# Need a 35mm or medium format camera, have a few choices in mind, please sound off



## dsiglin (Jun 24, 2013)

As much has I love the ease of digital photography Im a bit frustrated by the lack of dynamic range and I miss the "feel" of film grain. I've developed a look for my digital files which isn't a direct film tribute but helps me find them more palatable. I have a Nex-5N and do love it, especially since I can put legacy lenses on it but Id like to buy a 35mm or medium format camera to use for more artsy stuff. Most likely will be doing landscape and some "documentary" shots. I've researched cameras a bit and decided I'd like one with an exposure meter but preferred little other electronics. I have a little experience with film. Ten or so years ago when I took basic photography at university we shot with 4"x5" press cameras, b&w slides, and color slides. We developed and enlarged the press camera negatives. I don't plan on using the film camera too often, the ease of digital is enough to keep me using it for most shots.



In the 35mm arena Ive been looking at:
Minolta XD11
Olympus OM series (maybe OM-4 or OM-3)
Canon A1
Maybe an old M42 mount russian camera like the Kiev or Zenit-E

I have lenses for all these (50mm 1.4 Canon FD, Oly 35-70 3.5, Minolta 35-70 3.5, M42 Helios 44m-7)

In medium format Ive been looking at the Mamiya range, Bronica, Kiev 88.

Id like to get something that has few electronics to go wrong, something that is pretty rugged, and probably something with some level of exposure indicator. Do you guys have any suggestions?

I am not a professional photographer but do enjoy the science as much as the art of photographing. Here are a few samples of recent work, taken with Sony Nex5n and the fantastic russian Helios 44m-7:


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 24, 2013)

The  Canon A1 is a good choice. Nikon F2 or Pentax MX are a good choice as well for 35mm. Both are very rugged.  I'm not a Minolta or Olympus fan myself, but that's a personal choice. 
I just bought a Mamiya medium format a week ago....nice camera. The photographer I got it from used it just about everyday for 25 years and it still works perfect.


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 24, 2013)

Oh, I should have mentioned my brother is willing to lend me his Nikon FM2, just need to find a lens. I would jump on it but Nikon lenses are 3x similar Canon FD or 4x similar Hexanon. Probably because FD is no longer used mount type and Hexanon doesn't exist anymore.

What would be the differences between a Canon A1 and a Canon AE1? I see people recommending both. Thanks.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 24, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> What would be the differences between a Canon A1 and a Canon AE1? I see people recommending both. Thanks.



Here is a link to good data on both, or any Canon....
Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - Film Cameras


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 24, 2013)

Thanks! After a lot of research I think I've decided to go the 35mm route for now. I've narrowed it down to OM-2n, Minolta XD11, or Canon A1. I might buy both the XD11 and OM-2n and sell whichever I don't like.


----------



## Dinardy (Jun 24, 2013)

I'm putting in a vote for the Minolta. I shoot my old XE-7 just as much as my DSLR


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 24, 2013)

The Canon museum is a fun resource, Webestang, I've found some good info. there. 

I use mechanical cameras, I have an F1 which was considered pro in its day, and I have a similar lens to yours (the 1.8). Probably a variety of FD mount bodies could be a good choice, as would something M42 - I have a couple of screwmounts - Ricoh and Praktica, and have heard people like the Pentax Spotmatics (earlier version of the K mounts). I'm not familiar with the Olys and Minoltas but know people like those as well.  

At the prices of older film cameras you could probably find more than one body to go with different lenses you have.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2013)

Do not pay too much money for any older 35mm camera; a Canon or Minolta 35mm, like an XD-11 or AE-1 Program and a camera-maker 50mm f/1.7 or 1.8 normal lens is bringing about $24 at Goodwill these days. Seriously...any more than that, and a body + 50mm standard lens is overpriced. at yard sales, these things "stay" for more than $20. Most pawn shops will not even buy an older orphaned-mount like a Canon or Minolta or Konica.


----------



## skieur (Jun 24, 2013)

I have a Minolta XD11 and found it extremely user-friendly when I was shooting film.  All adjustments could be done by touch, while looking through the viewfinder.  With a motor winder, I took some great sports photos.


----------



## limr (Jun 24, 2013)

For landscape, I would have gone medium-format, but 35mm certainly is cheaper to shoot and might be more manageable if you're not used to film or planning on using it very often. 

