Not new to film (but might as well be)...

Kell

Kell

Messages
3,441
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have a very old (bought SH by me in 1990) Minolta X-500 + a 50mm lens for it. I've also just been gifted a Pentax P30 with an assortment of lenses. Not sure what's included, I can see a 70-210 Miranda Lens. Plus what look like two Pentax lenses. One could be a 50mm and one looks like a short zoom.

I've not shot film in over 20 years, so I'm completely out of touch with what film to buy where to get it and where to get it developed.

We're going on a group trip to NYC in April and I was thinking about taking one of the film cameras (alongside a digital camera) as a bit of an experiment.

Maybe B&W film. But unsure of brand or ASA to commit to.

If you were going to a city like NYC at that time of year, what film would you buy, where do you get it processed and how would I go about getting good quality digital files to do my own PP?

Thanks in advance...
 
Last edited:
If you fancy shooting b&w I would advise Ilford XP2 as it can be processed by the colour C41 process. Many labs can do this, but a favourite is Filmdev who will scan to different sizes. You download the scans and get the negs back in the post.

filmdev.co.uk

Filmdev - Film Developing and Scanning Service

A professional film developing and scanning service mail-order for both Colour and traditional Black and White films. Filmdev is a small company dedicated to
filmdev.co.uk filmdev.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Hi Kell, my feeling would be black and white too, that way it's completely different, and you won't find yourself thinking the colours look a bit off compared to your digital! I reckon NYC is a pretty good option for black and white too, lots of contrasting shapes and tones to make interesting compositions. A 50mm might be a bit tight, but then I've always found images that work whatever the focal length, if you look for them! XP2 and Flmdev are both good calls for this job. It's an ISO 400 film (very flexible so you could rate it at 200 happily), so probably not too fast for April, can be contrasty.
 
Can't add much more than already said which is pretty good advice for someone "starting again".

Hunt around for good prices on film. Certainly avoid Amazon and eBay which can be over-priced and I'd also avoid buying used (as in someone's had it on top of a radiator for 3 months before selling it) or expired film for your first outing. I'd start by looking at Analogue Wonderland and then Google search from there.

As for getting good quality scans. Filmdev do really good scans out of the box, but be sure to ask for "no sharpening" as additional notes on the order form if you want a "raw" file. In my experience they tend to over-sharpen a bit too much for my taste, but I often get small scans to make a contact sheet and then home scan the "keepers". If you're a pixel peeper, or want to print big, go for large scans as there's a ton of information in them. If it's just for web use, then the small scans (included in the dev price) are fine.
 
Yep XP2 all the way.
If you want something more atmospheric Kodak Double X but it's a little harder to get developed.
Both films are available at reasonable prices from Analouge Revival. Low cost C41 development can be found from photofactoryltd on ebay for anything else including the Double x SilverPN film lab in Bristol do a good job in my view.
For colour I've recently tried some of the Kodak Vision 3 films which have given me good results but with a "film" look.
www.ebay.co.uk

Photo Factory | eBay Stores

Buy with confidence from us! Owned by the same person since 1979 (formerly STP Cameras). We only sell genuine goods (NO COUNTERFEIT GOODS HERE!). Our goal is to achieve 100% customer satisfaction.
www.ebay.co.uk


silverpan.co.uk

SilverPan Film Lab | Your Film Your Way | Film Processing Lab

SilverPan Film Lab is a Bristol film processing lab. We develop and scan your 35mm film, 120 film and more - with bespoke film developing and scanning packages to deliver unbeatable images. Colour, ECN2, E6 and B&W processing are all available, alongside film ready to buy in store.
silverpan.co.uk silverpan.co.uk

analoguerevival.co.uk

The Best Analogue Cameras in 2022 - Analogue Revival

If you're looking to buy the best analogue cameras to add to your collection or get started in film photography, then visit Analogue Revival!
analoguerevival.co.uk analoguerevival.co.uk

Other than as a customer I have no association with any of these companies.
 
