So what film camera/bit of kit have you been obsessing about today?

srichards said:
I'm wondering whether changing mine for the Olsen screen was a good idea as well. I've kept the old one just in case.
Click to expand...

On reflection, I don't think it was getting any harder to focus. It's more that I was initially seduced by the brightness but my patience with the focusing was running out.
 
Film loaded I think. Cat surprised by flash :snaphappy:

Only thing that is irritating is the dial lock button means I find it difficult to turn the camera on or off with one hand. You have to press the button and move the dial. There will be knack to it I'm sure but it's quite awkward for me.

Looking at my film stocks I've got several slightly out of date rolls to get through!
 
I had fun and games with my Nikon F601 yesterday when it came to using manual mode. Kept coming up with the error fEE on the LCD. I think this was purely because I was trying to use an AF lens which didn't have an aperture ring. Being a bit teed off about this, I decided to have a search around for a camera with a suitable lens so that I can play to the full, i.e. manual focus, set aperture etc and found a Pentax P30n that appears to fit the bill on evilbay. As of twenty minutes ago it is now mine for £15.00 plus P&P - no one else wanted to bid on it. I've got some Fomopan B&W film so I will see how I get on with that camera when it arrives.
 
I'm torn between a 210mm f4.5 APO for the 67, a 300mm f5.6 ULD for the 645 or an AE prism for the RZ67.
 
Kei said:
or an AE prism for the RZ67.
Click to expand...

I have an AE prism for my RZ67 but rarely use it outside of the studio; whilst I can carry an RZ, two film backs, and three lenses for several miles, the prism is the tipping point that makes it just too much to carry about. I do sometimes miss it when the camera position is too high to allow the use of the waist level finder, but you can't have everything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kei
re prism It's what you prefer...for me I just don't like waist level cameras so turned my RB67 into a giant SLR with prism and "L" bar.

 
Sold the prism for my RB, far too heavy and far few use cases. Only time I ever rind it useful is composing something with the tripod at full height and I rarely shoot above eye level.
 
I sold the prism for my SQ-A too. If it had been the metered one, I'd have kept it, but as it wasn't, I prefer the enormous beauty of the WLF :)
 
I examined the metering prism for the RZ67 at Focus years ago, and decided against it. The image in the viewfinder was so much smaller than that in the waist level finder, and, unlike Brian, I don't like cameras that have to be held to the eye. I have only once encountered a situation where the prism would have helped, and that was when photographing at the Glen Nevis lower falls, with my tripod set up on the bridge (Google street view will show that this means "in the narrow road") and the required viewpoint being at about my height, not my eye level. I had to climb and hold onto the fence to focus and compose. The waist level finder made this more difficult, but still possible; the extra weight and reduced view of the prism would make every other photograph harder for me to compose. Plus hand holding is easier lower down the body than at eye level anyway. The metering doesn't bother me, as I'm quite used to a hand held meter, and don't go in for the close work where a TTL system would remove the need for calculations.
 
Just to bring down the level of conversation, just lately I have been struggling to not buy a 110 film camera. Not even one with all the frills, but the cheap as chips one that I had when I was a young kid. Even better it has the old flash cube extender, and I want to buy a load of (now expensive) flash cubes to go with it. I'm pretty certain I'm going to only use it once and it will end up in the cupboard but logic isn't driving this...
 
Not a new obsession but always wanted a Nikon F4S, think I'll finally take the plunge soon. Some nice ones on evilbay along with a lot who have seen harder times. Missed a nice one on here some time ago, always hoping another comes up!
 
