You don't need to use antiques . . .

[drg]

I recently wrote a blog entry about acquiring cameras and what I was going to do with, at least, a portion of the collection. This is an extension of sorts as so many film cameras are now available in the used/second hand market as to make adding various ones to the collection very tempting.

Too many photographers experimenting with film seem to believe they need to use some 'antique' or simplistic camera. Bah humbug.
I regularly use a Canon EOS 1v for any 35mm work that I'm most likely to sell or for follow up work that still requires the physical documentation of the film itself.

I got to thinking about some of the film cameras I've used over the years and what I wanted to use again one more time. One I never really gave a true fair shake to was the Canon EOS 3. I recently found one in great shape at a bargain price.

I stuck a brand new EF 50mm f1.8 II and went out to shoot. This has most of the features of my 1v's, is lighter but still a nice big camera. The rest of the EF lens collection of course is available, but this summer I think I'll just leave the 50 on it. Well, I'll try.

There are all kinds of nifty things in this bargain of a camera including (some of my favorites) the 45 point AF, the great metering system including spot metering that lets you multi-spot meter and if I care to calibrate it, the eye control. I just have to remember to wear the right eye glasses that are calibrated and work!

From the blog entry a sample from this combo shot on FUJI film (400 XTRA Superia). There are some corrections and post processing including a b/w conversion process.



[ click on photo for large gallery view ]

[Axle]

I completely agree drg! Yes I do use a K1000, only because I like using manual cameras. However a majority of my film work is on a Nikon F80 (I'd love to get my hands on an F5), from 2000, especially when shooting 'professional' type gigs, weddings, events, ect. It's nice to have a quick method of capturing the moment that an older camera can't work.

Slide film especially, since I don't really trust the meter in my K1000 anymore.

[Xia_Ke]

...Too many photographers experimenting with film seem to believe they need to use some 'antique' or simplistic camera. Bah humbug....

What if some of us just prefer to use old cameras? ...LOL

You do bring up a very good point drg. There are many modern cameras that can be had with all the "comforts" of the DSLR's that most are used to. Making the move to film does not all mean giving up AF, program shooting modes, and excellent in camera metering systems. That said though, I'll stick with my 1950's Rolleis

[photophorous]

I'm with Aaron. The old simplistic cameras are half the reason I shoot film. But this is a good point for those who may want to try film without giving up the features of modern cameras. You can have the best of both worlds.

My primary film camera, a Voigtlander Bessa R2A, is just over a year old, and my other most used film camera is an 20 year old Minolta X-7A with lenses up to 40 years old. Even though the Bessa is new, they are both pretty equal in terms of features. If I was doing paid work, like a wedding, I'd probably want something like an F5 or EOS 3, but for the style of shooting I do, I prefer turning aperture rings and focusing manually. When I need something more automated, I use my D70s, but a little piece of my soul dies each time that happens.

Paul

[reverberation]

Thats a great shot. I think you make a very valid point. For me it is always a question of lenses. Any 35mm camera can be a good camera with the right person pushing the button.
Medium format cameras are totally different. I just bought a Kodak Vigilant Junior Six-20. It will produce negatives that have a telltale signature. Canon lenses are excellent.