I don't know anything about the Minolta. I've got an Olympus 35 RC that does have a built-in light meter but you don't have to use it. Just don't put it in Auto mode (which puts it in shutter-priorty shooting). Olympus 35 RC Rangefinder Camera  In fact, the meter was a bit wonky on mine and so I shot with it just fine without using the meter for quite a while before I finally had it adjusted. 

It's really a fantastic little camera - sharp lens, compact so very portable, and reliable. I'm not sure how the OM-2n compares, but if the RC 35 (and its automatic cousin, the Trip, which also gets rave reviews from its users) is any indication of quality, I'd go with the OM-2n.


----------



## cgw (Jun 25, 2013)

Older isn't always better, especially now with 35mm film camera prices at rock bottom. I'd look at late model Nikon AF bodies like the 8008s/801s, N90s/F90x and F100. All work extremely well with MF lenses, have highly accurate meters(matrix, CW, spot), have electronic rangefinders/focus confirmation, big+bright VFs. The electronic MF Minoltas are getting really old and mechanical Oly service can be pricey and hard to source. These days, getting the newest film gear you can afford doesn't seem wrong.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 25, 2013)

If what you like is film grain and the look of film, stick with the 35mm.

The point of larger formats is that there's less grain, after all.


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 25, 2013)

Very helpful responses guys, I have a little update. I snagged a OM-2n with two lenses a flash and tele converter on ebay last night. Total was $70 with shipping. I probably could have done better if I found it at a Goodwill or yardsale but I wanted that camera specifically and they are a bit more rare it seems than Canon or Minolta. It's supposedly in near mint condition, we'll see. What I'll probably end up doing is buying a Minolta XD11 and possibly the Canon A1. My brother has a Nikon FM2 so if I find a AI lens for cheap I might borrow that and try it out. I'll end up doing something similar to my legacy lens habits, buy a few and spend time with them, then sell off most of them.

Re: 35mm or medium format - I guess the more I thought about this I realized I would use both. The photos I posted are all from a wedding so they are "street" photo style. Lots of in the moment shots. I do love nature landscape photography and urban landscape photography. A medium format would be best for that I think. My heart lies with the Mamiya 645. Even before posting here I was lusting after one, seems $200 is the average price. I love the design, especially with the waist level viewfinder. Any advice on what to look out for when buying off ebay? KEH has the 645 body for $80 or so. What is the difference between a 645 and a 645 Super? Another option is Kiev 88 but I'm hesitant to pay $300 for something that might break quickly.

My current plan is to work with 35mm (there's a local place photo store that will develop and scan, any recommendations for mail in developing and scanning?). I would like to setup my own developing studio at some point but it's too early in the game for that. I would have to know I'm fully committed to staying with film before doing that.


----------



## grandpa_chris (Jun 25, 2013)

Congrats on the OM-2, it's a very nice camera. As for making a full commitment to film, I don't want to sound discouraging early on here for you, but commitments go both ways. Are you sure film is going to commit to you? Just something to consider before you spend too much money:

The Last Days of Film Photography: Robert Burley Captures Industry?s End (Photos) - The Daily Beast

I can remember when a lot of people committed to this:







And one last caution: In your original post you mentioned you were frustrated by digital's lack of dynamic range. If you consider the latest digital camera technology (a camera like the D800 for example) you're going to find that moving to film is now a step down in dynamic range. I'm still an old film shooter from way back and I'd encourage you to use that OM-2 and enjoy working with film, but be cautious investing too much in a shrinking technology.


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 25, 2013)

The Last Days of Film. I've seen it up close as I leave near an old Eastman Kodak plant (also parents are from Rochester NY) and have watched all but one film camera store in town dwindle away. That last bastion is more a work of stubbornness than economic viability. The owner is a nice guy and I've offered to help him sell his gear online but he is not interested. I realize the latest full frame cameras are beyond good. I'm a tech head as much as an artist. However I don't want a huge camera and more importantly I can't and won't spend near $3k. I do have some experience working with film, learning how to develop 4"x5" negatives and 35mm. I was born in 1981 and used film growing up. I have only just now become interested in photography again thanks in part to excellent legacy lenses for dirt cheap, letting me see how much a difference a good lens makes.

I don't plan on sinking a lot of money into this. I'm holding off even spending $300 on a medium format until I feel 35mm just isn't good enough for the landscape photos I want to do. I definitely won't be buying fancy flashes or anything like that. Currently I just shoot with provided light though if I get into model shooting I'd want at least a reflector/diffuser.

ps - what recommendations for film to use? A friend recommended Portra 400. I'll be doing mostly street shooting and informal portraits maybe some landscape.


