# Film camera or a digital...?



## norway_dino (Jan 19, 2013)

Hello all.

Hope some can help me.
Up to now I have just used a small pocket digital camera. Quality, not so good.
But, I am getting more and more interested in photo and cameras. So, I am in the need of a new camera.

My father did have a Pentax Asia(?) from the late ´60`s and the photos he did take with that one looks great 40 or so years after.
The camera is still here, but unused for, oh, 10-15 years.....
How will these camera be today? Still match modern day digital cameras when it comes to photo quality?

Is it hard to use?

Will I be "better" off with a new good digital camera?
Yes, I know it is film, but looking at the old photos makes me smile. I am far far from an expert, but for me the camera and the photos it did deliver looks/feels great.

Any tip/help is welcome. Thank you all for looking.

A good weekend all.


----------



## Compaq (Jan 19, 2013)

I think most people can agree that learning photography with an analog camera, isn't the most "practical" way to do it. You can't see what you get until you develop your film, and even that takes some practice until you get consistently good results. You won't get a good idea of how your aperture affects your depth of field and sharpness until after you've developed the film, and you must take good notes to be able to do that as well. It's much easier to learn these things with digital.

Now, film has its advances as well, as you focus on the basics. Making proper exposures, not spraying shots, but rather thinking about what "deserves" to be captured. A film only has room for 24-ish or 36-ish exposures.

Film is said to give just as sharp results as digital, although I have not pursued this very far. You're a bit limited in the post processing part with analog, it's not as easy as photoshop (though you're able to do very much in the darkroom, it takes time to learn).

I think shooting some analog would do many photographers some good, but at which stage to introduce it (pedagogically speaking), I'm not sure.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 19, 2013)

Why not get both if you can afford it? Get a good digital body (depending on your budget) to learn with new technology and use the film camera as a second body. Ever since I received my Nikon FG I carry it everywhere with my D7000.


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

Digital is now technically superior to negative film in most ways (one exception being exposure latitude), but that doesn't mean that film cannot deliver some very good results still today. You can even have your film developed and scanned at a reasonable price ($10 or so per roll) at various film processing labs if you don't want to learn how to develop it yourself right away. I'm getting into film a bit myself and that is what I plan to do for the forseeable future.

Oh, and the camera is a Pentax Asahi brand. Just out of curiosity, do you know what model it is?


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

You have the "Asahi Pentax", probably a Spotmatic. If the name "Spotmatic" appears on the body, it has a meter. They are not hard to use, but everyting is "manual" on it. You set the shutter-speed and F-Stop for the exposure, and will need to use the meter. If you can find a model number or name on the body, report back. Same with the lens, look for the numbers such as "50/1.4". Some of the Pentax lenses used a type of glass that yellows with age. This will produce a color cast if used with color film. So again: report back.

The Pentax lenses are among the best ever made. You could get a Digital "Mirrorless" camera with an inexpensive adapter to use the lenses, an Olympus EPL1 is currently running under $150 for the body, new in box. That's the low-end of interchangeable lens digital cameras. So, you could do both film and digital, and use the lenses on both cameras.


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 19, 2013)

Hello and thank you all for the reply`s.

The camera is a Pentax Asahi Sportmatic. On the camera there is SP and the number 242447.
The lenses that comes with is are: 49 mm, S L39-3. Super-Takumar 1:3.5/28 2774155  Asahi Opt.Co, and one 49,, cloud (a20) c. Super Takumar 1:3.5/135 2787439.

Hope these information helps.
Oh, yes, there is a blitz to, original I was told. Have to find it first...Sorry.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

Compaq said:


> I think most people can agree that learning photography with an analog camera, isn't the most "practical" way to do it. You can't see what you get until you develop your film, and even that takes some practice until you get consistently good results. You won't get a good idea of how your aperture affects your depth of field and sharpness until after you've developed the film, and you must take good notes to be able to do that as well. It's much easier to learn these things with digital.
> 
> Now, film has its advances as well, as you focus on the basics. Making proper exposures, not spraying shots, but rather thinking about what "deserves" to be captured. A film only has room for 24-ish or 36-ish exposures.
> 
> ...