Check out prices at US retailers, B&H to name one, you may find it cheaper to buy there.
I would also test the minolta thoroughly before going, they are known to have capacitor problems.
 
Thanks for all the advice.

Especially about testing before. That never really occurred to me (WRT to my Minolta anyway).

I figured the Minolta is mostly mechanical so wouldn't have any issues. But there is an LED exposure match meter inside which may be where any problem will come from.

Last time I picked it up, the little coin battery from 1990 was still powering it up.

From what I've read online the T30 has more electronics but I've not had a chance to look at the camera (or indeed work out which lenses it comes with) as my friend posted it to me and I've not received it yet.
 
Last edited:
Analogue Revival (I've never heard of them) seem to have XP2 for £7.60 36-frame, which is the best price I could see. Delivery £4. Your local Boots _might_ have it for not far off that (so might work out cheaper for a small order), though their official price is quite a lot over.

Karl.t1965 said:
Check out prices at US retailers, B&H to name one, you may find it cheaper to buy there.
I would also test the minolta thoroughly before going, they are known to have capacitor problems.
Click to expand...
That's actually a good point. There's a bit of controversy about the new-style airport scanners affecting film (the clue is: if you can leave your laptop in its bag, there are new-style scanners), so buying in your destination isn't a bad idea. Even better to get the films devved while you're there, and get scans via WeTransfer or whatever.

Scan nomenclature is weird. Often they'll quote a size in MBytes "open in Photoshop", quite unrelated to the size of the JPEGs you'll get back. A medium scan is often 18 MByte, one byte for each colour channel, so 6 Mpixels. It doesn't sound a lot to digital camera users these days, but it'll handle your social media uses and even give you an A4 print, no doubt. Filmdev scans are very well priced compared to much of the opposition (£6.50 for dev and scan at the moment, I believe); I don't know anything about US labs or prices!
 
Well, it's still MAY cause fogging etc. There still seem to be examples of film getting through the new scanners without major damage being apparent. But I'd rather not take the risk!

Plus, you can ask for a hand inspection, but there seem to be plenty of stories of folk being denied!
 
ChrisR said:
Well, it's still MAY cause fogging etc. There still seem to be examples of film getting through the new scanners without major damage being apparent. But I'd rather not take the risk!

Plus, you can ask for a hand inspection, but there seem to be plenty of stories of folk being denied!
Click to expand...

The articles I just read were a couple of years old suggested that problems may arise on anything under 800 ISO.

As you say no guarantee either way.
 
Yep c41 developed bw film unless you want to develop your own then hp5 and scan it yourself . Last I did was pre covid - pretty easy to do if you still have a tank and changing bag etc.

I used to do a lot of colour on Fujifilm when Asda had in house processing for a quid or two alas…..

I prefered colour then and in the 60’s because I am just a terrible B&W photographer - no sense of tonality etc.
 
Last edited:
I've had three films developed recently between 50 ISO and 200 ISO which were all x rayed three times with no issues.
There used to be an x ray film bag on sale and people would ask "does it work" and the answer we gave was "it works if you think it does" i.e. you won't get film fogging from x rays but if you use the bag you will think the bag worked!
 
ilikebowens said:
I've had three films developed recently between 50 ISO and 200 ISO which were all x rayed three times with no issues.
There used to be an x ray film bag on sale and people would ask "does it work" and the answer we gave was "it works if you think it does" i.e. you won't get film fogging from x rays but if you use the bag you will think the bag worked!
Click to expand...
The issue seems to be the new CT-style scanners, much more powerful. But on the other hand I've come across several folk with experiences like yours, but some with significant increases in fog. I've not seen so many reports of spiral shaped lines, supposed to be an artefact from CT scans. Jury's still out, it appears; I'm surprised someone hasn't done (or maybe published) some better research!
 
piper said:
Yep c41 developed bw film unless you want to develop your own then hp5 and scan it yourself . Last I did was pre covid - pretty easy to do if you still have a tank and changing bag etc.