----------



## cgw (Jun 25, 2013)

I wouldn't bother with an old "heavy metal" Mamiya 645(M645)on offer from KEH. They're borderline relics now and usually need new light seals throughout. Unlike the newer 645 Super/Pro/ProTL, they don't use film backs, just inserts--so no mid-roll film changes. A WLF on a 645 is fine provided you plan on shooting everything landscape--they're near-useless for portrait-oriented shots. A 645 Super or Pro body, prism finder, back with a 120 insert, and an 80/2.8 won't break the bank.

Portra 160/400 are gorgeous. Ilford XP2 is nice for C-41 b&w portrait work.


----------



## limr (Jun 25, 2013)

The Mamiya 645 Pro TL is a great camera but it's certainly not the opposite of "heavy metal". It's heavy and beastly. Awesome pictures, but not something you just casually throw over your shoulder to go out for a day of street shooting. I've been wanting a waist-level finder for my Pro TL and have been told the same thing - they're useless for portrait orientation. But honestly, I can't say that it makes any difference because I think in the 8 years or so that I've had that camera, I've taken maybe 2 pictures in portrait orientation. I personally just don't think of medium format that way. Maybe others do, and that's fine, but if the sole drawback to a TLR or an SLR with a waist-level is that you don't shoot portrait...well, that's not reason enough to deter me.

I found it difficult to wrap my head around medium-format when I first started shooting with the Mamiya, but things started to click a lot more easily when I got a Lubitel 166B TLR. I think it's not only surprisingly good for a plastic box, but it's also a nice way to ease into medium format and test to see if it's worth it to spend money on better gear. After getting used to that, I picked up the Mamiya again and my pictures from that camera were significantly better.

And I don't care what you say about old "heavy metal" - I long for a C330.


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 26, 2013)

Funny you should mention the Lubitel 166B, limr. I ran across that for the first time last night. So you think it might be a good introductory camera for medium format?

Btw - I had forgotten I have a polaroid landcamera 210 automatic and 95a sitting on my shelf. Not that they are really feasible to use.​


----------



## cgw (Jun 26, 2013)

limr said:


> The Mamiya 645 Pro TL is a great camera but it's certainly not the opposite of "heavy metal". It's heavy and beastly. Awesome pictures, but not something you just casually throw over your shoulder to go out for a day of street shooting. I've been wanting a waist-level finder for my Pro TL and have been told the same thing - they're useless for portrait orientation. But honestly, I can't say that it makes any difference because I think in the 8 years or so that I've had that camera, I've taken maybe 2 pictures in portrait orientation. I personally just don't think of medium format that way. Maybe others do, and that's fine, but if the sole drawback to a TLR or an SLR with a waist-level is that you don't shoot portrait...well, that's not reason enough to deter me.
> 
> I found it difficult to wrap my head around medium-format when I first started shooting with the Mamiya, but things started to click a lot more easily when I got a Lubitel 166B TLR. I think it's not only surprisingly good for a plastic box, but it's also a nice way to ease into medium format and test to see if it's worth it to spend money on better gear. After getting used to that, I picked up the Mamiya again and my pictures from that camera were significantly better.
> 
> And I don't care what you say about old "heavy metal" - I long for a C330.



Sorry but do you really shoot with a ProTL? I use a Super with a prism finder and drive grip on the street and it's far from "heavy and beastly" in terms of weight--maybe you're thinking about an RB/RZ67. FYI, most TLRs are *6x6*, so there's no need to flip the camera. Do you shoot all your 35mm in landscape only, too?


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 26, 2013)

Maybe this is a noobish question - what advantages, if any, does a camera in the style of a Mayami 645 have over a TLR camera?


----------



## limr (Jun 26, 2013)

> Sorry but do you really shoot with a ProTL? I use a Super with a prism finder and drive grip on the street and it's far from "heavy and beastly" in terms of weight--maybe you're thinking about an RB/RZ67. FYI, most TLRs are *6x6*, so there's no need to flip the camera. Do you shoot all your 35mm in landscape only, too?



No, I'm not thinking of another camera. I know what camera I have. The last time I took the 645 ProTL out, I had a crick in my neck after a couple of hours and it wasn't even hanging from my neck - I was carrying it like a messenger bag when I wasn't actually taking a picture. Maybe it's lighter than a Bronica or a Hasselblad, but for someone used to shooting 35mm and trying to get started in medium format, everything is going to seem heavy and beastly. Even if the 645 ProTL were the lightest on the market, it's still a large, heavy camera. The prism finder actually accounts for quite a bit of weight. I don't even use the power winder, but that also adds weight. The 80mm lens isn't so bad, but larger lenses are going to make it even bulkier. With all the bells and whistles added to it, would it really weigh significantly less than the M645?

