# Do more expensive film cameras produce better quality photographs?



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

I am a complete beginner to photography and my interest is in Film cameras. I'm finding it really hard to work my way through all the different types of cameras. Basically I want to know if more expensive 35mm cameras give better quality than basic 35mm cameras. By "quality" I mean resolution. I'm not talking about how good the picture, I'm just talking about resolution.

In 1990 my father bought a Minolta camera for about £900 because he was an avid photographer. Growing up in the 90's I used to see a lot of budget cameras for about £30 which is what most people used for their holidays, birthdays etc. Everytime I saw a camera I used to compare it to my dads expensive camera. This Minolta camera really was the business but I've always wondered if it gave a better quality than cheap/budget cameras. I know cameras in the high priced bracket will of course give more features, brighter flash, more zoom etc but does it produce a higher resolution than cheaper cameras?

Same goes for older cameras. If I took a photo from a Minolta SR-T 101 made in 1958 will that give me an inferior photo compared with a 35mm film camera of today? Why are so many cameras made in the 50's and 60's so expensive after all this time. I would have thought photo's taken from those cameras now will not be anywhere as good from 35mm cameras of today.

Any replies would be much appreciated.


----------



## bhop (Dec 23, 2013)

No, but _generally_ _speaking_, more expensive lenses will.  What you're paying for is controls and build quality for the most part, as far as camera bodies go.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2013)

The camera body is a holder for the film.
The lens projects the light onto the film.
The camera or lens will have the shutter and aperture mechanism
The camera may have a light meter.

With film cameras ... I only really care about the lens in terms of image quality.
The camera body I select has to do with what controls it provides me.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

So if you have two cameras with different lenses, all other things remaining equal, will each give a different quality on the negative?


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes.

Two different camera bodies both with the same lens ... equal image quality on the film

That's way many film photographers buy one camera body and just changes lenses over the years.
I knew many shooters with the cheapest Yashica camera body and spent thousands on the Zeiss lenses for it.
Contax-Yashica | ZEISS International


----------



## Overread (Dec 23, 2013)

The lens itself is often the biggest quality affecting factor in a setup (assuming good lighting). As a result put a cheap lens next to a really good one and the really good lens will show improvements. It will be sharper when shot wide open (smallest f number/widest aperture); it will typically have better aperture blades so that highlight rings in the background are more circular and smooth; it will have a more pleasing blurring of the background; it will have more corrective coatings so that things such as flare are reduced. 

Auto focusing will also typically be faster and you'll oft get full time manual focusing (you don't have ot set the lens to manual focus mode to use the focusing ring - of course AF must be off/not engaged for this to work). 


With a camera body for film the image quality is not much affected by the body itself because so long as it works well the image quality is being defined by the lens and the film itself (as well as lighting of course). The body offers things such as auto winding; metering; flash control; weather sealing; etc.... These things might not affect the image quality directly; but might often help when shooting in more difficult or specific situations - a good in-camera meter with a good auto focusing setup might be the difference between a badly exposed blurry shot half missed and a well exposed and correctly focused shot when shooting something fast moving.

Note that there are different kinds and sizes of film on the market; most bodies will only fit one or a couple of different film sizes so if the photographer wants to use a larger or smaller film size then they have to change the camera body (this often holds true for the lenses as well needing a change).


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

I really appreciate your replies. So let me get this right, if I want to buy a (35mm) camera that give me the best image quality/resolution on the negative the two most important things are the lens and the quality of the negative. Is this correct?


----------



## amolitor (Dec 23, 2013)

Better film bodies may also:

- hold the film flatter
- hold the film more parallel to the plane of focus
- have more precisely calibrated focusing systems

And they may be more adjustable, and hence calibrate-able. A cheap body may have the film plane out of alignment, and that's all there is too it. A better body may have some adjustments a technician can make to correct any problems that have crept it.

All of these are of moderate to minimal benefit, depending on what you're doing.

Well, getting the focusing path right matters, always. The issue here is making ABSOLUTELY SURE that the optical distance to the focusing aid/mechanism is EXACTLY THE SAME as the optical distance to the film. Without that, there's basically no way to reliably get accurate focus at all.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

So where does the actual cost come from? If I have a Fuji film negative and put it in a £10 camera and put the same negative in a £1000 camera, does the high end camera give better resolution/higher image quality on the negative? Obviously the answer must be yes but why is this so? From the replies the major factor is the lens. That I can understand but how would the film body affect the resolution on the negative?

Is the main price factor of a camera the lens aside from the features?


----------



## peter27 (Dec 23, 2013)

Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

peter27 said:


> Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.



Ok so if i brought a used Minolta SR-T 101 from ebay, how would this camera differ from a bog standard £50 35mm camera from the 90's? In general, which would give the better image quality/resolution on the negative? Will it be the newer one because the technology is newer or will it be the older one because it's metal and not cheap plastic made from china?