I can't do it.......I just can't

110 film, its tiny, I so want a 110 camera, love the form factor and design, but 110 film ??, love half frame cameras too like the Oly pen, its an absolute tragedy the thing only shoots half a flippin 35mm frame, I mean...wtf
I shoot 6x6, I don't wanna go any pokier than that really, ok so I'll shoot a bit of 35mm cos I have to, y'see......it has to be usable, I wan't these cameras to use, I can't see the point in shooting a camera if its product is just so......limited, I don't own cameras just for the sake of owning them or put em in a glass box, I know people that do but I personally don't begin to understand that at all.
Anyway, its a rant at manufacturers that make such desirable cameras yet built them to shoot a pathetically small frame of film, so pathetic I can't find a reason to shoot one...:D
 
joxby said:
I can't do it.......I just can't

110 film, its tiny, I so want a 110 camera, love the form factor and design, but 110 film ??, love half frame cameras too like the Oly pen, its an absolute tragedy the thing only shoots half a flippin 35mm frame, I mean...wtf
I shoot 6x6, I don't wanna go any pokier than that really, ok so I'll shoot a bit of 35mm cos I have to, y'see......it has to be usable, I wan't these cameras to use, I can't see the point in shooting a camera if its product is just so......limited, I don't own cameras just for the sake of owning them or put em in a glass box, I know people that do but I personally don't begin to understand that at all.
Anyway, its a rant at manufacturers that make such desirable cameras yet built them to shoot a pathetically small frame of film, so pathetic I can't find a reason to shoot one...:D
Click to expand...

Each to their own John, each to their own. Some people really like tiny, look at growers of bonsai trees :D
 
Last edited:
Andysnap said:
Each to their own John, each to their own. Some people really like tiny, look at growers of bonsai trees :D
Click to expand...

Well I'll never understand why use small format film cameras when you can use a mobile phone :confused:
 
Andysnap said:
Each to their own John, each to their own. Some people really like tiny, look at growers of bonsai trees :D
Click to expand...
:Dwell you know what they say about the best things

excalibur2 said:
Well I'll never understand why use small format film cameras when you can use a mobile phone :confused:
Click to expand...


That's a different perspective you've got there Bri, but not everyone chooses what they shoot based purely on finance, the logical progression of your ideal beggars the question, why shoot film at all.
I mean, ok if you've already got a load of film gear from yesteryear, it could make sense from a finance perspective to just carry on using it, but most people shoot film for a mirriad of other reasons related to the material, equipment and process itself, not because its the cheapest option, for most people wanting to shoot film, a mobile phone might as well be a toaster or something as equally useless for the job.

I want to wet print my stuff, its not for everyone.

I shoot some 35mm because its an extremely compact and versatile format compared to 120, but miles more importantly, it produces a half printable negative, without that you're left with shooting a desirable beautifully designed camera......just for the fun of owning it and shooting it.
Do I wanna do that ?, well sort of....kinda.....lots of people do, but for me ultimately its a complete fail, its like walking off a cliff, I want to do it just for the experience of the freedom of flight/plummet/whatever, but if there is no product at the end of it, (ie I don't live to enjoy the experience afterwards)....what's the point, there are far too many sexy cameras that produce useful negs to shoot without faffing about with tiny formats...:)
 
joxby said:
:Dwell you know what they say about the best things




That's a different perspective you've got there Bri, but not everyone chooses what they shoot based purely on finance, the logical progression of your ideal beggars the question, why shoot film at all.
I mean, ok if you've already got a load of film gear from yesteryear, it could make sense from a finance perspective to just carry on using it, but most people shoot film for a mirriad of other reasons related to the material, equipment and process itself, not because its the cheapest option, for most people wanting to shoot film, a mobile phone might as well be a toaster or something as equally useless for the job.

I want to wet print my stuff, its not for everyone.

I shoot some 35mm because its an extremely compact and versatile format compared to 120, but miles more importantly, it produces a half printable negative, without that you're left with shooting a desirable beautifully designed camera......just for the fun of owning it and shooting it.
Do I wanna do that ?, well sort of....kinda.....lots of people do, but for me ultimately its a complete fail, its like walking off a cliff, I want to do it just for the experience of the freedom of flight/plummet/whatever, but if there is no product at the end of it, (ie I don't live to enjoy the experience afterwards)....what's the point, there are far too many sexy cameras that produce useful negs to shoot without faffing about with tiny formats...:)
Click to expand...

