|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
which analog cameras ..
let's say you would want to do exactly the same thing as you have been doing digitally but now with analog cameras. and your goal is to get that extra that analog offers... which analog cameras would you choose? i have seen little videos of photographers using Canon AE 1 with black n white film getting that amazing analog images... though most of the fashion pros would use hasselblad, mamiya etc. I'm not after that crystal clear sharpness, but more after the rawness that some offer. not sure if I make any sense, but I hope some of you can advise me. Jul 06 11 12:15 pm Link if i wanted the most advanced film camera available , i would get a Nikon F6 or F5 personally i prefer shooting with my Nikon F3 or my old leica and voigtlander rangefinders. Jul 06 11 12:18 pm Link I would just keep using my 500CM Jul 06 11 12:19 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote: No can do. Not comparable. Different beasts. Jul 06 11 12:20 pm Link Monito -- Alan wrote: so now I shoot fashion with my digital , I cant shoot fashion with analog? Jul 06 11 12:24 pm Link You can totally shoot both side by side. DON'T forget to change over your trigger. I do it all the time, I shoot digital, then switch to my Fuji GF670 or a Canon AE-1. I just flip back and forth. If the ISO is the same you are set, If they are different then you do have a few calculations to do. But it is pretty simple. My current favorite is my Fuji GF670, it is a folding med format rangefinder. Jul 06 11 12:26 pm Link I buy and sell lots of film cameras, have for years. My favorites below, your opinions may vary. Best 35mm cameras: Nikon FM2, F2. Contax IIa with Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50 1.5. Various Voigtlanders (fantastic lenses). Best medium format: Mamiya RB or RZ. Vintage German folder with coupled rangefinder, check out www.certo6.com. I have and love a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C but there are many to choose from. Huge negative, small package when folded down. Jul 06 11 12:29 pm Link Well when I shot film I used a few different bodies, last was the Pentax 645AFD. I also liked the 6x7, and the Fuji 6x7 range finder a lot. The thing is a lot of little things changed when I went to digital, lighting being one of them and post processing being another. When I shot film it was film all the way, so no photoshop only the dark room. That makes things different, for example I could overexpose 1/3 stop (or more) to help smooth the skin and just adjust the film - overexpose on digital is generally a bad idea. Jul 06 11 12:30 pm Link I have never seen film be referred to as "Analog" LOL Jul 06 11 12:32 pm Link Death of Field wrote: I do this a lot too. Once in a while I screw up when I use different ISOs Jul 06 11 12:40 pm Link Epic Exposures LLC wrote: Analog Photography Users Group is an international very large, very active website with many forums. It has been going strongly since 2002. Joke's on you. Jul 06 11 12:41 pm Link Epic Exposures LLC wrote: It's a pretty common reference. Google "film analog" and you'll get a lot of hits, like: Jul 06 11 12:42 pm Link An EOS 1V for the event stuff and a Mamiya RZ ProII for the studio work  Jul 06 11 12:43 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote: Why exactly do you want to do the same thing with film that you're doing with digital? Why not try something different and expand your range as a photographer. Jul 06 11 01:01 pm Link really great responses guys I need to tell more about my wishes I think. 1. I want to scan all my negatives and edit them in photoshop 2. I want to keep shooting fashion and portraits for magazines, websites and some advertisement stuff like CD covers, flyers, posters etc. 3. I would like to shoot in color more often than black n white 4. sharpness is NOT that important to me, but more the character of film 5. I DONT want squares! Hasselblad and Mamiya are instantly in the high price range, are there other camera's that could offer what i'm after? Jul 06 11 01:16 pm Link and PS: I would really love to see examples from you guys of your analog images. Jul 06 11 01:16 pm Link I don't think are system comparable. Now even most clients expect images that maintain a certain level of cleanliness (at the expense of many other things) that is simply impossible over certain ASA on an analogic camera. However between analogic camera i'm curious from certain all metal