I just don't see why it's necessary to get so complicated with a camera for someone just wanting to ease into medium format. So yes, dsiglin, I think the Lubitel would be a good way to test the waters and see if you want to stick with the format. It's very lightweight, a good one can be had for less than $100 (mine was $60 and it was ready to go. There's a guy in NYC that buys them, cleans them up, and resells. He's got a couple of Lubitels now: - Medium Format: Other, Fedka.com) And as I said, you'd be surprised at how good the pictures are out of something made out of plastic.

I own the Mamiya quite honestly because it was a gift from some students a few years back. They worked for Mamiya and they built me a camera because they saw my pictures, thought they were very good, and wanted me to have a medium format so I could push my skills further. I wouldn't give it up and I do really like it, but I also recognize that I probably wasn't ready for it. It was too much. And part of that was because it is not the easiest camera to just take out and shoot, so I didn't do it that often, thus not getting a lot of practice with it. I "downgraded" to the Lubitel and that's when medium-format really started making more sense to me. As I said, this got me more prepared to shoot with something like the 645 ProTL.

No, I don't shoot 35mm in landscape only, but that's irrelevant the discussion of how I shoot with the Mamiya.


----------



## limr (Jun 26, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Funny you should mention the Lubitel 166B, limr. I ran across that for the first time last night. So you think it might be a good introductory camera for medium format?
> 
> Btw - I had forgotten I have a polaroid landcamera 210 automatic and 95a sitting on my shelf. Not that they are really feasible to use.​



Answered the Lubitel question above.

I don't know enough about the 95a to know what film it used, but the Polaroid 210 is still feasible. Fuji makes pack film. Just a few months ago, I dusted off my automatic 100 and have been working with it. Amazon sells both film and 4.5 volt batteries. There are also plenty of YouTube videos that show how to convert the battery pack to a three AAA pack if you don't want to pay $10 for a 4.5 volt battery.
Fuji color film (100C):Amazon.com: FUJIFILM FP-100C 3.25 X 4.25 Inches Professional Instant Color Film: Camera & Photo
Fuji B&W (3000B): Amazon.com: FUJIFILM FP-3000B 3.34 X 4.25 Inches Professional Instant Black and White Film: Camera & Photo

Edited: There is also expired Polaroid 100-series film available on ebay. That's tricky, though, because most sellers are trying to sell it for really high prices, but I just got a couple of packs for about $10 a piece, which is about equivalent to what the Fuji costs.


----------



## cgw (Jun 26, 2013)

Such is life with MF, limr. Mamiya 645 lenses aren't appreciably bigger or heavier than 35mm versions. Weight-wise, my Nikon F3+MD4+85/1.8 is a bit heavier than my 645 Super kit. Pro film bodies like the Nikon F5 are close in weight. But I'm thinking it's size as much as weight that's bugging you out. I have Bronica SQ-B kit that's actually lighter and a bit smaller than the Super kit. Old TLRs and folders are more compact but I shied away from them when started with MF around 6 years ago. Lack of interchangeable lenses, no film backs, and concerns about reliability and repair costs/availability bothered me.


----------



## cgw (Jun 26, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Maybe this is a noobish question - what advantages, if any, does a camera in the style of a Mayami 645 have over a TLR camera?



Ability to change lenses and swap film mid-roll with newer Mamiyas with film backs. The big Mamiya TLRs do have interchangeable lenses.


----------



## limr (Jun 26, 2013)

cgw said:


> Such is life with MF, limr. Mamiya 645 lenses aren't appreciably bigger or heavier than 35mm versions. Weight-wise, my Nikon F3+MD4+85/1.8 is a bit heavier than my 645 Super kit. Pro film bodies like the Nikon F5 are close in weight. But I'm thinking it's size as much as weight that's bugging you out. I have Bronica SQ-B kit that's actually lighter and a bit smaller than the Super kit. Old TLRs and folders are more compact but I shied away from them when started with MF around 6 years ago. Lack of interchangeable lenses, no film backs, and concerns about reliability and repair costs/availability bothered me.



Yes, such is life with MF. I get that.