I think, sorry Anders, that you are missing the point completely and I wonder why. You have enough experience. Photography and it's digital "variety" have as technology not much to do with each other. Some, like you are fans of both, some embrace digital only, some, like me go with film and consider digital not a photography, but a part of digital graphics. To be fully "analog" one needs a darkroom which is a drag for most people including professionals. The difference in learning photography with film and digital is huge. Digital for someone interested in making just some images is fine and very convenient way to go. Composition of a picture has nothing to do with a technology and that is actually faster to learn with digital, however in no way this is learning a "photography". So for our PO: if you have no interest, no space, time an patience to learn secrets of exposing silver halides to light go with digital. Halfhearted attempts with film will bring only frustration.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 19, 2013)

timor said:
			
		

> I think, sorry Anders, that you are missing the point completely and I wonder why. You have enough experience. Photography and it's digital "variety" have as technology not much to do with each other. Some, like you are fans of both, some embrace digital only, some, like me go with film and consider digital not a photography, but a part of digital graphics. To be fully "analog" one needs a darkroom which is a drag for most people including professionals. The difference in learning photography with film and digital is huge. Digital for someone interested in making just some images is fine and very convenient way to go. Composition of a picture has nothing to do with a technology and that is actually faster to learn with digital, however in no way this is learning a "photography". So for our PO: if you have no interest, no space, time an patience to learn secrets of exposing silver halides to light go with digital. Halfhearted attempts with film will bring only frustration.



So am I a "Wedding Digital Graphics Producer?" 

Using a digital camera isn't photography huh? 

And I'm sure you only listen to vinyls, and 8 tracks? You must also be submitting your posts to the TPF servers via carrier pigeon and NOT a computer, right? 

Sorry dude. Just because you don't acknowledge a digital replication (not exact) of photography as actual photography, doesn't mean much if you don't carry on this philosophy in regards to other evolving technology.  You process negs in a darkroom, I process negs on a computer. They're exposed the same way, and they both go through a "finishing" process. Digital art and graphics has a lot more to do with graphic design, illustration and so on. The capturing of a static image is still photography. Light entering a lens and being captured by a medium (be it film or a sensor) is still photography. 

I think Anders has a pretty balanced and accurate description of the contrasts of film and digital.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

To the OP- you can learn photography with a camera, digital or with film. Sad that you had to walk into a "religious debate".

Many of us use both digital and film type cameras for our photography. As far as one being superior to the other, I never get into that. They are different physical media to accomplish the same purposes. Learn the advantages and disadvantages of each, you will be a better photographer for the effort.

The two lenses : 28mm/3.5 is a "wide-angle" lens because it takes in a "wide-view". The 135/3.5 is a telephoto lens and magnifies things by almost 3x. Good kit. I am surprised there is not a "55mm/1.8" or "50mm/1.4" in the kit. The 49mm number is the "filter size", diamater of attachments that screw into the lenses. "L39" is a filter that cuts out ultraviolet rays, the "Cloud" filter is used for black and white photography to reduce "blue" and increase contrast.

If you can, post a picture of your setup. The Spotmatic (the SP tells me that) has a built in light-meter that needs a battery. If the old one was left in, might be corroded. Look on the bottom of the camera, there is a circulat cap with a slot in ot for a coin. Try a penny or dime, remove the cap and inspect the compartment. The "1.35v" battery is obsolete, but a modern equivalent is available.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> So am I a "Wedding Digital Graphics Producer?"


Call it as you like to, free (in this matter) world.
Original photography is about direct action of energy of the light in photosensitive chemicals in creating image, digital is about guessing pixels and managing them with technology taken directly from digital graphics. I am not downplaying digital, I am just pointing to the core differences. I am not taking away from the beauty of your pictures, be assured of that, I didn't attack you personally. Just if two people say "photography" it might not mean the same thing. (Such a times. Until film disappear.) And, if you surely noticed, I advised PO to go with digital as easier way to learn how to make a pictures, at least on the beginning. Later, on your level it might get really complicated, when with film is quite the opposite. The question for PO is what he really wants.
And *YES*, I am listen to vinyls, with maybe surprise to you, they are all made just recently and contain music you can't buy in other forms of distribution. (maybe as MP3, well...). Is something wrong with this ?


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> To the OP- you can learn photography with a camera, digital or with film. Sad that you had to walk into a "religious debate".


Common Brian, religious debates ended, but if someone walks into photography, he should be informed about differences and problems of both systems. Of course one can learn photography with both, as at the end is a picture to be hanged on the wall (I hope) and easier to get there is with digital. There is another point: shooting digital will give a young person something to talk with his peers, film..? Not so much. In the last 10 years I've seen many young enthusiasts of photography trying film, frustrated and then going from FF digital to Iphone. Iphone can make one a happy photographer.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

I've given away at least 20 good film cameras to the younger generation ranging from TLR's, SLR's, Polaroids, and Rangefinders over the last few years. Of the ones in the area, always followed up with them to see how they were doing. 

