# EOS or Vintage Canon ?



## gat3keeper (Aug 9, 2017)

I'm a pro wedding photographer but started in digital (dslr). Through the years, I've noticed that film camera may have some advantages in storing photos.

Now, I would like to try film photography and choosing the right camera is overwhelming.

I'm eyeing for Canon or Nikon due to vast availability of lenses in our area. For canon, should I get the EOS or the vintage cams ?

I don't have EOS lenses for I used Fuji for professional work


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 9, 2017)

In theory ... Canon manual focus lenses should be more obtainable and cheaper as they cannot be used natively on the current Canon digital cameras ... unlike Nikon.
I think the only people grabbing Canon MF mount are mirrorless people.


----------



## gat3keeper (Aug 9, 2017)

Good Point there mate


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 9, 2017)

... the best Canon MF camera you can get a hold of is the NEW F-1.
I used one for years and it was an awesome camera ... like the Nikon F3.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 9, 2017)

Using an EOS film camera will require little learning as in most respects they are the same as EOS digital cameras. They also have the advantage of being able to use modern designs of lenses.

If you use, for example, a Canon FD mount camera, the controls are very different and the focus and aperture are manually adjusted on the lens barrel. No adjustment wheel by the shutter release.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## gat3keeper (Aug 9, 2017)

Yeah but here in Philippines, Canon F1 is the most expensive film camera among the following models

Nikon F3 
EOS Elan
Canon AE1
Nikon 501
Nikon 801
Pentax LX , MX
etc...


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 9, 2017)

The Pentax LX is also a good camera ... very under-rated.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 9, 2017)

... and Olympus made some really nice glass.
Olympus Resources for Zuiko Lenses


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 9, 2017)

My Pentax MX is a very good camera and so is my Canon EOS A2E.


----------



## Jamesaz (Aug 9, 2017)

Are you planing to shoot film for weddings? Because that would be different. If you want to shoot film for personal use there are good M42 mount cameras and lenses available for not much.


----------



## smarty62 (Aug 10, 2017)

I would go for EOS film cams. But keep in mind, that the latest EF lenses may not run with the older EOS film cams. I.e. the latest fully electronic non L EF 70-300 mm doesn't AF with my EOS 50E, which I love for it's weight and smoothness.

Just my 2 cents 
Gerhard

Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk


----------



## sniper x (Aug 26, 2017)

I am one who still has, and uses Canon SLR cameras. I have an A1, AE1, and A2e (EOS) cameras as well as some others. I had an F1 system years ago and am looking for another one to replce my old one. Here are my suggestions. First off, if your goal is to shoot along with the DSLR, then yes get a EOS 35mm camera, A2, or above like 1N 1NRS whatever. All are great. I use to shoot sports with A2's and 1N's. If you want to shoot fine art of street or whatever, then I suggest a fine system like the F1, or A1. Both have advantages but for someone who never shot film, you may wnat to get an A1 or even an AE1 FIRST....learn to shoot film on it, then decide if you want to progress to a Canon pro body like the A1 or F1.

FINE FD FL prosumer or entry pro lenses are available cheap, from 30-100 dollars, and the old FD / FL lenses L series will fit the old non EOS Canon bodies mentioned are 100_500 dollars. If you get an EOS body, the lenses are the same as those for the DSLR's of toady if they are the EF series lenses. They are much more expensive than getting into film on a FD mount Canon. I would stay away from Nikon due to what has been mentioned about the lesnes.

You can get into a Canon A1, motor drive, and 5 or six prime lenses and a few zooms for under 600 dollars.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 26, 2017)

The camera is not that important...Film and Lens is the most important...then developing. body is just the shutter. 

At least that's the way I look at it. Lens and film is what delivers the quality, the rest is up to the user.

I love film...B&W...I miss darkroom work...It gets old quick though!

vintage Spotmatic and some m42 lens...cheap and easy, good quality lenses available.


----------



## sniper x (Aug 26, 2017)

Hey Dragster, that is overly simplifying it. The body is everything as a starting point. If one takes into consideration which lens maker or leverl of expense they want. To how quickly they will need to upgrade the body or not...