It just comes down to style and preference, of course, and also just knowing what to expect. I understand wanting the flexibility with lenses and backs that the more modern cameras give, and it's certainly an advantage. Never said they weren't, but just that these things - as well as portrait orientation - simply aren't a priority for me at this time. Also, when I was just starting with MF, I wouldn't have known what to do with them anyway, so they were wasted on me. 

Essentially, I approached it differently from you (thus, our different advice to the OP.) I started photography the same way I started driving: learn on a really basic car that gives me minimal options but total control over those options. If something goes wrong, things are simple enough that I can figure out what went wrong and learn how to fix it. Then build up more options, more power, more variables. 

With cameras, I did better with the Lubitel because there were fewer variables to worry about - and thus fewer distractions - and I found it easier to make the leap from 35mm that way. The size of the Mamiya compared to what I shoot more regularly is a bit off-putting, to be sure, but it's much less so now that I'm more comfortable with the format. I still call it the Beast, but perhaps I should make it clear that I do so in a fond and complimentary way. 

But everyone is different. You clearly felt more comfortable with the options of the modern cameras vs the potential limitations and reliability of the older cameras. I didn't mind those limitations in the initial stages, but felt overwhelmed with all the bells and whistles on the ProTL.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 26, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Maybe this is a noobish question - what advantages, if any, does a camera in the style of a Mayami 645 have over a TLR camera?




Mamiya C330 TLR with 80mmF2.8 lens shot at F2.8







and a crop of above shot


----------



## limr (Jun 26, 2013)

Nice. I so want a C330.

Here's a sample from the Lubitel in a similar vein (larger view plus crop). 




Edited: To dsiglin, OP: Enlarging these images is worth it to get the sense of how much detail you can get from MF.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 26, 2013)

^ looks good to me


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 26, 2013)

So I found a c30 just the body sans lens or waist level finder for $40. Should I jump on that?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 26, 2013)

FUJI GX680! (right derrel?)

Seriously though, yes. Jump on the C30. Heavy, but with interchangeable lenses, lots of bellows extension, parallax correction, the Mamiya C-series is the best TLR you can get.


----------



## cgw (Jun 27, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> So I found a c30 just the body sans lens or waist level finder for $40. Should I jump on that?



Just make sure the bellows are light-tight, the focus screen is there and not cracked or excessively cruddy, and the film advance is working. If all are "go," then I'd be willing to peel off two 20s, sure.

Check WLF pricing and availability.

Here's what's probably the best source on all things Mamiya TLR:

Graham Patterson Photography


----------



## gsgary (Jun 27, 2013)

I would buy one with the 80mmf2.8 blue spot lens like in my shot, lenses on their own fet ch good money over here


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 27, 2013)

unpopular said:


> FUJI GX680! (right derrel?)
> 
> Seriously though, yes. Jump on the C30. Heavy, but with interchangeable lenses, lots of bellows extension, parallax correction, the Mamiya C-series is the best TLR you can get.



oreally

I suppose the interchangeable lenses might make some feel that way but there is a higher stratum still.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

Oh come on, don't tell me that you mean the old Rolleicords/flexs?? Totally overrated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm down with fixed lens - my favorite camera is the Canonette. But the Rolleis I just have no interest in.

The big reason why interchangeable lenses are good is because old shutters tend to lag or jam. For the cost of repair, you can just replace it.

If you mean the new Rolleiflex, that's not fair at all!!  (though, I still think they're kind of novelty cameras).


----------



## amolitor (Jun 27, 2013)

Mamiya never got much love for their glass, but it has always been fully competitive with the best of the best.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

I think a lot of that was post-war prejudice more than anything.

But comparing apples and apples at the time, you've got old moldy Tessars and Xenotars from Rollei and soft Planar copies from Yashica. Don't get me wrong, those Yashicamat lenses in particular have a great, classic quality, but none of which I would call "sharp".


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

Choices, choices.

So I found a guy with a pristine C33 with prism and two lens sets (waiting to hear back what lenses they are). He wants $250.

I also found a Yashica Mat 124G in near mint condition for $150 total. It includes WLF.

I DON'T KNOW!!!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

I think Yashicamats are overpriced right now, $150 isn't bad - i've seen them go for way more. They're fun little cameras, and very light weight, the lens is very good with excellent bokeh and just has this quality about it, if razor sharpness isn't a priority. I owned one, and enjoyed it a lot. But, I really wanted a C-series, I just think they're more versatile.

If you do a lot of backpacking, I'd go with the yashicamat. But once that shutter jams, it's done.


