35mm film survey (Page 5): Thanks for the heads up about the Film section. I just subscribed. I recently picked up a Nikon F100 and have a Nikon N90S, both workhorses in their day and...

rangel28

CHG_CANON wrote:

Now, about 13 years ago, I cycled through an inher... (show quote)

Thanks for the heads up about the Film section. I just subscribed.

I recently picked up a Nikon F100 and have a Nikon N90S, both workhorses in their day and the two I have are in pretty good shape (no sticky back). I also picked up a Nikon L35 AF on e-bay for a very reasonable price, since all of the cool kids have one.

With only 24 or 36 exposures on a roll, shooting film definitely makes me "think" more before taking a photo.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

My last Nikon film camera was the FM2. I loved it and created many great images with it and my collection of Nikon lenses.
BUT, when Nikon went digital, I went with them and have never looked back or regretted my decision. Digital post-processing gave me results and control that I never could attain on film. Ciurrently, I am using a D850 and love it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I bought a Canon EOS-1N which allows me to use ALL my modern EOS AF lenses from my 5D4 for film. Everything including AF and auto exposure work just fine. I typically shoot TriX (of course). I also still have, and occasionally use my Mamiya RB67 ProS for medium format, and I develop and print my B&Ws.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bvogel wrote:

I use a Minolta Max 9 along with some Minolta lens from that era. My darkroom is still intact, so I do my own processing.

Great, that is pretty cool.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

TriX wrote:

I bought a Canon EOS-1N which allows me to use ALL my modern EOS AF from my 5D4 for film. Everything including AF and auto exposure work just fine. I typically shoot TriX of course). I also still have, and occasionally use my Mamiya RB67 ProS for medium format, and I develop and print my B&Ws.

I would never have guessed that you use TriX.
Lol, just joking.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

I had a blast...love that camera.

But the cost...I could have purchased a fast SD card instead.

BebuLamar

I wanted to keep using film and not going digital. Film was good enough for me and I don't need any better. But the cost of film got too high, local processing was going away, local film source going away. B&H couldn't ship RA-4 chemistry. So I got rid of my color darkroom and went digital. I really didn't shoot any more with digital I still do the same things I did with film. I always had a relatively fast motor drive even back in the early 80's but I never shoot in continuous mode and I still don't do it now. I shot only over 6000 shots in digital since I got my digital camera 10 years ago. I shot about the same amount of film back when I shoot only film. Today I shoot a roll of film now and then.
I don't have the film mind set. I treat both the same.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

Architect1776 wrote:

It might be interesting to see what 35mm camera people use here for those who still use 35mm film on occasion etc.
NO 120, sheet films or other formats. Just 35mm.
I use a F-1 mostly and a FTb and EF occasionally to keep them exercised.
Let's hear from you all on 35mm film cameras.

--------------------
I have, and use, a "Asahi Pentex Spotmatic 2" and a "Mamiya Sekor 1000 DTL" when shooting 35mm film.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

selmslie wrote:

Having used film from full frame to large format I can understand the appeal of mirrorless digital, especially when it comes to manual focusing.

What large format has in common with mirrorless digital is that you are focusing on the actual image, not a mechanical replica via a mirror like you do with an SLR or DSLR.

With a DSLR or SLR, I focus based on the image I see through the lens and viewfinder. Yes, a mirror is involved, but it is not either ‘in focus’ or it isn’t - the results tend to be in focus; I tend to use a fairly small aperture, so DoF tends work in my favor.

adm

cmc4214 wrote:

I have a Nikon FM2n, and an FG. I like the FM2n better. When I shoot film it is because I want to get back to basics and the FM2n is fully manual.

The FM2n is certainly a better camera. It is better made with all metal construction. The FM2n was made for pros and serious amateurs. The FG was really a consumer grade camera. I got my first FG as a hand-me-down from my dad. I was able to pick up a second body very cheap. It has program and aperture priority modes and TTL flash if I need them. But I was also surprised how much fun the FG is to use on the manual mode as well. I had the FG's Canon counterpart, the AE-1 Program, previously. They were equivalent in terms of build quality but I prefer the design and operation of the FG. The FG also has a backup mechanical shutter speed, which the AE-1 Program lacks.

therwol Loc: USA

rehess wrote:

With a DSLR or SLR, I focus based on the image I see through the lens and viewfinder. Yes, a mirror is involved, but it is not either ‘in focus’ or it isn’t - the results tend to be in focus; I tend to use a fairly small aperture, so DoF tends work in my favor.

The mirror introduces potential errors in any camera where it is used. Its position in relation to a focusing screen or focusing sensor is critical.

The Nikon F has two resting mirror positions, one before the film is advanced and one after the film is advanced. They are approximately but not exactly the same. The second one after the film is advanced is the one calibrated by the factory or in service centers. I could look through the viewfinder of my FTn and see a slight shift in focus after advancing the film. I would have to remember to advance the film before focusing.

SLRs have a focusing aid in the center of the focusing screen, usually a split image or microprism circle (or a combination of both). DSLRs lack this, though there are third parties who will sell and install traditional focusing screens in some DSLR cameras. I personally find visually focusing a DSLR to be inadequate.

To address the question asked by the OP, I still have my Nikon FTn, and the meter worked fine the last time I used it. I have battery adaptors for silver oxide batteries versus the old mercury ones. I do think about running a roll through it.

srg

Architect1776 wrote:

Troll.
Nothing to do with the subject.

Nothing to do with sanity, courtesy, or humanity on your part. Not to mention common intellect. Putting Paul down for his thoughtful reply is like being angry at Santa for not bringing you the nuclear bomb that you wanted.

Did you know that one of George Costanza's jobs was Architect also? I heard he was the designer of the "Porta Potty"

suterjo Loc: Delaplane, VA

I still have about a dozen rolls of HS Ektachrome in my freezer downstairs but haven't used any in decades. Don't know if I can even get it processed.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

suterjo wrote:

I still have about a dozen rolls of HS Ektachrome in my freezer downstairs but haven't used any in decades. Don't know if I can even get it processed.

You can still get E6 processed, or you can get the chemicals and do it yourself - easy.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rehess wrote:

With a DSLR or SLR, I focus based on the image I see through the lens and viewfinder. Yes, a mirror is involved, but it is not either ‘in focus’ or it isn’t - the results tend to be in focus; I tend to use a fairly small aperture, so DoF tends work in my favor.

If a mirror is involved (DSLR, SLR or rangefinder) you can't be absolutely sure that the image will be in focus.

But you can be sure with a mirrorless sensor or the ground glass on a view camera.