I also gave away a Black Pentax Spotmatic to someone that had used one for 40 years, his could not be repaired. It's a great camera.

And yes- if someone proclaims that "Digital" is not photography, that is akin to religious dogma.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> And yes- if someone proclaims that "Digital" is not photography, that is akin to religious dogma.


You are taking this too deeply. Important is to have a fun, not frustrations.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

Former member of APUG and RFF. I've seen a lot of film vs digital debates. I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic.

Back to the OP: Spotmatic is a great camera, and two great lenses. Check out operation of the camera and report back. Digital cameras exist that can use the lenses.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

The Same Pentax lens used with a Film camera and with a Digital camera.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 19, 2013)

Digital can be a lot cheaper to learn with. For the most part, once you have the general equipment, your expenses stop. With film, it is going to cost you every time you finish a roll.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic..


 Me either .
Great pics, what lens is that ?


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

TonysTouch said:


> Digital can be a lot cheaper to learn with. For the most part, once you have the general equipment, your expenses stop. With film, it is going to cost you every time you finish a roll.


It is maybe not the full truth. Nowadays fully usable slr with lenses may cost as much or as little as $100, for a roll of 400' of film I paid just yesterday  $185, chemicals maybe $50 a year, paper is expensive, but the same or worst with digital printing. Basic dslr $500, better lens for it $1000, good computer $?, Photoshop $700, printer $? (around $800 ?) Inks $?. Cost of basic digital setup keeps me shooting film for 5 years, by that time all digital hardware is due for scrapping. I think more important in consideration is the convenience.


----------



## ann (Jan 19, 2013)

I use both, my enlarger is 50 years old , still working and i have only had to replace a light bulb a few times, all my other darkroom equipment is working fine, with no upgrades.

The list of upgrades on the digital side, too large to type and the expense is huge.

Film people love the process, one doesn't do darkroom work to save money, it has a whole different rhythm and feel.

For some getting general digital equipment, the expense may stop but not for a serious worker.

This is one of those questions that doesn't have a specific answer, as both have value and both have draw backs.


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Former member of APUG and RFF. I've seen a lot of film vs digital debates. I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic.



The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).

A camera maker could conceivably build a film camera that used digital electronics for the metering, auto-focus, shutter control, etc, but because film is an analog medium I would still call it an analog camera. Actually, many SLR's from as far back as the 80's DO have digital electronics, such as any Canon EOS SLR (the auto-focus system is digital).


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 19, 2013)

You can find used DSLR's for quite cheap. Plus, I was talking for learning not more advanced work. Used DSLR, with OEM editing program (or GIMP), the computer you currently have, and taking the photos to Walmart or Costco, (or not printing at all), and you can start learning photography for a couple hundred bucks or less.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 19, 2013)

If you have the time, I would try both. There are some things you will learn faster and cheaper with a digital, and the film camera will give you inspiration to think more before shooting and it is just lots of fun.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

timor said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > I will never understood why "APUG" used the term "Analog" as opposed to Chemical. Analog cameras are electronic..
> ...




Thankyou,

Pentax 85/4.5 in M42 thread mount. On film- Fujica ST-801, first camera with LED meter display. On Digital, Olympus EP2.

(And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).


On the funny side film is quite "digital". Particles of silver halides converts to silver or not, 0 or 1, there is nothing in between.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

Back to the original question- if you like the photographs that your father made with the camera, give it a try. There is sentimental value in using a camera that captured family memories over decades. Being able to use it again for that purpose, value-added.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Pentax 85/4.5 in M42 thread mount. On film- Fujica ST-801, first camera with LED meter display. On Digital, Olympus EP2.
> 
> (And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)


Oh, is that lens converted to M42 from K mount ?


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

timor said:


> christop said:
> 
> 
> > The "analog" refers to the recording medium itself not being digital (and the electronics are still analog).
> ...



If you want to go down that path, we could call _everything_ digital because every particle of matter can be in one of a number of discrete energy states. Light is composed of "packets of energy", each of which is in a single energy state. Now my old AM radio is digital, my incandescent light bulbs are digital, and even my coffee table is digital! 