Well yes John.....every one to his\her hobby, it's just all the faffing around with 110, 126 (or whatever) when there are some lovely JUST 35mm compact AF (non zoom) cameras that were made that slip into your pocket and you can pickup for peanuts.
Reminds of the story (re about not understanding other people's hobby), at the bootie when I was looking at cameras on a stall and a guy came up to me with something like a Brownie 127 and said " do I know what film this takes" well it just came out of my mouth without thinking and replied "what did you buy that for as there are some lovely compacts here going for under £2" :sorry: :facepalm::oops: :$
 
excalibur2 said:
Well yes John.....every one to his\her hobby, it's just all the faffing around with 110, 126 (or whatever) when there are some lovely JUST 35mm compact AF (non zoom) cameras that were made that slip into your pocket and you can pickup for peanuts.
Reminds of the story (re about not understanding other people's hobby), at the bootie when I was looking at cameras on a stall and a guy came up to me with something like a Brownie 127 and said " do I know what film this takes" well it just came out of my mouth without thinking and replied "what did you buy that for as there are some lovely compacts here going for under £2" :sorry: :facepalm::oops: :$
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO:

I know....it takes all sorts to make a World though, and ya can't put a price on happiness..:)
 
... or stupidity :)
 
Kevin Allan said:
I have an AE prism for my RZ67 but rarely use it outside of the studio; whilst I can carry an RZ, two film backs, and three lenses for several miles, the prism is the tipping point that makes it just too much to carry about. I do sometimes miss it when the camera position is too high to allow the use of the waist level finder, but you can't have everything.
Click to expand...
That's what I'd wondered. I carry my RZ in a lowepro toploader 75 and I know that with a prism, it wouldn't fit which would make life in the field a nightmare. I probably need to build up more faith in my handheld meter skills as I'm too chicken to shoot any slide film in cameras without any TTL metering. I tend to stick with the 645 as both the 1000S and AFD have metering prsims but remain easily transportable in the field. I think based on that, I'm better off focusing my attention on the 210mm f4.5 APO for the 67 as I already have 8 lenses for the 645 compared with just 3 lenses for the 67.
 
^ So, only five lenses to get for the 67 to catch up. Better start spending :D
 
Kei said:
I probably need to build up more faith in my handheld meter skills as I'm too chicken to shoot any slide film in cameras without any TTL metering.
Click to expand...

People did it with hand held meters for years. Why not take your meter out with you when you're using a TTL equipped camera, and check what you get against what the camera says (assuming that you're happy with the camera's exposure). You might find that using it in incident mode (if it has this) or putting the palm of your hand in the same light as the subject, metering from that and opening up one stop, will be more consistent.
 
kendo1 said:
^ So, only five lenses to get for the 67 to catch up. Better start spending :D
Click to expand...
Would love to :), but that's not likely to happen. I originally planned on getting just the 65, 127 and 210 and now have 65, 75 and 127 instead. Fancy the 50 ULD and 37mm fisheye too but they don't come cheap and I doubt I'd use them that often. With 645 I really only have 35, 55, 80, 120, 150 & 210. I've got a pair of 80's (f1.9 & f2.8) and a pair of 210's. (AF and MF) How my dad made do with just the 105mm f2.4 on his pentax 67 I'll never know.

StephenM said:
People did it with hand held meters for years. Why not take your meter out with you when you're using a TTL equipped camera, and check what you get against what the camera says (assuming that you're happy with the camera's exposure). You might find that using it in incident mode (if it has this) or putting the palm of your hand in the same light as the subject, metering from that and opening up one stop, will be more consistent.
Click to expand...
I use a gossen digipro F which I treat as a reflective meter 99% of the time, using the averaging mode which shows the exposure range of a scene. I've only had a handful of slightly wonky exposures when using it so can't be all that bad. Just think I lack the faith to try it with the rather steep cost of E6 films.
 