I used to do a lot of colour on Fujifilm when Asda had in house processing for a quid or two alas…..

I prefered colour then and in the 60’s because I am just a terrible B&W photographer - no sense of tonality etc.
Click to expand...

I've not printed my own shots since college - and I don't think we ever developed our own negs.

Out of interest - assuming that all things are equal and they both work as they should - which of those two cameras is 'better'

I knew nothing about the Pentax, but a quick google suggests it's very much entry-level. Whereas I think the Minolta was one of those cameras that ended up being better than it's more expensive stablemate. I certainly enjoyed using it when i was at college in the early 90's.

Been playing around with some film this morning in the Pentax.

I was correct in that the lenses that came with it are:

Miranda 70-210 (f/4.5-5.6) - on first glance, this look a little foggy to me.
SMC Pentax-M 50mm (f/1.7) This look to be in good nick.
SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm (f/3.5-4.5). This feels a bit loose, but seems to focus OK. If offers an auto mode which means I could still hand it to other people and all they'd have to do is focus it.

Just checking all the lenses seeing how they focus etc.

I think the Minolta is easier to use - but that's probably just a bit of muscle-memory kicking in.

But, wouldn't you know it, after saying that the batteries were fine, they died when i tried to take my first shot this morning. More batteries arriving later, so I'll have a play with that tomorrow and then send both lots of film off for processing.

What I was thinking is that I might try and find a similar short zoom for the Minolta as I think I prefer that as a camera (I also have a flash for it - which is bigger than the camera). So it might make it more useful.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
The issue seems to be the new CT-style scanners, much more powerful. But on the other hand I've come across several folk with experiences like yours, but some with significant increases in fog. I've not seen so many reports of spiral shaped lines, supposed to be an artefact from CT scans. Jury's still out, it appears; I'm surprised someone hasn't done (or maybe published) some better research!
Click to expand...
New thread on here linking to a good article on this very subject...
 
Kell said:
What I was thinking is that I might try and find a similar short zoom for the Minolta as I think I prefer that as a camera (I also have a flash for it - which is bigger than the camera). So it might make it more useful.
Click to expand...
If you are after a short zoom for a Minolta then you could do worse than the 35/70 F3.5 constant aperture they are brilliant and are possibly the best zoom I have used. Expect to pay anything from £40 -£60 for a good one. They were also 'cloned' under licence by Leica and used on their Leica reflexes, the R4 and R5. The only difference made to them was the obvious Leica bayonet fitting and a different and heavier gauge barrel. Next down the line would be the Minolta 28/85 f3.5/4.5 zoom. Not as good as the 35/70 but not a long way behind.
 
Rodinal said:
If you are after a short zoom for a Minolta then you could do worse than the 35/70 F3.5 constant aperture they are brilliant and are possibly the best zoom I have used. Expect to pay anything from £40 -£60 for a good one. They were also 'cloned' under licence by Leica and used on their Leica reflexes, the R4 and R5. The only difference made to them was the obvious Leica bayonet fitting and a different and heavier gauge barrel. Next down the line would be the Minolta 28/85 f3.5/4.5 zoom. Not as good as the 35/70 but not a long way behind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Unfortunately, my impulsiveness means that just after I posted above I bid for (and won) a 28-70 f3.5-4.8 for a tenner.

If it turns out to be terrible, then maybe I'll look out for the one you've posted.
 
The 28/70 was sold new as the 'budget' version around the same time as the 35/70 and from what I have seen from results they didn't cover themselves with glory.
 
Rodinal said:
The 28/70 was sold new as the 'budget' version around the same time as the 35/70 and from what I have seen from results they didn't cover themselves with glory.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather from this chart: https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

There were three version of the constant aperture 35-70. The first with ROKKOR on the lens, the last two without. And the third version also added the MACRO function.