----------



## peter27 (Dec 23, 2013)

gsingh85 said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.
> ...



I've already told you what I think but I will add that newer technology doesn't necessarily equate to better photos: or do you imagine your grandparents enjoyed sex less than yourself? Go to your local library and look through some books about famous photographers and you will see a lot of great photos taken with older technology.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

"Go to your local library and look through some books about famous  photographers and you will see a lot of great photos taken with older  technology."

That is exactly what I done. I looked at photography from the 1940's and the 1950's and the photographs. I've even looked at black and white photographs from the 1930's and the image quality looks incredible. This is exactly why I am confused.

Cameras and their features do vary quite a lot to suite different requirements and budgets when referring to the cameras features but there must be something that remains constant in terms of image resolution. So after going through what has been posted I'm thinking the lens, the film and the film body are the major factors.

35mm cameras made in the 90's will have different features to those made in the 1940's but you could get equally good image quality on both cameras. The features are certainly different but my point is what remains the same. Both, I'm assuming, will have good quality negatives, good quality lenses and both will have good film body.

So, the cameras that create low resolution images will have poor quality film, lenses and film bodies. I just want to confirm if this is correct.


----------



## Overread (Dec 23, 2013)

A photo is one part technical and one part artistic. Plus added into the mix there are a lot of very bad photos both artistically and technically which are very important because they record something important or represent the first photo of a kind or a situation. Eg a fair few famous editorial photos are very poor quality but display such a key or important event that they become famous because of the content. 

So yes with sub standard equipment you can still get an important photo - or artistically work within those limits the camera has to produce something great. Better cameras/lenses/lighting/ will reduce the limitations and extend the possibilities. It's up to the photographer then to work with them and the scene to get the shot.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 23, 2013)

Overread said:


> A photo is one part technical and one part artistic. Plus added into the mix there are a lot of very bad photos both artistically and technically which are very important because they record something important or represent the first photo of a kind or a situation. Eg a fair few famous editorial photos are very poor quality but display such a key or important event that they become famous because of the content.
> 
> So yes with sub standard equipment you can still get an important photo - or artistically work within those limits the camera has to produce something great. Better cameras/lenses/lighting/ will reduce the limitations and extend the possibilities. It's up to the photographer then to work with them and the scene to get the shot.



Yes of course that makes sense. So if I want to get the highest resolution on the negative what 35mm cameras and lenses would you recommend?


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2013)

Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP


----------



## limr (Dec 23, 2013)

I'll throw in one more vote for "the lens makes more of a difference than the film body" answer. I shot a Takumar zoom lens for nearly 20 years on my Pentax K1000 before I finally got a different lens and the difference in sharpness reached out and punched me right into next week. It's not that the bodies don't matter at all, but the lens matters more.

The other thing that you should be aware of in terms of lenses is that the coating on lenses has changed over the years too, which sometimes accounts for how different 'old' pictures look as compared to more modern lenses. Much older lenses weren't coated at all. The differences may be subtle, but coating affects image quality as well.

As for the role film plays - yes, some films have finer grain, which you could say would be the 'higher resolution' look you're looking for. Slower speed films (ISO 50 or 100 or 200 - better for bright conditions) will have finer grain than faster films (ISO 400 and up - better for low light). Certain emulsions will also have finer grain than others Kodak Portra (for color) or TMax (black and white) will tend to have much less grain than Kodak Ultra Max or TriX, though the difference is often not that noticeable in most pictures unless the images are enlarged to a certain point.

For the bodies, you're looking for reliability and accuracy if you are relying on it for focus and exposure. If you are manually setting these things, then your brain, eyes, and/or light meter are the things that need more accuracy  

My newest 35mm camera is from 1993, which is the K1000 I mentioned above, and though I bought it in 1993, the design and build quality hadn't really changed much in decades. Peter already said it: they are tanks, warhorses. My other 35mm cameras are all older and I love them.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2013)

dxqcanada said:


> Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP



Re the above link.... "The Leica MP is a supreme tool. Handcrafted, created for the photographic artist. Designed to deliver the essentials. Focused technology for focused photography, without the distraction of automation. It's for making pictures only a true photographer can see, frame and record. Not a quick fling, but the camera for a lifetime."

Somewhere in Germany, there lives a *bull*, wondering how his *dung* magically just "disappears", only to be used to write web copy for the Leica company's website pages...


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 23, 2013)

gsingh85 said:


> I am a complete beginner to photography and my interest is in Film cameras. I'm finding it really hard to work my way through all the different types of cameras. Basically I want to know if more expensive 35mm cameras give better quality than basic 35mm cameras. By "quality" I mean resolution. I'm not talking about how good the picture, I'm just talking about resolution.