----------



## cgw (Jun 27, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Choices, choices.
> 
> So I found a guy with a pristine C33 with prism and two lens sets (waiting to hear back what lenses they are). He wants $250.
> 
> ...



Prism finders on a Mamiya TLR don't cut it next to a WLF--be willing to haggle. "Mint" 'Mats can often have shutter speed issues(something to check out) and a competent CLA could easily double the $150 price. Patience...


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

Actually, I'm not sure what is on top of the Mamiya, here's the link:
Camera Mamiya Professional Reflex


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

It is a prism finder. Never used one, so I can't say much. I'd think it'd be kind of awkward, though perhaps not if rigged with a cheap chinese-made grip.

Does anyone know what kind fo shutter the Mamiyas used? Compur-Synchro?


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

It looks awkward. Well guess that one is out, shame it looks to be in great condition. 

btw - how much would you expect to pay for processing and scanning (tiff) of 120 film?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

Aww. Now you're talking the big bucks 

b/w or color?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

Act quickly!

Drum Scanner Hell Chromagraph w Chromaset Chromamount Drums | eBay

(kidding. seriously. DO NOT get this)


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

Well I know with B&W 120 I can develop it fairly easily myself which would save some $$. So let's say color, perhaps something like Portra 400 120 film.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 27, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> Choices, choices.
> 
> So I found a guy with a pristine C33 with prism and two lens sets (waiting to hear back what lenses they are). He wants $250.
> 
> ...



I have also got the 135mm and its good


----------



## cgw (Jun 27, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> It looks awkward. Well guess that one is out, shame it looks to be in great condition.
> 
> btw - how much would you expect to pay for processing and scanning (tiff) of 120 film?



People like the service here:

Film Developing at The Darkroom | Develop Film by Mail for $10

The Mamiya TLR seller obviously didn't get much beyond "Mamiya." No clue about the focal lengths--plainly older lenses--or condition(e.g., shutter timing, fungus, haze, etc.). Likely picked up cheap and hoping for a quick buck. I usually pass on stuff like this. Keep hunting. Tried  eBay yet?


----------



## limr (Jun 27, 2013)

Color is cheaper than b&w for developing. I can't remember the exact price for color 120...I pay about $3 for a roll of 35mm color and $6 for B&W 120, so I think color 120 comes in less than $5 for sure. This is tri-state area (NY, NJ, CT) so I don't know how that would compare to wherever you live or where you're planning to get the film developed. For scanning, I have no idea. I scan my own. If you eventually want your own scanner, decent ones can be had for $150-200, and then they can go up to $700-800 for high-end flatbeds and four digits for drum scanners. If you're doing enough film, you might end up spending less money by buying a scanner than getting them done at the lab.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

^^ you can get older scanners for far less. I would NOT recommend buying a scanner built after about 2005 for more than $500 when you can get very high end scanners from the later 1990s and early 2000s for not much more when scanner technology more or less peaked out. You can find desktop drum scanners on ebay regularly for under $1000, but there is a significant learning curve involved.

Creo-Scitex scanners, such as the Jazz, are one good flatbed option. Unfortunately they're quite large and heavy, and would need to be freighted or picked up. That said, these once $15,000 scanners can frequently found on ebay for well under $500, and I doubt very much that any $200 plastic fantastic from Epson would come close. Perhaps not in your immediate future, but something to consider.

If you can find one cheap, the Minolta Multipro were my favorite mid-end film scanners. But they're pretty overpriced on the used market and it's not difficult to find a similar vintage Flextight for around the same price. I wouldn't pay more than $1000 for a Multipro, and even that I think is too much.


----------



## limr (Jun 27, 2013)

unpopular said:


> ^^ you can get older scanners for far less. I would NOT recommend buying a scanner built after about 2005 for more than $500 when you can get very high end scanners from the later 1990s and early 2000s for not much more when scanner technology more or less peaked out. You can find desktop drum scanners on ebay regularly for under $1000, but there is a significant learning curve involved.
> 
> Creo-Scitex scanners, such as the Jazz, are one good flatbed option. Unfortunately they're quite large and heavy, and would need to be freighted or picked up. That said, these once $15,000 scanners can frequently found on ebay for well under $500, and I doubt very much that any $200 plastic fantastic from Epson would come close. Perhaps not in your immediate future, but something to consider.
> 
> If you can find one cheap, the Minolta Multipro were my favorite mid-end film scanners. But they're pretty overpriced on the used market and it's not difficult to find a similar vintage Flextight for around the same price. I wouldn't pay more than $1000 for a Multipro, and even that I think is too much.



