1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    With my continuing fascination with all things photographic, and particularly hard copies of my images, I am being drawn towards other mediums other than just digital.
    I've been looking at film cameras that I can take advantage of my nikon fit lenses with and thought I would come here for opinions.
    From looking around, the F100 looks like a good choice, so I was wondering if it's worth the extra cost over something like an F90 or F80?

    Also, what is the best film development service online as I won't be developing myself and there aren't many local to me.
     
    Andysnap likes this.
  2. Andysnap

    Andysnap POTY (Film) 2015

    Messages:
    14,580
    Name:
    Andy Grant
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The F100 is a stunningly good camera that does everything extremely well. The F80 and F90 are definitely worth a look as they are a bit smaller and lighter and, especially the F80, considerably cheaper. I currently have an F801 which was the generation before the F80/F100 and it is exceptional. The AF is not quite as quick as the later models but the viewfinder is enormous and bright and the camera is very well made indeed. They seem to go for about £40 at the moment, bit of a bargain I think. My wife has an F80 and it is very good, the AF is snappy and the controls are straightforward but it isn't quite as sturdy as the F801.

    Development wise I currently use Filmdev, but AG Photographic and Peak Imaging are well thought of and there are quite a few others, there's a thread somewhere with most of the current providers.
     
    Retune likes this.
  3. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This should get the Nikonians debating..you could change your list to F100, F4, F90X or F80....where to get the film dev and scanned is no problem as quite a few of us deal with filmdev.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2017 at 3:29 PM
  4. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    352
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'd take the F100 over any other Nikon film body, with the possibile exception of the F6. The other 'single digit' AF bodies are larger and heavier than I'd like. I agree with Andy about the viewfinder and quality of the older F801, though I think he's being a bit generous about the AF, which really isn't up to much if your target is moving. The F100 AF is still pretty competitive today, with 5 focus points (the F90x and earlier, including the F801, had only a single point). The F80 also has 5 AF points, but only the central one is a cross-type sensor - I had the same AF module in the D70, and sometimes missed shots when the outer points struggled to lock on. Both the F80 and the F100 are fully compatible with modern AFS, VR and G lenses (though not with the latest electronic aperture 'E' lenses or AF-P lenses). The F801 and F90 have more limited compatibility (e.g. you can't use a lens without an aperture ring in A or M mode, since there's no way of setting the aperture from the body). I hesitate to link to Ken Rockwell, but he has some good compatibility tables (if you ignore the rhetoric):

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

    Things to look out for when buying an F100:

    It's better to have a metal rewind fork (early versions were plastic and some apparently broke).
    If the plastic catch on the back breaks it's toast, so check for damage and close gently - standard replacement backs are very hard to find, but the (otherwise not very useful) data back is a bit more common. Also make sure the multi-selector works properly.
    Like other the cameras of this era, the grippy 'rubber' can degrade over time - avoid 'sticky' cameras.

    The F80 is significantly smaller, lighter, quieter, and cheaper than the F100, so it's still worth considering if you don't mind lower fps (who burns film these days, anyway?), a less good viewfinder and the single cross sensor.
     
    Andysnap likes this.
  5. Andysnap

    Andysnap POTY (Film) 2015

    Messages:
    14,580
    Name:
    Andy Grant
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    TBH I haven't shot anything moving with the f801 as yet, just landscapes, and the AF is definitely fast enough for those :D
    As you say the other iterations of later Nikon film cameras (F4/5/6) are significantly heavier, not to mention much more expensive and the F100 is without doubt the best of both worlds. However, they have gone up in price an enormous amount over the past 18 months. I think that bang for buck the f90 or 90x are probably still a bit of a bargain but the f801 is not far behind (if you dont need lightning fast af). :)
     
  6. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Do be careful Orangecroc, film photography can be addictive and before you know it you can end up looking at medium format cameras that give as few as 8 shots per roll. Some poor souls on here have even fallen victim to large format which, as far as I can tell, seems to consist of a large wooden box on a tripod into which fistfuls of money are regularly inserted in the hope of obtaining a single exquisite and grain-free photograph of the coast or a lake in Cumbria before the participant is financially ruined and sent to a home for the bewildered. ;)

    Joking aside, welcome to the film side of photography, sounds like you've given things some thought and can make use of your existing Nikon lenses, so what's not to like. You've had some suggestions about camera and developing labs (I've used AG Photolab and Filmdev and have been happy enough with the service from both of them), but no one has mentioned film yet.