There was a fourth one, the 'plastic fantastic' 3.5-4.8 from 1994. Is this not as good? Only I've spotted an absolutely MINT one on eBay. But it's a similar price to the MKIII.

I guess this is the problem with 'heritage' kit - is

  1. trying to get a list of what was actually available
  2. trying to work out which one is better - it's very hard to find a comparison of that later lens over the first ones.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
From what I can gather from this chart: https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

There were three version of the constant aperture 35-70. The first with ROKKOR on the lens, the last two without. And the third version also added the MACRO function.

There was a fourth one, the 'plastic fantastic' 3.5-4.8 from 1994. Is this not as good? Only I've spotted an absolutely MINT one on eBay. But it's a similar price to the MKIII.

I guess this is the problem with 'heritage' kit - is

  1. trying to get a list of what was actually available
  2. trying to work out which one is better - it's very hard to find a comparison of that later lens over the first ones.
Click to expand...
IIRC it was the macro version? I have the non macro version i.e. MD zoom 35-70 F3.5 and it's VG
 
excalibur2 said:
IIRC it was the macro version? I have the non macro version i.e. MD zoom 35-70 F3.5 and it's VG
Click to expand...

From what I've been reading, it was also a Macro version, (like the MKII) but much cheaper and plasticky.

Is yours a MKII? From my very limited research over the weekend, it seems like the MKII and MKIII are similar in terms of optical performance, just the MKIII added Macro.
 
Kell said:
From what I've been reading, it was also a Macro version, (like the MKII) but much cheaper and plasticky.

Is yours a MKII? From my very limited research over the weekend, it seems like the MKII and MKIII are similar in terms of optical performance, just the MKIII added Macro.
Click to expand...
Well I can't remember as I knew that version i.e. fixed f3.5 was a hidden gem and bought it at the bootie for £5 many years ago. On the front it just says MD zoom 35-70 f3.5 Minolta.
More info if you do a search at mflenses.com
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well I can't remember as I knew that version i.e. fixed f3.5 was a hidden gem and bought it at the bootie for £5 many years ago. On the front it just says MD zoom 35-70 f3.5 Minolta.
More info if you do a search at mflenses.com
Click to expand...

That sounds like an absolute bargain. They're going for £100+ for mint examples.
 
Kell said:
That sounds like an absolute bargain. They're going for £100+ for mint examples.
Click to expand...
Well most of my about 60 35mm lenses and 40 cameras were bought for peanuts when they were throwing film gear away (silly prices on the bay as well).....about 6 to 15 years ago.
I remember once at the bootie near closing time and a guy was holding up a Pentax compact to people and saying 10p, I didn't buy it as I would have to waste film testing it......those were the days (y)
 
excalibur2 said:
Well most of my about 60 35mm lenses and 40 cameras were bought for peanuts when they were throwing film gear away (silly prices on the bay as well).....about 6 to 15 years ago.
I remember once at the bootie near closing time and a guy was holding up a Pentax compact to people and saying 10p, I didn't buy it as I would have to waste film testing it......those were the days (y)
Click to expand...

It is crazy - even point and shoot plastic cameras are going for silly money now.

I literally couldn't give mine away a while back and now my daughter's 18 and all over Instagram, everyone wants them. Did have a Pentax Espio which I think I managed to convince someone to give me a fiver for. Now some of them are over £100.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
It is crazy - even point and shoot plastic cameras are going for silly money now.

I literally couldn't give mine away a while back and now my daughter's 18 and all over Instagram, everyone wants them. Did have a Pentax Espio which I think I managed to convince someone to give me a fiver for. Now some of them are over £100.
Click to expand...
In about 2014 tried to persuade digi guys to try film at a total cost of £3.60 and showed pics of results..........From Bootie:- Nikon AF210 50p, film 10p and Asda dev and scan £3.
 
Kell said:
From what I can gather from this chart: https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

There were three version of the constant aperture 35-70. The first with ROKKOR on the lens, the last two without. And the third version also added the MACRO function.