Good to know. The scanner my bf and I share is adequate at the moment for our needs, but eventually we'll probably want to replace it. Actually, we almost had to about a week ago when lightning struck about 20 ft from the house and we thought the scanner was one of the casualties, but it was apparently just faking, or just needed a minute to realize that it was still functional.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

If you go the drum scanner route, be aware that quite frequently they're missing the drum. I have no idea where the drums all went... you wouldn't think that would be the kind of thing that you'd misplace.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 27, 2013)

But I don't want to scan a drum, I want to scan my FILM.


----------



## limr (Jun 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> But I don't want to scan a drum, I want to scan my FILM.



*snort*


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

Thanks for the heads up on scanners, a lot to think about. I have a tendency to jump the gun and buy a lot of stuff I never end up using.  I'm a tech-head. To me this is just a hobby so far but if I can end up selling some photos and actually having a semi-professional hobby I will probably buy my own scanner. If I can find a place to put it, heh.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2013)

^^^ Three minutes left of the ChromaGraph 3010 - your chance to own a $200,000 scanner for 500 bucks plus U-Haul.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 27, 2013)

Well, I missed the drum scanner.  -I'd rather have an Imacon anyway.

At any rate, film cameras are all about the lenses.  Screw the film, you  can put any type film in any type camera  So the field is level after all.

But, even though someone might  like a different lens by and large a Zeiss or a Schneider lens will trump whatever some camera manufacturer will stick on the front of a camera.  

Film or digital, Glass rules!


----------



## dsiglin (Jun 27, 2013)

I didn't understand this until I got some amazing glass. My Helios 44m-7 is one reason I understand that now. It's a knock of a pre-wwii CZ Biotar. What a lens.

Ok so you say film doesn't matter but obviously how various films render flesh tones, blues, greens, etc matters. What is a 35mm film you would recommend. I get my Olympus in a few days.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 27, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> I didn't understand this until I got some amazing glass. My Helios 44m-7 is one reason I understand that now. It's a knock of a pre-wwii CZ Biotar. What a lens.
> 
> Ok so you say film doesn't matter but obviously how various films render flesh tones, blues, greens, etc matters. What is a 35mm film you would recommend. I get my Olympus in a few days.




Dsiglin, the film doesn't matter, get what you want- the camera is going to do what it does.

The easy answer is to get Ektar 100 for landscapes, tmax for B&W (tmy2 if it's dark), some form of 160 for portraits
and superia for everyday snaps.


----------



## cgw (Jun 27, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> Well, I missed the drum scanner.  -I'd rather have an Imacon anyway.
> 
> At any rate, film cameras are all about the lenses.  Screw the film, you  can put any type film in any type camera  So the field is level after all.
> 
> ...



All those poor deluded souls who've foolishly bought Nikon and Canon lenses for decades...


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 8, 2013)

So got the Olympus and have been merrily shooting away. I love the engineered artistry of this camera. It's beautiful and functional. The mirror bounce is still something I'm getting used to (compared to my mirrorless Nex5n). I've also got a Konica Auto S2 rangefinder on the way. I've never used a rangefinder before but I'm thinking I'm going to like it.

As far as film goes, I'm researching good places to get my film developed and scanned. I'm on the east coast of the US so if you have any suggestions I'll be glad to hear them. I'm reading through a lot of threads on this forum and will no doubt find answers.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 8, 2013)

I have that Konica, nice camera. Rangefinders took some getting used to but once I did I love them (and now have more of course...). 

Maybe we need a sticky of where to get film developed... it keeps coming up and I'm getting tired of typing this! LOL I live in the midwest and use a local place sometimes, but also send out (particularly odd sized films etc.) to The Darkroom in San Francisco; Dwayne's in Kansas has a good reputation, Blue Moon in Oregon is supposed to be good (and there are others).

You might want to check out  Film Photography Project | An Internet Radio Show & On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide  ; they do a podcast, have videos, a Flickr discussion page, etc.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 8, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> I have that Konica, nice camera. Rangefinders took some getting used to but once I did I love them (and now have more of course...).
> 
> Maybe we need a sticky of where to get film developed... it keeps coming up and I'm getting tired of typing this! LOL I live in the midwest and use a local place sometimes, but also send out (particularly odd sized films etc.) to The Darkroom in San Francisco; Dwayne's in Kansas has a good reputation, Blue Moon in Oregon is supposed to be good (and there are others).
> 
> You might want to check out  Film Photography Project | An Internet Radio Show & On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide  ; they do a podcast, have videos, a Flickr discussion page, etc.



