Analog film photography and cameras

My apologies for giving only the link to the first post.

ah

my bad,

cheers

Me! I used to have a tiny Pentax plastic cheap 110 camera with a fold down plastic viewfinder and a red shutter button. A lot like this but slightly smaller and Pentax branded:

It was like a spy camera, but adding a film made it about a third bigger.

That 110 SLR looks awesome.

Personally, I rated the old 110 films and cameras as being superior to APS. I wonder who remembers those? :)

I'm after a Nikon FM3A, I think if I can a bit bigger than the Ricoh and have the flexibility of lenses. Does every1 agree?

I'm after a Nikon FM3A, I think if I can a bit bigger than the Ricoh and have the flexibility of lenses. Does every1 agree?

Eiger, your question isn't very clear. So maybe if you explain what you really did mean?

If you were comparing a Ricoh to a Nikon FM3A, then the only one I can think of that's comparable, is the Ricoh KR-5 Super II. The Nikon FM series were/are famous for being operable without batteries. Batteries are of course needed for metering, but the FM, FM2/FM2n, and FM3A would still take images even if the batteries had been removed, or had expired. A back up mechanical relective/incident meter would solve any such problems though.

The Nikon series of lenses is unsurpassed, and really only challenged by Canon in the amount of variety, and excellence of quality. There is no other system set-up that matched Nikon in the pre-digital age.

Since you've mentioned a mechanical camera (with aperture priority), then let me mention the competitors.

Olympus OM3 - Manual only, but extremely well made, and highly sought after.
OM1 / OM1n - David Bailey used this. Did him no harm. Manual only.
Leica R6 / R6.2 - Overpriced for what they are, but they have a die-hard following.
Pentax MX - Small and well regarded.
Pentax K1000 - Still used by some students to hone their skills and knowledge.
Contax S2 - Not as reliable as it was meant to be, but still worthwhile to some.
Yashica FX-3 2000 Super - Decent, but could use Contax lenses. A bonus.
Ricoh KR5 Super II - Could use all (Pentax) K-mount lenses.
Nikon FM / FM2 / FM2n / FM3A - Excellent system cameras.

If you want a mechanical camera, it then comes down to:

A) The type of photography that appeals to you most
B) The lens selection that you require
C) Availability of accessories.
D) Repairability vs Reliability
E) Flash capabilites
F) Weather-proofedness
G) Weight and size

In fact, the FM3A would win in nearly all the criteria, though I would prefer the FM2n or Olympus OM3Ti. I would not need or want aperture priority.

Sorry for confusion GA2G. I meant if I can hack it being a bit bigger than the GR1v, then it would be nice to have the increased flexibility of the DSLR. I just annoyed with Digital, with batteries and memory cards and the like. And I think film will force me to concentrate on taking the right shot.

But I will answer your questions directly:

A) Landscape, almost without exception. I never do anything else.
B) I want a really small 20mm lens, if I were to get an SLR, like the Nikon F4.
C) Don't have any idea what accesories I might need. Not a lot, as I need to travel light when I climb, hence GR1v.
E) Dont think I need it ofr outdoors do you?
F/) V important
G) as small and light as possible.

I would love not to have batteries. The other reason for non-digital is that apparently n extreme cold they can go tits up...

Any help much appreciated. All I need is a kinda short list, I suppose, and a compelling reason, if any, to get an SLR over, say, a GR1v.

Whats you budget? For the camera, and lenses? Landscape lenses on 35mm, could be anything from 12mm (almost fisheye) to about 24mm.

Maybe one very wide (15mm-20mm) and one wide-normal (28mm-35mm)?

Flash is very handy for illuminating something of interest in the foreground, with a scenic bright-lit background.

For example, you could shoot into the sun, but pick out a close detail with flash.

Would you prefer a 35mm SLR, or would a rangefinder-type camera be sufficient?

Rangefinder is smaller as there is no mirror. Its more silent for that reason also, and commonly, lenses can be flatter (pancake style).

Budget is ideally no more than 300 quid all in?

And I have no idea about whether a 35 vs rangefinder would be sufficient, as I dont know anything about either!! :/

Ok. I'll have a look. 20mm lenses are normally on the expensive side, but eBay is still the best place to find these. Oh, Camera Fairs are less accessible, but the stuff there can't really be beaten for prices. Think dirt cheap.

**SLR **

RangeFinder

With a SLR, you view the image from directly above the lens. The eyepiece has a mirror and prism in front of it, which turns the image right-way up, and right-way round. A rangefinder has an opening above and to the side of the lens. So the view is NOT through the lens, but from the side. Viwing an image through a SLR camera, shows the magnification of each lens. Its easier to use for those not accustomed with different systems.

I still kinda want one of those Canons with the Eye acutated focus SLRs.
coolest things ever.

Nikon FM2n £199.00
Nikon FM2n Ebay £150

Nikon 18mm f3.5 £159.00

olympus trip - nuff said

olympus trip - nuff said

For landscape photography?

I don't think the lens is wide enough, or sharp enough, nor does the camera have a mechanical shutter, nor is the shutter speed range large enough.

But I'm just guessing.

Here's an example of 15mm lens on a 35mm camera, with medium-long shutterspeed. Not possible on a point-and-shoot.

i love the restrictions of the olympus trip. the simplicity of the rangerinder always provides me great photos.

i tend to use out of date film as well, so crystal clear/long exposure/ clean photography is not necessarily my thing.

(not saying that the trip is the best camera at all, just the one i take with me everywhere)

Yashica GSN:

Rangefinder, fast lens, cheap.

Used this camera for around 5 years now and the results still amaze me.

Anyone had any experience with these?
Got one yesterday, any hints and tips?

yes! I used one a couple of weeks ago.

If you're used to using an RZ67 then use this, don't forget to wind on using the film back between frames, the winder on the body doesn't do it automatically, causing multiple exposures. Also the the travel for the mirror winder on the body needs to be fully wound in-order for the camera to allow you to shoot. Sometimes it may seem like it's fully wound, but it just needs a slight push.

Anyone had any experience with these?
Got one yesterday, any hints and tips?

used one for years. sell it and buy a 35mm digital

used one for years. sell it and buy a 35mm digital

Ignore him. He's a bitter weirdo.

Use it and love your own creativity.

used one for years. sell it and buy a 35mm digital

Hmm considering it was an 18th birthday present I think I'll stick with it, plus I've got a 35mm SLR and a DSLR...

the winder on the body doesn't do it automatically, causing multiple exposures. Also the the travel for the mirror winder on the body needs to be fully wound in-order for the camera to allow you to shoot. Sometimes it may seem like it's fully wound, but it just needs a slight push.

This made me mong out so much when I first started using RZ after using Hassy for a bit, Kept fcuking it up.

Very upsetting.

Managed to nab this for £340

:O

Kept fcuking it up.

glad i'm not the only one, know the feeling!

i've now got a hassy, so did it the other way round.
btw, nice glass

I purchased a C330 earlier this year, and after eventually getting tired of just viewing the developed negatives, I've collated some images into digital format.

It's my first film camera (having only used point and shoot digital), i've been really enjoying the experience.
I would be very glad to get some feedback/criticism, I know there is a steep learning curve ahead.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tszucs/

I like the shot of Riomaggiore, very nice

I dont particularly like it.. But I figured someone on here might.

Hasselblad 503cx 80mm Old HP5