Old fashioned film (Page 3): Thanks. Nothing wrong with the Rebel. And this thread isn't about which brand is best - every camera mentioned is a viable choice.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Scruples wrote:

I'm not really big on name dropping because I'm not a paid endorser. But if a gear war starts I'm blaming you and you'll be fighting with all the Hoggers here.

I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000. It is still in great shape after 20 years.

I buy my film from B&H and ADORAMA in NYC.

Thanks. Nothing wrong with the Rebel. And this thread isn't about which brand is best - every camera mentioned is a viable choice.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

quixdraw wrote:

Roberts Camera Used Photo Pro.

And KEH.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Bokehen wrote:

It's easy for anyone/everyone to tell you ebay, KE... (show quote)

Yes, a 6x4.5 or 6x6 type medium format film camera would be nice. 6x7 is too heavy for me now.

scrollerman

I have a Minolta XD11 and SRT 201 and one Olympus OM1 camera body and a collection of lenses, all in excellent condition. I would be willing to sell these, if interested.

Bill P

lamiaceae wrote:

Yes, a 6x4.5 or 6x6 type medium format film camera would be nice. 6x7 is too heavy for me now.

That's a really good though, and why I keep my Hasselblad. If I were looking for another MF film camera, I would look for one of the Bronica 6x4.5 rangefinders, their last attempt at making a camera. Light, compact, decent lenses...

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I love Bronicas, Mayimas and Hasselblads. But that would be too much camera for me. I do know my limits. Her name is Kathy, my wife. If I were to buy a Medium Format I would be sleeping on the couch.

I wouldn't mind too much. It's like camping. Boys love camping!!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Scruples wrote:

I love Bronicas, Mayimas and Hasselblads. But that would be too much camera for me. I do know my limits. Her name is Kathy, my wife. If I were to buy a Medium Format I would be sleeping on the couch.

I wouldn't mind too much. It's like camping. Boys love camping!!

Have you looked at the prices on eBay recently? There are some absolutely amazing bargains out there! Some have shot up in price during the recent "Film Is Not Dead!" resurgence, like the Pentax 6x7 and some of the Mamiyas, but there are cameras that cost well over a thousand bucks in pre-inflation 70s currency out there for $2-300 right now. Lenses used to be cheap, but digital owners, especially those who own the new mirrorless bodies, are adapting them left and right to current cameras. Maybe Kathy would be pleased at seeing you drop a couple of hundred instead of four figures for a latest and greatest digital lens or body?

I have been falling in love with film all over again the past several months. I still shoot a lot of routine stuff digitally, but I find that when I'm in the mood to go out on an actual shooting expedition, it's the Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, or Zeiss that I'm wanting to bring along.

Everything old is new again, isn't that what the kool kidz say?

Andy

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

AndyH wrote:

Have you looked at the prices on eBay recently? Th... (show quote)

Wow!

I guess I'll stop drooling and start shooting!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Scruples wrote:

Wow!

I guess I'll stop drooling and start shooting!

Last year I picked up a Zeiss Super Ikonta folder on eBay for about $150, including shipping. It's fairly lightweight, fits in a coat size pocket, and was in immaculate condition - when I checked the shutter speeds not one was more than 1/3 stop off. The lens is as good as modern ones, and with the medium format negatives, it produces great prints. I think that's what got me started travelling back in time to film days. When I received a Hasselblad outfit as a (very, very generous!) gift, I dove right into the deep end of the pool!

It's been a lot of fun to shoot film again, and I've added considerably to my film game since then, mostly for short money. Using these beautiful old mechanical cameras gives a sense of pleasure that even the best digital models can't duplicate. But you still need to beware of GAS!

Andy

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

AndyH wrote:

Last year I picked up a Zeiss Super Ikonta folder ... (show quote)

What film were you using?
I found that even my 16mp Pentax K-30 produced better JPEGs than I ever got with my last Pentax film camera shooting Kodachrome.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

rehess wrote:

What film were you using?
I found that even my 16mp Pentax K-30 produced better JPEGs than I ever got with my last Pentax film camera shooting Kodachrome.

You may not be aware that this is a medium format camera, producing 6x7 cm negatives. I generally shoot Portra 200 or 400 but convert many to b/w in processing. I also like Ilford HP 4 for native b/w.

If you couldn’t produce good full frame images with Kodachrome in 35mm, something might have been wrong with your equipment. Or perhaps your scans weren’t at a high enough resolution. A full frame 35mm image with decent lenses and gear is equivalent or superior to most “full frame” digital shots with anything but pro-level gear. Way more than 16 MP of data to work with.

Andy

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

AndyH wrote:

You may not be aware that this is a medium format ... (show quote)

I had slides scanned by several professionals - then I compared scans on computer to projected slides. Later I used the same lens on my 16mp Pentax K-30 that I had used on my Pentax Super Program when I exposed the Kodachrome slides. Both methods convinced me 16mp digital gives me more detail than Kodachrome 25 ever did.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

rehess wrote:

I had slides scanned by several professionals - then I compared scans on computer to projected slides. Later I used the same lens on my 16mp Pentax K-30 that I had used on my Pentax Super Program when I exposed the Kodachrome slides. Both methods convinced me 16mp digital gives me more detail than Kodachrome 25 ever did.

Well, your test, your judgment, so I can’t really disagree. I don’t know anything about Pentax digital gear, but I still find it difficult to believe. A K-25 or even K-64 film image on decent full frame gear, exposed and processed properly should have better resolution than any 16mp digital image, although a decidedly shorter contrast range.

Bill P

[quote=rehess]I had slides scanned by several professionals - then I compared scans on computer to projected slides.

This is a flawed test, there are too many variables. There is no validity for the scans, as you are combining the strengths and weaknesses of both systems. It may be that your scans didn't have enough resolution to truly duplicate the film you projected. And if you compare the digital camera to projected film, you are likely looking at the digital on a monitor only a foot or two away and the projected image 10 oe 15 feet away.

Not a fair test..

aellman Loc: Boston MA

calliach wrote:

I expect this has been done to death on here but, I am new, so bear with me. Recently discovered the joys of digital photography but many many moons ago did play about with a Practika and B&W film and did some developing. Any suggestions of how I could find a good quality second hand film camera, what I should look for and am I just being sentimental about film? Live in Scotland and do not have unlimited resources.....but if you saw my photography toys you would seriously question that!

Agree with others. ebay has tons of them. Very inexpensive because hardy anyone wants them. It's a buyer's market.