Since you are just talking about "resolution" then 35mm is not the place to start. Go with medium format or better yet large format film.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Dec 23, 2013)

I agree with everyone else-I don't know NEARLY as much as a lot of these folks about the technical details, but I do know that a quality lens makes a HUGE difference in image quality. When it comes to the bodies, precision manufacturing will help hold film flatter, and higher end cameras will likely be a little easier and foolproof to load. *WARNING SHAMELESS HASSELBLAD PLUG COMING* When you talk about resolution, I definitely agree (I'm way biased) that medium format would make a much bigger difference with what you're asking than 35mm can do. Something like an old Hasselblad would be quite the step forward in resolution. Plus, if you can afford to sell a car or two, you could get a Hassie digital back with up to 50 megapixels. Only $16,000. Pretty reasonable.


----------



## compur (Dec 23, 2013)

gsingh85 said:


> Basically I want to know if more expensive 35mm cameras give better quality than basic 35mm cameras. By "quality" I mean resolution. I'm not talking about how good the picture, I'm just talking about resolution.



The term "resolution" doesn't mean the same thing in the film world as it does in the digital world. And, lens resolution isn't the same thing as film resolution.

If you want highest resolution of the final image with a film camera then you need to use the camera with the largest film format. 

If you want higher resolution with a given format such as 35mm then you need to use a film with higher resolution and/or a lens of higher resolution. But, of those two factors, it is the film that produces the most noticeable difference in resolution. Choosing a lens with higher resolution will often not even give a noticeable difference in the final image.  

This is assuming that the film is correctly exposed and processed. Badly exposed or developed film images can look terrible no matter what.


Higher resolution can improve image quality up to a point but a lousy photo of high resolution is still a lousy photo. And, on the other side of the coin, a great photo is often still a great photo regardless of its resolution.

Resolution has become little more than a gimmick for selling digital cameras and keeping the consumers buying the latest and greatest models that promise "higher quality" images simply because they contain more pixels. The funniest part of this is that most digital shooters throw away the majority of those pixels when they re-size their image because the original was way too huge to fit on a screen.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 24, 2013)

More expensive bodies make it nicers and easier to use picture quality is down to lenses and film and then the development, i use a Leica M4-2 and an M4-p and they are a pleasure to use but they dont make the pictures better


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 24, 2013)

What about the Minolta Maxxum 7000. This camera has both AF and manual? How does this compare?


----------



## gsgary (Dec 24, 2013)

Never used one 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 24, 2013)

The reason why I looked at the Minolta Maxxum 7000. This is first camera to use the AF and it was made in 1985. I have looked around and there are some really nice cameras made prior to this date and they are in the region of £200 - £300. These cameras are ones made in the 1950's but these won't be AF. I would prefer a cameras with AF because I won't be able to do it all manually.


----------



## BlackSheep (Dec 24, 2013)

I used a Maxxum 7000i (newer version of the 7000) for about 7-8 years and really liked it. The AF worked well for me. 
I mostly used it for wildlife and landscape photography.


----------



## timor (Dec 24, 2013)

Discussion went only about technicalities. Yes, in general using better equipment you will have better chance for image of better quality from technical POV. But remember, film requires a full array of skils, better quality doesn't comes automatically with better body or lens. If your film processing is not top notch, even Leica glass and body won't help you.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 24, 2013)

compur said:


> Resolution has become little more than a gimmick for selling digital cameras and keeping the consumers buying the latest and greatest models that promise "higher quality" images simply because they contain more pixels. The funniest part of this is that most digital shooters throw away the majority of those pixels when they re-size their image because the original was way too huge to fit on a screen.



This is not quite right. Throwing away pixels carefully can result in a picture with lower spatial resolution, but better color and tonal fidelity and less noise. So, there's that.


----------



## timor (Dec 24, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Throwing away pixels carefully can result in a picture with lower spatial resolution, but better color and tonal fidelity and less noise. So, there's that.


 You care for that, 95% of population doesn't nor do they have much of an idea plus 99% of picture taken never leaves the iPhone.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 24, 2013)

dxqcanada said:


> Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP



Thats next on my list but i want a black brassy one


----------



## minicoop1985 (Dec 24, 2013)

gsingh85 said:


> The reason why I looked at the Minolta Maxxum 7000. This is first camera to use the AF and it was made in 1985. I have looked around and there are some really nice cameras made prior to this date and they are in the region of £200 - £300. These cameras are ones made in the 1950's but these won't be AF. I would prefer a cameras with AF because I won't be able to do it all manually.



I've used one. Focuses faster and more reliably than my Olympus DSLR... Honestly, there isn't much that doesn't, though. Anyway, this was taken with a Maxxum 7000 and a 100-200 f4:




R1-04481-0025 by longm1985, on Flickr

They're good cameras with some GREAT glass options available (Secret Handshake, Minolta Beercan, amongst others), but when it comes down to it, I prefer manual cameras. To me, if I want something automatic, I'll grab my DSLR. I treat film as an escape from digital and a way to force myself to better understand exposure. Having a camera do that for me kinda defeats that. BUT, to each, their own.