BrianV said:


> (And- Film is not analog. It is a chemical medium. The only reason the term "analog" was applied was to separate it from digital. Vinyl records are analog)



I still disagree. Film is "analog" because it records (using chemical processes) an analog signal, defined by Wikipedia as "a signal that contains information using non-quantized variances in frequency and amplitude". Of course this definition works only if we ignore the quantized nature of tiny particles, otherwise we could say that film and vinyl records (and everything else in the universe) are "digital".


----------



## Mully (Jan 19, 2013)

Compaq said:


> I think most people can agree that learning photography with an analog camera, isn't the most "practical" way to do it. You can't see what you get until you develop your film, and even that takes some practice until you get consistently good results. You won't get a good idea of how your aperture affects your depth of field and sharpness until after you've developed the film, and you must take good notes to be able to do that as well. It's much easier to learn these things with digital.
> 
> Now, film has its advances as well, as you focus on the basics. Making proper exposures, not spraying shots, but rather thinking about what "deserves" to be captured. A film only has room for 24-ish or 36-ish exposures.
> 
> ...





That's what I did wrong ....I got into photography way before digital ...should have waited for digital, would have been a whole lot easier.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2013)

Film has soul, digital is like plastic


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.


OK. Ultra Achromatic Takumar. :thumbup:


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Film has soul, digital is like plastic



But, but... film _is_ plastic! I'm totally confused now.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> If you want to go down that path, we could call _everything_ digital because every particle of matter can be in one of a number of discrete energy states. Light is composed of "packets of energy",


Light could be also a wave. Which form prefers sensor in digital camera ? Never mind, doesn't matter, what counts is the output of registering device. Sensor gives voltage of many different values, film... you know.
Plastic is only "skeleton", the soul hides in organic emulsion.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > christop said:
> ...



Whatever. No one called it Analog photography until digital was mainstream. It's a stupid description just to differentiate from Digital. Put it under a microscope, it's simply not analog. It's called "grain". Maybe you have heard of it. You can, of course, use film to store digital data. Been there, done that.

But for "analog" photography, you should try APUG.ORG.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

timor said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > No- It was available only in M42 mount, Around 1970 or so. It was more popular for technical photography, can be used for UV through to IR. It has better color correction than the new Leica APO Summicron.
> ...



That's the one. Pentax is one up on Leica. 

I converted a Pentax 50/1.4 for my Leica, M-Mount adapter and made an RF cam for it. Summilux 50/1.4 quality for about 5% of the price.

for the OP: Pentax lenses are world-class, a reason why those family photos came out so well. The lenses and camera are well worth using.

This is with the Pentax 50/1.4 "Super-Takumar", which would have been current with your Spotmatic. See if your Father had a 50mm or 55mm lens with his camera as well, they were considered "Normal Lenses". They are great for low-light.


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Whatever. No one called it Analog photography until digital was mainstream.



Irrelevant. No one called electronics analog until digital electronics were invented. No one called vinyl records analog until digital audio came around.



> Put it under a microscope, it's simply not analog. It's called "grain". Maybe you have heard of it.



Yes, I have, just as an analog (a "stupid description to differentiate it from digital") audio cassette tape has magnetic grain which can be heard as high-frequency noise, or "tape hiss". Film grain is seen as a high-frequency noise. It's the same thing.



> You can, of course, use film to store digital data. Been there, done that.



Yup. Dolby Digital audio is stored on the sides of 35mm film. Practically any analog medium can be used to store or transmit digital data. On the flipside, all digital data must also exist in some analog form one way or another.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> I still disagree. Film is "analog" because it records (using chemical processes) an analog signal, defined by Wikipedia as "a signal that contains information using non-quantized variances in frequency and amplitude". Of course this definition works only if we ignore the quantized nature of tiny particles, otherwise we could say that film and vinyl records (and everything else in the universe) are "digital".



Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal?  The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor.  If it's analog because 'the signal' is analog, then every camera ever made is analog.

It seems like you are just looking for excuses to call it analog.

I mostly shoot film, but I've never refereed to it as analog...


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> Irrelevant. No one called electronics analog until digital electronics were invented. No one called vinyl records analog until digital audio came around.


Correct, but we new they were analog and we new that they might be digital, just nobody invented them yet. Never heard, that the output of film photography was ever analog. Or digital for that matter.


----------



## christop (Jan 19, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal?  The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor.



Of course it does, but in a "digital camera" the analog light signal is converted to an analog voltage level by the sensor which is then converted to digital data by an ADC, whereas the analog light signal is recorded directly to analog film through a chemical reaction. It's the digital data that we work with with digital cameras. If you want to go further, a film scanner converts the analog light signal from film to a digital signal.