Why not do it yourself


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 8, 2013)

I've done darkroom work and enjoy it, but the one I'd been using at a local university is in a building now under construction. I'll probably at some point get something set up at home, to do B&W anyway, but I don't think I'd necessarily do everything myself (film developing and scanning, printing and matting, fixing and ferrotyping and whatever).


----------



## gsgary (Jul 9, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> I've done darkroom work and enjoy it, but the one I'd been using at a local university is in a building now under construction. I'll probably at some point get something set up at home, to do B&W anyway, but I don't think I'd necessarily do everything myself (film developing and scanning, printing and matting, fixing and ferrotyping and whatever).



I do all my developing in the kitchen


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 9, 2013)

Well I've gone and done it. Got my first roll of 35mm developed. Thanks for all the advice on cameras, etc! Since this is just a test roll I dropped it off at Walgreens and had them run it through their Noritsu. The files they give me are just 4.5mb. I'm going to see if I can't find someone there who knows how to scan at a higher resolution. Anyways, here's a few photos off the roll. It kills me I missed the focus on a few of these, especially the guy standing in front of the wooden American flag. He used to hand build props in Hollywood but quit to hand build tables. The guy is an artist in his own right. The sign is for Martha Stewart who was just there checking out his tables, he's working on getting them featured. I post processed these in Lightroom, not entirely happy with the first two but I'll tweak them later.


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 9, 2013)




----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

Got the rangefinder in today but alas the self timer was busted.  Sad pandas. The seller advertised it as being guaranteed to work so I'm going to send it back. That thing had a case, original box, and original manual all in great condition. Oh well. I did find the size a bit excessive, so I'll probably look for a smaller sized rangefinder. Back to researching them.


----------



## limr (Jul 12, 2013)

Great job on the first roll! I thought the focus looked fine (at least in that size - maybe it's more noticeable on the bigger size). There's a bit of flare on the 4th picture in the first roll. Do you have a hood yet?

Smaller rangefinders: I've got an Olympus 35RC that is quite compact and has really nice glass. It does have a light meter built in and an option for shutter priority shooting, or you can turn that off and do totally manual. Might be an option if you're looking for something small and portable.


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

Thanks, it is just the small size of these Walgreens scans. It makes it hard to spot missed focus. I had to reduce the flare a bit in lightroom but I couldn't get rid of it, I didn't think to take a hood with me and I was shooting almost directly into the sun so go figure. 

The Olympus RC sounds like a good option, how does it handle low light shooting since it has a 2.8 lens? I read you can shoot rangefinders handheld at slower than SLR shutter speeds due to no mirror.


----------



## limr (Jul 12, 2013)

You can definitely shoot a rangefinder handheld at lower shutter speeds than SLRs. No mirror slap to shake the camera. It does pretty well in low light. Here's a shot I took from my first test roll. I can't remember the shutter speed but the aperture was wide open. Probably 1/30. The film was either Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia, but either way it was 400 speed.



(In case the picture doesn't show, I grabbed it from a blog post I wrote about that first test roll after I got the Olympus: Day 81: The Olympus debut. « A Modern Day Dinosaur I'm not at home so don't have access to my photos to just upload it.)


----------



## limr (Jul 12, 2013)

Here's another shot in very contrast-y light.


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

So does the Olympus RC tend to overexpose outdoors all the time? Took a look at your blog and noticed you had mentioned having to meter down some when outdoors. Thanks for sharing the photos. I like low light shooting so no mirrorslap is a plus!


----------



## limr (Jul 14, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> So does the Olympus RC tend to overexpose outdoors all the time? Took a look at your blog and noticed you had mentioned having to meter down some when outdoors. Thanks for sharing the photos. I like low light shooting so no mirrorslap is a plus!



For the next few rolls, I ignored the meter and used Sunny 16 exposure rules and it was fine, so I knew the meter was off a bit but the camera itself can handle both low light and bright light just fine. It's fairly easy to adjust by taking off the bottom plate. I haven't tested it yet but I think it's going to be much better. It was still a bit off in very low light situations (apparently it was a problem with a lot of built-in meters for that model at that time) but it can easily be overridden. It actually won't let you take a picture if you have it in Auto aperture, but you can just set it back to manual and take the picture if another meter is telling you it's okay or if you're going for a dark overall shot with highlights or something.


----------