    With this in mind, if you let us know what type of shots you like to take (and the lighting conditions you take them in) we should be able to come up with some suggestions to try. A good tip I found was to do a search on Flickr using the film make and model and see if you like the look of the results. It's a bit different from using a digital SLR in terms of ISO, colour balance, saturation, etc. Roughly speaking, you'll be stuck with the same thing for 24 or 36 shots, so matching the film to compliment the look you are trying to get is a consideration to bear in mind once you've got the hang of your 'new' film camera. Anyway, best of luck finding a suitable Nikon 35mm SLR. (y)
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017 at 11:13 PM
    Woodsy, sirch, moomike and 2 others like this.
  7. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thank you all for the in depth information, it's certainly very helpful. I think the extra little bit of money for the f100 seems worth it from the comments, so will start trawling to find one that's in good condition.

    With regards to film, I like the look of photos with kodak ektar 100 and portra 160.
    With fading light, I will have to investigate the higher ISO versions too.
     
  8. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Am I right in thinking I should only use FX lenses?
     
  9. TLR-330

    TLR-330

    Messages:
    921
    Name:
    Charles
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes to that or you will get significant vignetting with DX lenses. Check if you have G type lenses (no aperture ring) what happens. And be prepared to print or scan and faff around with the computer... :)

    I have been thinking about Nikon Photomics but the money would be better spend on a monitor that I can calibrate it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017 at 12:53 AM
  10. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I won't be scanning any I have developed, they will be solely for physical viewing :)
    The majority of my lenses are G, hence why I was looking at the f100 in the first place. Would DX lenses cause severe vignette?
     
  11. TLR-330

    TLR-330

    Messages:
    921
    Name:
    Charles
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sorry Orangecroc I cannot help as my last 35mm camera was around 1980 :-( If you are looking for non-autofocus stuff and non-auto anything it would be pretty cheap to pick a 50mm to start with.
     
  12. trevorbray

    trevorbray

    Messages:
    3,972
    Name:
    Trevor
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yep. 35mm film is full frame in digital parlance. DX lenses will vignette.
     
  13. Andysnap

    Andysnap POTY (Film) 2015

    Messages:
    14,580
    Name:
    Andy Grant
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes, sadly the vignette is very noticeable. There are, however, many lenses from the pre-digital age that are excellent and reasonably priced. I bought the Nikon 35-70mm lens with my f801 and it is classy glass for the price. I also used to have the older Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 on my old f100 and this was an excellent combination.
     
    Orangecroc likes this.
  14. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    ..just to add if you are interested in using old manual focus lenses...the F4 will take any old Nikon lens made that includes pre AI lenses. I have the F90x and am pleased with it but although it can take AI lenses wont take pre AI lenses (well not recommended?) that I have. o_O So if a F4 comes along at the right price will use that.....for me it seems the ideal solution for "horses for course" in using AF and MF lenses.
     
    Orangecroc likes this.
  15. skysh4rk

    skysh4rk

    Messages:
    2,810
    Name:
    RJ
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Am I to take this that you mean that you will only be getting prints? Keep in mind that most labs nowadays no longer print optically, but instead scan your film and then produce the prints from these scans. Given this, I find it makes the most sense to get decent scans first and then select those that are worthy of printing later. For the ones that are really spectacular, I might print them optically in the darkroom myself.
     
    Carl Hall likes this.
  16. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yeah, that's the idea. I will likely order them all printed, I like the idea of that anticipation of the photos arriving to see how they look, the way I used to after a holiday or school trip.
     
    Mr Badger and Andysnap like this.
  17. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you get the images scanned to a CD or internet download as well, you can then 'tweak' them to your liking using the same methods as for JPEG or TIFF files from a digital camera. I find this gives the 'look' of film but most of the flexibility of digital post processing. If you get bitten by the film bug then you could look into getting your own scanner (cost and recommendations will depend on whether you shoot mainly 35mm or m-format by that stage!), as this can reduce costs as you only pay for the negs to be developed. Plus you still get that slight 'Christmas morning' type feeling of excitement and anticipation when the envelope containing the negs drops through the letterbox. :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM
  18. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Reminds me of the old days in waiting for the prints and then after viewing throwing half away o_O
     
    Mr Badger likes this.
  19. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Only half of them? Blimey, you must have been a much better photographer than I was! :LOL:
     
    MatBin and excalibur2 like this.
  20. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    352
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Another one worth considering is the 28-105, which I liked on the F100 and even the D800, and is now available very cheaply. None of these three lenses will AF on Ben's D5200, but perhaps that's not a deal breaker since he already has a DX standard zoom (and FX standard zoom ranges tend not to be ideal for DX anyway).
     
    Andysnap likes this.
  21. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,382
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't mind investing a little in a couple of older lenses just for the film camera. It's much more a curiosity than having my digital camera for when I want to go out and get photos of everything.
     
  22. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    855
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Given the price of so many old film cameras, I would be cautious to pick a Nikon, and more a later Auto-Focus example, that isn't so 'different' to using digital, other than having to stick film in it, for some notion of compatability with existing digi-widgets... especially as so many older Nikon SLR's that may take existing lenss or lenses you may use on a Digi-Nik, are often curiously over-priced for the brand-name compared to other offerings.