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 26, 2017)

There are so many more variables when doing film, the body is the least of your worries. The quality is not in the body...ever.

35mm is not a professional or high quality film camera. If I ever do film again it wont be 35mm... I'll whip out the Mamiya MF.

My dad used to do weddings with a Mamiya, and a pair of spotmatics.

Is this guy gonna do weddings with it?


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 26, 2017)

gat3keeper said:


> I'm a pro wedding photographer but started in digital (dslr). Through the years, I've noticed that film camera may have some advantages in storing photos.
> 
> Now, I would like to try film photography and choosing the right camera is overwhelming.
> 
> ...



Storing the photos? What do you mean?


----------



## sniper x (Aug 26, 2017)

I am betting he means they aren't as volitile as having digital photos stored on a digital device, or a service. Not to mention, having a physical thing stored instead of data. This is an ongoing discussion all over the planet when people discuss film and digital photos. And I might ask, since when is a quality camera body not ever inportant? If this is true, why doesn't everyone sell off all their expensive film bidies and buy the cheapest body their lenses fit? I mean like Leica owners and Hasselblad owners?


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 26, 2017)

sniper x said:


> I am betting he means they aren't as volitile as having digital photos stored on a digital device, or a service. Not to mention, having a physical thing stored instead of data. This is an ongoing discussion all over the planet when people discuss film and digital photos. And I might ask, since when is a quality camera body not ever inportant? If this is true, why doesn't everyone sell off all their expensive film bidies and buy the cheapest body their lenses fit? I mean like Leica owners and Hasselblad owners?



Exactly my point. Hasselblad and Leica have no features whatsoever, they just hold a good lens. Bodies mean nothing. 

I guess I just look at it differently. 

Silly to think that a photo will hold up better than something virtual...The paper will eventually decay. A data file will always be there.

I love film...But its just not practical. I still find myself not shooting enough. Like I'm shooting film!


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> Silly to think that a photo will hold up better than something virtual...The paper will eventually decay. A data file will always be there.
> 
> I love film...But its just not practical. I still find myself not shooting enough. Like I'm shooting film!


I have recently been scanning some negatives for a friend that her father took in the 1940s. She found them while going through his effects after he died. She had no idea they existed and had taken her time going through this last box of stuff. Had they been stored on a server somewhere, she would not have known where, would not have known her father's username, would not have known his password. That is assuming that the technology over a seventy year plus period was still compatible. Try opening a first generation Canon raw file in 2017!



Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 27, 2017)

I agree with you, but data files have always existed. Think of the Vatican as a server. And when your kids go through your "stuff" I'm sure they are gonna look on your computer. I don't save important things in cyber space. I think cyber space is the problem...I need to be able to touch my data, in the form of a CD or hard drive...LMFAO


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 27, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Try opening a first generation Canon raw file in 2017!



Jpeg would be the proper comparison to a paper photo. You can open any Jpeg.

BTW I really like that Mamiya 500DTL, that is a great body. I saw it on your blog... Killer!


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 27, 2017)

But my digital photo files are not stored as jpegs! When I pop my clogs, my daughter is going to deal with several ring binders of negatives and a hard drive full of .CR2 files. To make it worse, those .CR2 files are from three cameras and are consist of three versions of .CR2. My current software will not open .CR2 files from my EOS 350D - that is a matter of ten years. How much worse will it be in thirty years time?

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 27, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> But my digital photo files are not stored as jpegs! When I pop my clogs, my daughter is going to deal with several ring binders of negatives and a hard drive full of .CR2 files. To make it worse, those .CR2 files are from three cameras and are consist of three versions of .CR2. My current software will not open .CR2 files from my EOS 350D - that is a matter of ten years. How much worse will it be in thirty years time?
> 
> Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


Think ahead and make those final edits and make them jpegs...you have to think ahead. Don't make it harder than necessary...my kids don't wanna see pictures of a bird I took while being artsy, they want family pictures of memories. 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 27, 2017)