There was a fourth one, the 'plastic fantastic' 3.5-4.8 from 1994. Is this not as good? Only I've spotted an absolutely MINT one on eBay. But it's a similar price to the MKIII.

I guess this is the problem with 'heritage' kit - is

  1. trying to get a list of what was actually available
  2. trying to work out which one is better - it's very hard to find a comparison of that later lens over the first ones.
Click to expand...
Most of the mainstream Minolta lenses were absolutely superb, well up to the standard of the likes of Canon and Nikon (in some cases better} It is when they produce 'ofshoots' like the 28/703.5-4.8 is where they don't do so well. They stretch the zoom range but at the expense of the quality. Perhaps the 'mint' one you found was 'mint' because it had been bought in a kit and never used(?) The shorter sibling of the 35/70 was the 24/35 also constant aperture was possibly as good and consideration must be given to the wider zoom range because when I used one the only adjective I will use is it was outstanding.
One anomaly which is the exception that proves the rule are the so called 'Celtic' versions of the 28mm and 135mm prime lenses. They got a bad press but I don't know why. They were the equivalent of the 'E' series of Nikon lenses. They were the same design as the other AIS lenses but with less sophisticated coatings, probably plastic barrels but still very usable.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
Most of the mainstream Minolta lenses were absolutely superb, well up to the standard of the likes of Canon and Nikon (in some cases better} It is when they produce 'ofshoots' like the 28/703.5-4.8 is where they don't do so well. They stretch the zoom range but at the expense of the quality. Perhaps the 'mint' one you found was 'mint' because it had been bought in a kit and never used(?) The shorter sibling of the 35/70 was the 24/35 also constant aperture was possibly as good and consideration must be given to the wider zoom range because when I used one the only adjective I will use is it was outstanding.
One anomaly which is the exception that proves the rule are the so called 'Celtic' versions of the 28mm and 135mm prime lenses. They got a bad press but I don't know why. They were the equivalent of the 'E' series of Nikon lenses. They were the same design as the other AIS lenses but with less sophisticated coatings, probably plastic barrels but still very usable.
Click to expand...
..........another problem buying S/H lenses (maybe new ones as well) is copy variation in manufacture (dunno about say Leitz) and ignoring lens abuse you will read reports on tests for a lens when someone would post "nothing special" and another "very sharp". That battered old lens that a pro continual uses is probably because it's very sharp, so you can't tell how good a lens is by looks. I read in a magazine donkey's years ago the pros used to try different Nikon lenses (of the same type) at their friendly camera shop and buy the best one after testing. o_O
I've always said:- quite a few lenses on the bay are the ones rejected and the best ones are kept. How many times have you read on forums "I'd never sell this lens"?
 
Well, I took the plunge and ordered a few things. What I don't end up using, I will sell.

I was concerned that the 35-70 (good as it is) might not be wide enough for city use. My first digi camera I took to New York in 2003 was 7.8-39mm lens, equivalent to a 37.5-187.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. I do remember several times it being a bit tight.

So... a bit of research mentioned that the 28-85 is 'almost' as good. And might offer me the additional wide end and some additional top end - at the expense of 3.5 throughout. That' part of the reason I looked at the 28-70 - for the wide end, Anyway, it was half the price of any decent version of the 35-70 I could see.

But then, almost as soon as I'd bought it, a good VIII 35-70 Macro one for not a lot more. So I bought that too. :oops: :$

I found a couple of rolls of colour film (forget what right now) maybe from when I last thought about dragging my Minolta out. And I also got some XP2. So now workign my way through that on the Pentax, but holding off shooting on the Minolta till everything turns up.

Typical of me, what started out as "Maybe I'll just take the Pentax to NYC with me and some rolls of film" has suddenly become a bit of a GAS situation. I also went down a real rabbit hole yesterday of using vintage lenses on modern cameras - so looking forward to trying that too.