> If it's analog because 'the signal' is analog, then every camera ever made is analog.



The last sentence in my last post actually agrees with this statement, in a way--that (in other words) all digital signals must be encoded inside an analog signal.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 19, 2013)

christop said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Does a digital camera not also record an analog signal?  The 'signal' being the light falling on the sensor.
> ...



I think I can agree with all of that.




I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading that since a lot of movies are filmed on digital gear these days, they're actually converting some of them to film for longevity.



Still, calling film 'analog' has always seemed kind of pretentious to me...  (And that is coming from a 'film snob', lol)


----------



## terri (Jan 20, 2013)

A friendly reminder: film vs. digital debates are frowned upon here, since it usually turns into some meaningless, cantankerous 12-page argument with the OP long gone.    

As long as the OP is genuinely engaged in this discussion, with no actual debates on the merits of both mediums, the thread can stand.   If not (and especially given that the OP is a newbie here, tossing this out) the thread will be closed.   

Thanks!


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 20, 2013)

Hello and thank you all for lots of reply, tips and information.

As sad, the camera has a sentimental value to me, that is why I like to use THESE one. But, I like to try and learn using a film camera.

Back to the camera, it also has a SUN AUTO TELE-UP 2X Model-P and a lens my father got some years later, SOLIGOR TELE-AUTO 1:6.3 f=400mm No.17110455. 
These lens is to heavy I was told to hold, need a tripod, and I have the one he got with the camera, made in metal, wow, not plastic as today.

So, if I understand something, I can learn taking photos with a digital camera, but, I need to take more time, think before I take the photo. 
I know I have been taking LOTS of photos, and all turn out bad......If I only did use a bit more time....Well, I will learn, I hope.

If I get it right, a film camera needs the user to be more relaxed, think and plan what-when-how and so before taking the photo. I like that, sounds fun.
Will take some photos of the Pentax and show here later today.
But, yes, I will go and get some film and a new battery tomorrow and try.

I guess it is easier to use the Pentax outside, no need to use the blitz/ekstra light, or am I wrong?

A good sunday to you all.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 20, 2013)

I started with a film SLR and shot with it for about 10 years before I finally moved on to digital. They are very much the same, yet very different. I am very glad that I started with film because that helped me with my foundations. When I look at a photo opportunity, I am thinking about aperture, shutter speed and what ISO I was shooting with, instead of "portrait", "landscape", "night" modes etc. I have done the dark room experience and it was fun, but I can't realistically spend enough time to develop all of my photos in the dark room to my liking. So I got a film scanner and did the post processing digitally. Did it defeat the purpose of shooting in film? Absolutely not.

When I started with my first DSLR, it was "pick up and go" for me. With DSLR I began to dial into more details, like how to get the most sharpness out of my lens, how to get the depth of field I want etc. It helped me get familiar with my equipment, lens etc better because the instant review made it easier for quick comparisons. It was a lot more convenient too. I used to have to carry 30 rolls of film canisters on my travels. Now it's just a few memory cards, and with a laptop, I can actually be processing them as I go.

I'd say start with a film, then move on to a DSLR when you become more confident. This is provided that you have the accessibility to develop your films and have them scanned digitally. If not, digital is just the easier way.


----------



## ann (Jan 20, 2013)

THANK YOU TERRI !


----------



## BrianV (Jan 20, 2013)

norway_dino said:


> Hello and thank you all for lots of reply, tips and information.
> 
> As sad, the camera has a sentimental value to me, that is why I like to use THESE one. But, I like to try and learn using a film camera.
> 
> ...



You do not have to use the Flash outside.Sometimes there are advantages to it, such as shooting a portrait where you want to fill in the shadows. Later for that!

Some books on Photography would teach you much, and the older ones from the 70s and 80s will cover the use of film. There were series of books for the Pentax.

Look for "The Pentax Way", by Herb Keppler.

Just a random Ebay auction:

3 Books 35mm Photographer's Handbook The Pentax Way Elementary Photos 0517578255 | eBay

A Manual camera requires more setup, and you do put thought into lens opening and shutter speed combinations to best suit the scene. You can so this with Digital cameras that offer more control.


----------



## terri (Jan 20, 2013)

ann said:


> THANK YOU TERRI !


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 20, 2013)

BrianV, thanks for the tip.
I will get me some books and start reading.....and learn some things


Thanks all for good tip and helping me starting with a camera with film. It feels good to say that, I can not wait to try it out.

All the best.