analogic reflex camera (without any type of battery involved) and some medium format (for their huge viewfinder). However i like even the viewfinder of 35 mm (so the simply full frame reflex analogic camera). But for now the moment I can not give precise models of camera given that i haven't taken a carefull look at that subjects. Jul 06 11 01:19 pm Link Epic Exposures LLC wrote: Even better - check out this review (apparently satire) of the Nikon F6 on Amazon - the one that was not really helpful to potential buyers. Jul 06 11 02:25 pm Link Monito -- Alan wrote: That is way cool, I'm going to have to check them out! I had no idea people called film analog, and I thumb through these forums all the time. Than again, there isn't much discussion about film anymore these days. Jul 06 11 03:06 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote: 90% of what I shoot this year so far is a Canon 1V loaded with Tri-X. I develop myself with HC-110 then scan the negatives with a Epson V500 and use photoshop to clean up dust spots. It works for me. Jul 06 11 03:18 pm Link RZ or RB 67 Jul 06 11 03:20 pm Link Canon A-1 or F-1 , Nikon FM-2 or F-3, medium format: Hassy or any of the Mamiyas are great my only film images are on my website below: www.drhphotos.com look under "sports/action" - all of the baseball pics were shot with Canon A-2 film camera with either Fujichrome 100 or 200 or Ektachrome 200 i think it was back in '94 under "concerts"- the one of the dancer in the white dress- was shot with i think a Canon Elan 7 using i think it was Kodak 400CN black and white film, was processed in C-41 chemistry since that's what it was designed to be processed in Jul 06 11 03:21 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote: None of the 35mm film cameras have much,, if you want the most go with a 6x7 format. Miamaya RB67 Pentax 67...... Jul 06 11 03:24 pm Link KFM Designs wrote: Yup. Just started shooting with an RZ and doing my own development. ( it was the humidity in the bag causing issues with the plastic reel after all for those who responded to my reel thread ). Jul 06 11 03:30 pm Link OP, If you are accustomed to shooting a 35mm full-frame digital camera (no crop factor), you would likely be most happy with a 35mm film camera (vs other formats), and just about any 35mm camera made in the past 30 years will do just fine as long as it has manual override ("AUTO" just won't do some things as well). While some justifiably jump to medium format, or even view cameras when they go to film from digital, it's a different look due to a number of factors which exceed the scope of this thread. A Nikon F3, as mentioned by someone above, is very hard to argue with. Very durable, relatively cheap now, and will likely last longer than any user will....war-zone photographers excepted. If you want to go a bit cheaper still, an Olympus OM (1/2/3/4) will cost less but still uses very good glass, a Pentax LX is a fantastic camera, Canon F-1, Etc. With the prices of used film cameras now, it's really advantageous to go with the top-tier bodies of their time: Nikon F-series, Canon F-1, Pentax LX or MX, Olympus OM series, and so forth. They were simply more durable than other bodies from the same makers. Look for lens availability before jumping at a given body. Nikon and Canon have been the two biggest players for a very long time and thus have a large number of lenses on the used market. Lastly, consider KEH.com, they ship everywhere, they grade their gear very conservatively, and it's priced fairly. Jul 06 11 03:55 pm Link Epic Exposures LLC wrote: It's not really calling film analog as much as it's calling photographic processes using film analog. If that makes sense. Jul 06 11 04:07 pm Link Michael L. wrote: When I was an art director I listened in on a conversation between a really great old photographer and his assistant who thought Mamiya's were the best medium format cameras. Warren, the older photographer, after pointing out many pluses of the Hasselbald, handed him his Hasselblad and told him to take both of them up to the roof and drop them off. Jul 06 11 04:43 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote: http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=999193 Jul 06 11 04:46 pm Link My entire port is film if you're looking for examples. I adore the Canon AE-1 partially for it's heavily centered light meter. While that may seems like an issue, but in full manual it can help so well in determining proper