So I've also picked up a Pentax > EOS EF adapter as well as a Minolta > EOS EF adapter (mixed reports about whether or not this will work) so I can test the lenses quickly and in better conditions without having to go through rolls of film.
 
Last edited:
There have been reports of some very good lenses and some real shockers One of the best I have used was fitted to a Kiev4 - the 50mm F2 copy of possibly a Sonnar or some other German knockoff. The difference being it was usually used with a tripod and a cable release. I have known other mediocre lenses (By repute) give outstanding quality when on a tripod.
The cheapest lens (priced now) I own and use, is a Nikon 70/300 AF LD. It is not well rated but on a tripod it is quite different and well worth keeping. It is really worth the effort of humping a tripod when I know I will use it. Even my Nikon 24/120 AFS AF constant aperture with vibration reduction is a better lens when used on a tripod!
 
Kell said:
Well, I took the plunge and ordered a few things. What I don't end up using, I will sell.

I was concerned that the 35-70 (good as it is) might not be wide enough for city use. My first digi camera I took to New York in 2003 was 7.8-39mm lens, equivalent to a 37.5-187.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. I do remember several times it being a bit tight.

So... a bit of research mentioned that the 28-85 is 'almost' as good. And might offer me the additional wide end and some additional top end - at the expense of 3.5 throughout. That' part of the reason I looked at the 28-70 - for the wide end, Anyway, it was half the price of any decent version of the 35-70 I could see.

But then, almost as soon as I'd bought it, a good VIII 35-70 Macro one for not a lot more. So I bought that too. :oops: :$

I found a couple of rolls of colour film (forget what right now) maybe from when I last thought about dragging my Minolta out. And I also got some XP2. So now workign my way through that on the Pentax, but holding off shooting on the Minolta till everything turns up.

Typical of me, what started out as "Maybe I'll just take the Pentax to NYC with me and some rolls of film" has suddenly become a bit of a GAS situation. I also went down a real rabbit hole yesterday of using vintage lenses on modern cameras - so looking forward to trying that too.

So I've also picked up a Pentax > EOS EF adapter as well as a Minolta > EOS EF adapter (mixed reports about whether or not this will work) so I can test the lenses quickly and in better conditions without having to go through rolls of film.
Click to expand...
Well I have quite a few zooms and found they weren't very sharp (subjective) at every setting of the zoom and more the range more the problem....probably explains why the short range of the 35-70 f3.5 is so good? Depending on the zoom, and the designer who thought how a photographer would use the lens, the 28mm end could be very sharp and the 85mm end not so...... just my opinion how a lens designer would think with no facts as I have one zoom (without finding it) 28mm to about 85mm and is very sharp at 28mm.
When film was going for peanuts had a hobby of comparing my lenses for sharpness and found one zoom 80mm to 210mm, at the 135mm setting, was VG good compared to a selection of 135mm primes....so I suppose "know your lens".
Before I went to MF used a 35mm Pentax Takumar for donkey's years and got by, but coming back to 35mm cameras thought wow 28mm prime was great, then 24mm and now happy with 20mm.
 
Last edited:
Everything has now turned up - so I guess I'll be having a play at the weekend and sending some film off.

Already shot some XP2 on the Pentax to see how that is, then this weekend I'll test these out.

28-70 - f/3.4-4.8

28-70.jpg

28-85 - f3.5-4.5

28-85.jpg

35-70 - f3.5

35-70.jpg

Clearly the one with the biggest range is the longest. But the little 28-70 certainly doesn't feel cheap. You can't lock it in Macro mode and some of the rings are a little easier to spin so you can see where they cut costs, but I was expecting it to be all plasticky. I'll try them all this weekend and see how they perform.

all.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
And some from the Pentax.

Unfortunately, the 35-70 on this had oil (or something) on one the elements so everything looked rubbish. And the 70-210 has some heavy hazing. The 50mm looks to be OK though.

Pentax by Kell, on Flickr

R2-01831-0016 by Kell, on Flickr

R2-01831-0005 by Kell, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top