Here is my take being a converted Fujifilm shooter from Nikon. I chose the Fujifilm because it operates like a manual film camera. I still shoot a lot of film. I have several film cameras. Canon AE1, Pentax P30T, Pentax SP1000, Pentax K1000, Nikon FM to name a few. I use manual focus on my mirrorless 90% of the time. See the pattern? I prefer the P30T the most at this time because it is an aperture priority camera.  I would love a Pentax LX or a F3HP simply for the viewfinder but getting one cheap hasn't appeared yet. Good glass is a bonus in my opinion but not a necessity per say. I have tried various film and have narrowed it down to two basically for black and white. Tri-X (400tx), and Acros 100. I like the latitude (pushing) that both present. I don't shoot much color so haven't settled on one in particular but usually use Agfa Vista 200 but if I were shooting people, probably would use Portra 160 or Fuji 400H. As far as developing, I prefer D76 for black & white, and unicolor kit for color. D76 works great for both my B &W films, I found the ilfosol 3 is not good with Acros.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 27, 2017)

Good glass is a bonus? The glass and the film is everything. The body is just a shutter. Why would you need so many cameras? Do u load them with different speeds? I like simplicity. This isn't 1975, digital is better. Again I live film and the process, I wish I had time to do it...but I don't. My 10 year old wants to shoot film. Maybe I'll start a thread so us old-timers can get a better perspective ...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Jamesaz (Aug 27, 2017)

Since my backup HD failed I shoot film pretty much all the time. The dead HD takes up less space in the closet than a shoe box of negatives but serves the same purpose.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> Good glass is a bonus? The glass and the film is everything. The body is just a shutter. Why would you need so many cameras? Do u load them with different speeds? I like simplicity. This isn't 1975, digital is better. Again I live film and the process, I wish I had time to do it...but I don't. My 10 year old wants to shoot film. Maybe I'll start a thread so us old-timers can get a better perspective ...
> 
> Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


Yes, IMO it's a bonus because I think there is more to making art. The lens and camera are the tools. Creative thinking, composition, and developing is the art. I have seen many wonderful images with less than high quality hardware. Plastic lens would be an example. 

I have many camera's because I like them and most are purchased cheap or given to me. However, they all do the same thing... take pictures, they're cameras.... including digital.


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 28, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Yes, IMO it's a bonus because I think there is more to making art. The lens and camera are the tools.



Exactly my point...with the proper skills You can do anything. You don't need a camera that wipes your ass.

Too many people need the "right body"...IDK but I don't use any of the auto stuff... Since digital is free, I just take shots with multiple speeds, apertures, shoot away...Only reason for digital upgrade is the sensor... the film essentially. All the other stuff is fluff. Sorry everyone.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 28, 2017)

The shutter makes a big difference - leaf, horizontal focal plane or vertical focal plane produce very different pictures, particularly with moving subjects.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 28, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> The shutter makes a big difference - leaf, horizontal focal plane or vertical focal plane produce very different pictures, particularly with moving subjects.
> 
> Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


Easy...Pentax ME, Spotmatic, and a Mamiya ...I'll pick up an ME at the flea market, already have the other 2. [emoji6] 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 28, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > The shutter makes a big difference - leaf, horizontal focal plane or vertical focal plane produce very different pictures, particularly with moving subjects.
> ...


Point I was trying to make is the importance of the body beyond holding the lens and sensor in place. The type of shutter is every bit as important as either the lens or sensor/film.

Your: "The glass and the film is everything. The body is just a shutter"


Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dragster3 (Aug 28, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...


No matter what shutter you have...if the film is not the right speed/ quality for the occasion and your glass is crap...your shot is crap. That sir is not an opinion...it's a fact. Leaf, vertical, horizontal... preference. I like leaf...I don't really do action shots. But hey...that's just me. You may want to do race cars ... You need a vertical? Right? I feel ya...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 28, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> The shutter makes a big difference - leaf, horizontal focal plane or vertical focal plane produce very different pictures, particularly with moving subjects.
> 
> Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


Great point. Leaf shutters do expand creative control.


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2017)

Good thing the OP hasn't been seen since Tuesday, because he would have been seeing a whole lotta tangents.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 28, 2017)

Nothing wrong with a good tangent.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Nothing wrong with a good tangent.
> 
> Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk



Who said it was good?


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 28, 2017)

limr said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing wrong with a good tangent.
> ...


I did.


Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...



Well, good for you.


----------