exposure of single elements. I did however migrate towards the A-1 after shooting the AE-1 for years, regretfully missing the full manual controls and centered light meter, but enjoying the FANTASTIC viewfinder and the speed of priority shooting. The light meter is deadly accurate and allows half speeds on the shutter. Jul 06 11 04:54 pm Link F5 is my film and I love it to bits, I also shoot a TLR and love what that does but I am going to change up to a single lens Medium format to bring to weddings as I shoot digital and vintage film plus medium format would be a great addition, F5 is a dream of a 35mm SLR though. Jul 06 11 06:48 pm Link Back when I decided to make the shift to entirely digital, I sold 2 F4s, an FM and an FE2 (last two with motors). I'd be comfortable with having them back to do most of the work I do today (assuming there is some reason to go back to analog gear). Jul 06 11 07:57 pm Link I've got my Mom's Rolleichord that I've never shot, that should work!! Jul 06 11 08:05 pm Link  Mamiya C330 I couldn't go back to film only. That said, if digital cameras vanished tomorrow, I'd probably buy a Nikon F5. Honestly now I use film for the things that 35mm DSLR's aren't so hot at. Obscene resolution (200 megapixels or so with 4x5 ISO 100 slide film), in the right situations, a better color palette (slide film) and occasionally, better rapport with my subjects (an unfamiliar older looking film camera is less threatening than digital, more casual, etc). The hassle of developing, scanning, dust removal in Photoshop, and 'did I get it? Or not?' lack of instant feedback are things that make me shoot film only every other month or so. Jul 06 11 08:35 pm Link i'm surprised fred hasn't been through yet. if you really want an advantage in character, larger formats will do that for you...6x7, 6x8, 6x9. to do what i do now...i'm using a fuji gw690, in addition to digital gear. its kinda fun. but a bit limited, in that it comes with a ~40mm lens (in 35mm terms) that's permanently attached to the body. not exactly gonna do headshots for you, but great for environmental portraiture and editorial. bout $400. you can probably get a mamiya RB kit for less...hell, i sold mine for less. lol. if you want the character that film alone won't give you, there's always the holga. Jul 06 11 08:39 pm Link If you want to scan your own images and get good results I would recommend a large medium format camera such as the Mamiya RZ 6x7 or even better the Fuji GX680 6x8. You get two big advantages with these cameras. First a large negative so that you can achieve nice detail or keep it softer depending on what film and process you use. Second the lenses that cover a large negative area just have more of a 3 dimentional look to them. I used many medium format film cameras, but moved to the Fuji GX680 and never looked back. The camera has built in tilt and shift for every lens. Here are a couple of examples with the Fuji 680:  and a crop from the same negative.  Here is momething a bit more gritty done using Fuji instant black and white polaroids.  And some grittier film:   Jul 06 11 10:13 pm Link I would not consider a medium Format film camera to be a replacement for a good digital 35mm DSLR. Both have their advantages and I think that both compliment each other very well. A film camera will not automatically give you more character. You need to know the medium and the processes. While digital offers more detail film is very flexible and the same camera with the many different types of film will give you different interesting results. While I am a strong advocate for shooting film I also find high end 35mm DSLR are fantastic cameras. While you cannot perfectly reproduce film you can produce images that have film like strengths. The best thing about 35mm DSLRs is that they have created a great used medium format film cameras. Jul 06 11 10:35 pm Link Jaimie Peeters wrote:
Jul 07 11 01:44 am Link Another advantage of the medium format camera over the smaller 35 mm is less noise. However i wonder why no one have speak about the Rangefinder Camera. Before the reflex was present the rangefinder and, naturally, remain analogic. Jul 07 11 02:01 am Link I would go with the same brand as my digital. In my case, Nikon F100 because I have that. With film body is less important - but some cameras react faster with focus and are built better. Jul 07 11 02:42 am Link Fred Greissing wrote: Fred, those last 3 shots are just mind-blowing! Jul 07 11 02:54 am Link |