As for 200-300 pounds (what, $400-600 ish?), try looking up old Leicas. They don't tend to be cheap.

BTW, I still highly recommend medium format.


----------



## webestang64 (Dec 24, 2013)

gsingh85 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > A photo is one part technical and one part artistic. Plus added into the mix there are a lot of very bad photos both artistically and technically which are very important because they record something important or represent the first photo of a kind or a situation. Eg a fair few famous editorial photos are very poor quality but display such a key or important event that they become famous because of the content.
> ...




Most all "name brand" 35mm camera's are just fine.
My Nikon F2 with a 55mm macro is very sharp. So is my Pentax MX with a 50mm or the Pentax 135mm tele- which is a very nice piece of glass. But then again my Canon A2E with Canon lenses is very sharp. I've made 30x40's printed in a darkroom that look fantastic. BUT....sounds like you will be scanning the film....so resolution and sharpness can be affected by that as well. 

You also have to account the film processing. 

B&W....do it yourself or find a lab that is very consistent in it's process.

For C-41 if you find a lab (like mine here in St. Louis) that uses control strips that monitor the chemicals, you will have very consistent results. C-41 is picky, I've been using C-41 process machines for 25 years and you have to get those chemicals just right.

E-6.....only time I shoot that stuff is to cross-process in C-41. Besides there is only one lab left here in St. Louis that processes E-6 and it's not that good.


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 24, 2013)

What was the first 35mm camera that used electricity? I've done some research but can't find the answer nor the year. I'm wondering if I should get a non-electrical manual one.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 24, 2013)

Umm ... didn't you just stay, "I would prefer a cameras with AF because I won't be able to do it all manually." ???


----------



## gsingh85 (Dec 24, 2013)

Yes I wouldn't able to do it but if I have a manual one at least then I can learn how to do it. From my research (and I have done a lot) it looks like most people can't agree which is the better choice, automatic or manual. I could try both and see which would work best for my needs. What I would like is an SLR non-electrical 35mm film camera where I can select good quality lenses which has a metal body. Also I don't want a camera that is too old where simple tasks are a chore because I know I will have to get a second hand one. I want something simple, as modern as possible, manual (if it's also automatic that's ok), metal (I don't like plastic), non electrical (I want to go retro) and one that I can add a bigger flash so it gives me some flexibility. I don't want a camera that has a load of extra nice features. In fact the less features the better because I want to focus on the basic technology before I move on to more advanced stuff.

The idea would be to use this camera as the benchmark one and learn from it. Then as I learn I could could branch off and learn more advance things but advanced things that matter for my requirements.

Anyone got any suggestions? I did like the Minolta 7000 but it's made out of plastic and it is electrical based. I looked on an auction site and the Nikon F3 has caught my eye. I'm checking out its spec.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Dec 24, 2013)

Hmm. Of all manual metered cameras, my favorites would be the Olympus OM series or Rollei 35. I'm guessing he meant he would have issues metering for proper exposure himself. If that's the case, there's always the option for getting whatever camera you want and a meter. Manual focusing isn't that difficult if you have the patience for it, unless you have a 2 year old. Then... there's maybe 4 cameras out there that can focus fast enough anyway.  I DID get a shot of my kid with a manual focus camera the other day (it's gotta get developed), but he was strapped in to a high chair. :mrgreen:

Edit: you posted while I was typing this. Anyway, as I said, manual focus isn't hard. In fact, manual focus is easier on some of the older cameras than on some of the new stuff. I find my OM-1n to be easier to focus manually than my E-450. Well, I think a potato would be easier to focus than my E-450, but that's a story for another day.


----------



## Designer (Dec 24, 2013)

gsingh85; one factor that has not been mentioned yet is; most really GOOD photographs have been taken by a really GOOD photographer, such as a professional.  

A professional may purchase a more expensive camera because his income depends on getting the best results that he can.  Therefore, professionals tend to spend more money on good equipment, namely an expensive camera and a really GOOD lens along with it.  So what you are likely to see when looking at the best photographs is that they are usually taken with the more high-cost equipment.  

Some of the better results come from better gear, but a significant factor is the skill of the person behind the camera.

Not to say that you can't get there, because you can if you apply yourself.   BTW: you can pick up a Minolta Maxxum 7000 and a few good AF lenses for a fraction of what they cost new.  And they will probably still be in very good condition.  If we were closer, I could sell you mine.  I could still sell you mine and my grandson could take it to England when he returns to university after the holiday break.  PM me if you are interested.

here is my listing:  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/336355-fs-minolta-maxxum-7000-3-lenses-flash.html

PM me with an offer if you are interested.


----------