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 21, 2013)

Had a look in some old bags today, oh..what is that?
Yes, a lens, one more. These one also in the original leather "bag". Nice.
These is a 1:1.8/55 2576787

So, now my "new" camera has 3 original lenses. The bag also had 2, what shall I call it(?), (sunshades?), to screw onto the lens.

Now the film is loaded in, time to try it. For me, these vintage camera feels high tech, yes...Maybe I am crazy...


----------



## timor (Jan 21, 2013)

"The bag also had 2, what shall I call it(?), (sunshades?), to screw onto the lens."
They are called "hoods".


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 21, 2013)

Timor, do you mean hoods, as in protective hoods for the lens?
The on in the bag was hollow, looking like a lens body.


----------



## hydroshock (Jan 21, 2013)

that's what it sounds like norway, and have fun with the film, can't wait to see the results. both ways are fine imo, they are just different. what matters is how much patience you have. you can get same quality, and in some instances better with film. i have both and love both, but seriously? large format man, just get yourself a nice horseman, or graflex and a comfy wide brimmed hat cuz you might be in the sun for a while lol.


----------



## timor (Jan 21, 2013)

norway_dino said:


> Timor, do you mean hoods, as in protective hoods for the lens?
> The on in the bag was hollow, looking like a lens body.


Hoods:
Lens hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is that what you have ?
I don't know, what do you call "lens body"


----------



## BrianV (Jan 21, 2013)

norway_dino said:


> Had a look in some old bags today, oh..what is that?
> Yes, a lens, one more. These one also in the original leather "bag". Nice.
> These is a 1:1.8/55 2576787
> 
> ...




the 55/1.8 is very good lens to start with, and is good in low light. The Lens Hoods, which serve as Sun Shades, screw into the end of the lenses as noted. There are engravings in the Pentax made hoods to indicate which lenses to use them on.


----------



## compur (Jan 21, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I mostly shoot film, but I've never refereed to it as analog...



I don't call it analog either.  It seem like such a nerdy term.  I just call it film photography or sometimes chemical photography.


----------



## christop (Jan 21, 2013)

compur said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly shoot film, but I've never refereed to it as analog...
> ...



I guess I fit the "nerdy" category!


----------



## compur (Jan 22, 2013)

^ Well, technically, film is analog so the term is valid. And, analog has earned a certain cachet as being "cool" in other mediums like vinyl records, tube amplifiers, etc. I grew up with film so I just think of it as plain old photography with no real adjective necessary I guess.

I attend camera shows regularly here in Southern California. I have a table and buy and sell cameras and related photo stuff but mostly I just and chat with the attendees and other sellers. I've been doing that for many years now. It has given me a window into the reality of photo enthusiasts as the years go by and in recent years I've been seeing many young people who have never used a film camera before yet they are photographers. It seems so odd to me but that's the way it is. It's a completely different scene then it used to be.  Last weekend I sold a young lady photographer a Retina. It was her first film camera.  She knew nothing about rangefinders or setting apertures and shutter speeds or loading film and so on yet she was a photographer. She's a very nice lady and as bright as can be but was completely unfamiliar with the things that we film guys consider the basics of photography. But, she just loved the look and feel of that Retina. Anyway, she was enthralled with the camera and bought it and I hope she has a lovely time using it. She is but one example of many young people I talk to regularly at these shows. I can see that the photography scene has changed so dramatically with the advent of digital cameras. But, I digress ...


----------



## norway_dino (Jan 22, 2013)

Thanks for the tip regarding what lens to start with. The hoods are on, thanks for the link.
I am going out now, sun, bright day, snow and -27C so the clear sky and snow looks soooo nice.
Hope it will on the photo to

A good day all.


----------



## ktan7 (May 6, 2013)

I think that the only way to learn photography is through film cameras. Yes, film cameras are expensive to shoot but it really transform you to an artist. Shooting digital gives you the luxury of shooting hundreds of images, where as film cameras, you just take 1 good shot.


----------



## TonysTouch (May 6, 2013)

ktan7 said:


> I think that the only way to learn photography is through film cameras. Yes, film cameras are expensive to shoot but it really transform you to an artist. Shooting digital gives you the luxury of shooting hundreds of images, where as film cameras, you just take 1 good shot.


Or just one bad shot.

if you want to emulate the limited amount of shots you get with film, you should just carry one tiny memory card.


----------



## jake337 (May 6, 2013)

I would say start with digital and grab a film camera when your ready.  Film isn't to spendy if you shoot sparingly.  I only shoot two rolls a month for fun.


----------