I have the 45, 80 and two 150s - the f3.5 and an f4- for use on my 645. I use a Minolta autometer.
I suppose I should sell the f4...
 
Asha said:
or Brian!:D

Edit ^^that^^ .......50 pence :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Turned down a Pentax espio mini compact for 10p...before you all say I'm mad, well I already had loads of compacts and then I'd only have to waste film testing it and if it was perfect what do I do with it, as all my other compact's results would have been just as good.
 
Ah, but they might have been different; after all, the results from most 35mm cameras will be equally good, so we only need 3 (one to use; one as a backup and one that might be away being repaired, so we always have a spare).
 
maybe he'd be lucky and get a double pano exposure light leak camera that creates art with every shot........ahhh, now we'll never know...:)
 
Whether the foolish auction purchase will be a box of delights or a box of sh...e!
 
I've always wanted a Leica, probably an M3, and a Noct-Nikkor f1.2 to go with my FM and F2. I might be able to manage the Leica, at a stretch, but the lens(es) would be out of reach and the Nikkor will remain a pipe dream...:(
 
Have you tried the normal nikkor 50mm f1.2 or older 55mm version? It's got some special qualities vs the other 50's you can get provided it's used at stops faster than f2.8. It's pretty good even wide open if accurately focused having a trace of swirl to the bokeh in the corners.
 
I've got the 55mm f1.2 I love the look it gives but it's a pig to focus wide open.
 
Kei said:
Have you tried the normal nikkor 50mm f1.2 or older 55mm version? It's got some special qualities vs the other 50's you can get provided it's used at stops faster than f2.8. It's pretty good even wide open if accurately focused having a trace of swirl to the bokeh in the corners.
Click to expand...

I haven't, no, but definitely something to look into. The Noct has always been sort of iconic, and I've wanted one since I first read about it, but I really couldn't justify it on any basis other than lust!

RaglanSurf said:
I've got the 55mm f1.2 I love the look it gives but it's a pig to focus wide open.
Click to expand...

I can imagine, but I'd like to try it at some point. Just possible that someone I used to know may have one, he kept most of his Nikon film kit (1960s - 1980s) when he retired.
 
Several bits Canon F1n AE, Contax 645 and Fuji 680 also 5x4 cameras.
 
I think RJ is using a Rollei SL66 at the moment for his tilt images. I reckon you'd have to be pretty committed to the art to carry a GX680 anywhere outside of the studio :0)
 
I don't know about that - I just checked the weight and found it was about the same as my first 5x4 camera which I carried around. Admittedly that's probably without the lens in the GX680's case, but the 5x4 required additional weight in the form of focusing cloth, double dark slides etc.
 
I'll admit that at the moment, it's a Kine Exakta that's caught my eye on the WY Cameras site. I can't be certain, but I suspect it may well be the very camera I handled in their shop a couple of years ago. To me, the attraction is a (very) soft spot for Exakta, as I used a Varex IIB for a number of years, and still have it (with non working shutter). As the first 35mm SLR, it's a piece of history; and conventional wisdom runs that the older the model, the better they were made.
 
mothdust said:
Read a review of the Fuji GX680 (is this what our own dear @skysh4rk uses?) http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2016/05/camera-review-fujifilm-gx-680-iii-s-professional - am now imagining my tiny self, carting around this 5kg beast for nature photography!
Click to expand...

stevelmx5 said:
I think RJ is using a Rollei SL66 at the moment for his tilt images. I reckon you'd have to be pretty committed to the art to carry a GX680 anywhere outside of the studio :0)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm using a Rolleiflex SL66E at the moment. I've managed to adapt a projection lens to the camera, which means that I'm not limited to using tilt only at closer distances; I can tilt past infinity.

I would love to experiment with the GX680 too, but it's probably too hefty for what I usually shoot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top