m using flash.

Instead, I’m usually carrying any one of a fairly large number of older film cameras: Nikon and Minolta MD 35mm gear, Bronica SQ-Ai medium format SLR, a couple TLRs, etc… and I’m joining the Canon camp now, I just bought one of these: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1959_p.html
(no pictures yet, I’m hoping it arrives tomorrow)

[QuickSilver]

That is quite a switch that you started off digital and have switched to film.Could you expound on your preception of the experience of changing from digital to film?

[Curious]

if i had a darkroom i’d shoot a lot more film. photoshop just doesn’t compare to darkroom work. at least not for me. although a good large color printer might change my mind.

well for two grand i can get one of these epson’s. but while cheaper than setting up a complete darkroom it won’t be any time soon.

[Elsinore]

Actually I kinda went from digital to film, or at least back to film. I shot film before we got that HP812 digicam, but I mostly took snapshots with whatever camera I had. I didn’t know much of anything about photography. Now I’ve shot some rolls through my dad’s film SLR and that was a lot of fun. The medium format Twin Lens Reflex is a bigger challenge, though, since it lacks metering–I have to estimate exposure based on Sunny-16 or something (and apparently I’m not that accurate) or I have to use a meter/digicam as meter. I love shooting digital, but film is fun too.

[sleeping]

That is quite a switch that you started off digital and have switched to film.Could you expound on your preception of the experience of changing from digital to film?

Well, a fair bit of why I use film a lot has to do with the gear I have, rather than any particular advantage of film per se.

For one thing, I like analog controls. I can look at most of my film cameras and immediately see what all the settings are without going into menus, and fussing around with little buttons.

I do a fair bit of close-up and macro work, and for that I’d rather use a manual focus SLR – I think I started using my 35mm film gear a lot mostly because of my Minolta MD 100mm f/3/5. AF doesn’t work nearly as well at close range, and manual SLRs are better set up for manual focusing – you generally have focusing aids (microprisms, split-image) and a focusing screen which is designed for accurate focusing. AF screens tend to be optimized for an overall brighter view instead of accurate focusing. Also, the gearing in a lot of AF lenses is crap for manual focusing.

Or, for another example, wide angles are easier on my film cameras. My 17mm Tokina is super wide on film, but has the FOV of a 26mm on my d70.

The one place I find film does have a real advantage (with negative film, not so much with slides) is better handling of high contrast situations – it’s a bit more resistant to getting completely blown out, and when it does get to that point, it’s not quite as harsh as it is with digital (highligts bleed just a little into the surrounding area, making a smoother transition).

Quality-wise, there’s not that much difference between my D70 and 35mm film. On the other hand, if I want to get serious results, I have some medium format gear. I usually scan a 6x6cm negative at 2400 dpi, and get about the equivalent of 24 megapixels. I could actually scan them at 4800, but unless I wanted a huge print, it’s not worth the hassle of dealing with files that big. Then, I also have 4×5″ and 5×7″ large format cameras… Developing sheet film by hand without a proper darkroom is kind of a pain though, I haven’t used them as much as I should…

[Curious]

Then, I also have 4×5″ and 5×7″ large format cameras… Developing sheet film by hand without a proper darkroom is kind of a pain though, I haven’t used them as much as I should…

i have a crown graphic that hasn’t been used in years due to not having a means to print from the negatives. nor do i own a developing tank for the negatives.

1) do you not use a tank and just develop the negatives as one would a print? in trays?
2) if you use a tank do you not have a light tight room to load it in?
3) do your scans of 6 x 6 (or what we old timers call 2 1/14) produce prints bigger than 8 x 10 that are decent? my 2400 dpi scans of 35mm produced really disappointing results. and my scanner won’t do 4800 dpi on that size source. although it’s supposed to do 4800 dpi.
4) since a 4 x 5 scan to a 8 x 10 print is only a four fold increase do those print well?

and here Quality-wise, there’s not that much difference between my D70 and 35mm film. i’m thinking you mean printing from the source not a print from a scan of the neg.

[sleeping]

1) do you not use a tank and just develop the negatives as one would a print? in trays?
2) if you use a tank do you not have a light tight room to load it in?

I have a tank(yankee agitank), but it’s a huge pain to load. I’ve wound up with all kinds of scratches on film etc. and development wasn’t very even. I got better results developing them emulsion side in in a cylindrical roll film tank and fixing in trays, but you can only do one at a time that way.

I tried tray development in my bathroom, but I don’t have enough flat surface for it to be workable.

3) do your scans of 6 x 6 (or what we old timers call 2 1/14) produce prints bigger than 8 x 10 that are decent? my 2400 dpi scans of 35mm produced really disappointing results. and my scanner won’t do 4800 dpi on that size source. although it’s supposed to do 4800 dpi.

I haven’t made any really huge prints, but I’ve made a couple really good 11x14s. I made one from a 35mm scan that size too, and it was perfectly usable, but you could really see the difference with the MF.

4) since a 4 x 5 scan to a 8 x 10 print is only a four fold increase do those print well?

I haven’t actually printed any, but I think you’d have to use a microscope or go bigger than 8×10 to see a big improvement vs medium format.

and here Quality-wise, there’s not that much difference between my D70 and 35mm film. i’m thinking you mean printing from the source not a print from a scan of the neg.

I believe it depends on your scanner – my old microtek wouldn’t do the job, now I have an epson v700. Scanning mounted slides (which hold the film really flat) I can get comparable results. Film strips are a little more hit or miss, because any curl in the film causes flatness issues. Tri-X has been giving me fits in this regard…

[Curious]

first of all, thanks for the response.

when i was developing 4 x 5 in a tank the only time i had problems was loading film from a bulk pack. it was really thin and a pain to put in the holder. sheet film in b/w or chrome wasn’t a problem. nor was there any difference between the three in development. all seemed even.

have a visioneer 9420 scanner and tried scanning some kodak 400 gold strips the other day. the results were disappointing. that might be due to the negs not being critically sharp however. or it could be the curve. with cold light there isn’t that pop one can fix before the print exposure starts.

will shot some more tuesday and see how they do. i have three XD-11 bodies and three minolta lenses. a MD Rokkor-X 50 mm F1.4, a MD zoom 28-70 mm F3.5 and a MD zoom 70-210 mm F4.5. when i was using them regularly i could get critically sharp shots most of the time. the last test series may have been thrown off by the problem i was having using the split screen. one half dark, one not. all three bodies need a serious cleaning but at $120 per body that won’t happen anytime soon.

and just FYI i have a 6 x 9 roll film back for the crown graphic.

[Curious]

let me show off some.

real old hand held meter that is interesting as an antique more than a usable meter. it does work and doesn’t require batteries. you just have to read all over the dial to figure out what settings to use.

less old hand held meters which were pretty accurate in most cases. they do require batteries and i’m not sure i have good ones for them. and the batteries they need have been discontinued but substitutes can be found on the web. (as can damn near anything)

the 4 x 5 kit. the strobe works but the folks who were supposed to fix the battery pack for it just made it worse. that sucker will provide fill flash at 30 ft in full sun. or used too. 🙁 got the kit in a trade many years ago. camera body, two lenses, ten sheet film backs, two bulk film backs, two roll film backs, the meters above, shade cloth, case, etc. all for a rifle that i didn’t want anyway. at the time the dollars were equal and both of us ended up with what we wanted. one of my better deals.

[staplermofo]

Those light meters look like birth control pills.

[Curious]

well lugigng all that gear around will prevent you from getting any.

at least that’s what i tell myself.

[Bikkurikun]

My main camera is a Nikon D40, with the 18-55 kit-lens, 55-200 VR, Sigma 30mm/1.4, Canon 50mm/1.8.
Also got my hands on an almost perfect condition Canonet QL 17 compact rangefinder from the seventies, so recently I am back to film again a lot.

[Author]

Posts