    Racking out to take the wide-angle view, if you are after the full film experience, of manual focus, manual exposure, and get the emulsion developed... you may be short-changing yourself trying to find some cross-over.... There are a lot of less-loved film SLR's out there for relative pennies with lenses to suit; even more NON-SLR cameras that are really worth a long hard look, especially for 'occasional' use.

    SLR's used to be slated for being a bit of a camel designed by committee, their greatest asset being that the small film format allowed a complicated pentaprism & mirror 'through-the-lens' view-finder.... which demanded compromised IQ retro-focus lenses to compensate for the length of the mirror housing.

    Many 'serious' photographers, swore by non-SLR cameras, that were frequently cheaper as well as optically better, either in 35mm or medium formats, and suffered fewer overall compromises for the sake of not having through-taking-lens composition.

    Such non 35mm SLR cameras 'now' are often real steal bargains, even more so than other film cameras, simply because they aren't an interchangeable lens SLR and so many presume that that s what 'all' serious cameras have to be.

    Extreme example for you, I have a 1950's Ziess Ikonta 120 roll-film folder. (Bequeathed to me by an aged Uncle!) Entirely mechanical, settings are utterly manual, it has no inbuilt meter, you have to use a hand-held meter or estimate by eye to F16 Sunny or whatever. No WYSIWYG view-finder composition... in fact it doesn't even have much of a view-finder to speak of! Has a small hinged glass peep-hole, or a pair of wire frame 'gun-sights'!!! Focusing? That's by scale on the lens you don't look through! You have to use a tape-measure, a accessory 'range-finder' or again, a bit of estimation by eye, and exploit he aperture settings to give you enough DoF margin for error around your chosen setting! It is actually not as bran-twisting to use as it seems, it's just more involved, and more direct, and demands sooooo much more thought and consideration.. which is a very big bit of what old manual cameras are all about... making you work for your shots... and a camera like this demands the most from you... and delivers the stunning results you can get on 120 Roll-Film at full scale, with a very high quality lens. if you put in the effort... YET you can pick up such cameras of this 'grade' for absolute peanuts, maybe £20-£25... and that's all in, with lens!!! JUST because they aren't 35mm and not a SLR..... Fixed lens? So what, you only need one lens to take a photo, so what loss not being able to screw lenses from your Electric-Picture-Maker to it? Yet more old school thought and consideration required to get the shot you want with the gear you got!

    A little less masochistically, probably most used and best loved camera in the collection (after my Olympus XA2 compact!) is an aged Sigma MK1, M42 screw fit, Richoch-Copy. It is a SLR, it does have TTL metering, but its not coupled, you have to make settings manually, and focus manually. Does take interchangeable lenses, but my collection is all primes, and to me, it offers enough 'all manual' involvement to make me think and enjoy and exploit that involvement, without too much 'easement' to make the compromises worth-while.... though, that Oly XA compact with fixed lens, probably gets more use for shear faff free photo making, awhile an old Konica C35 offers almost as much but a bit more 'manual' involvement if I want it, and quality of a better lens....

    SO! All told, if you chuck away a few errant notions, you could get SO much more for your money, and if its the no digtal experience that you actually seek, SOoooooo much more of that, particularly, making the separation between Digital and Film, and not making even more compromises to shoot film in exactly the same way, with exactly the same lenses as you shoot digital, so that waiting for prints back from the lab, essentially becomes the only real difference!

    Take a look at ALL film cameras. For the price of one older Nikon SLR body, you can probably pick up an entire non Nikon 'outfit' with a selection of lenses. For a lot less, in fact probably less than the cost of a roll of film! You can almost certainly procure any number of very high quality non interchangeable lens 35mm range finders, and an awful lot of less appreciated 120 Roll-Film Medium Format cameras

    Just opening your horizons a little, you can get so much more of whatever you hope to find in the world of film, and save money to boot!
     
  23. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well yes but you can use the AF models with Nikon manual focus lenses as well...haven't tried Tamron lenses with the Nikon adapter yet on my AF F90x but can't see it not working.
     
  24. ariel7515

    ariel7515

    Messages:
    552
    Name:
    Ariel
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have a F-801s and use it with some manual focus Tamron lenses with the AdaptAll2 adapter without any problems.
     
    excalibur2 likes this.
  25. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Joe

    Messages:
    9,268
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's the advantage with digital - instant disposal!!


    Steve.
     
  26. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well I don't get prints so it doesn't apply to me ;)
     
  27. Ste_S

    Ste_S

    Messages:
    105
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A late days of film AF SLR is precisely where i'd recommend someone to start now if they're getting into film. They can be picked up cheaply as they haven't yet hit the hipster tax that compacts and manual SLRs are going for. I can buy three Canon EOS 300x's with kit lens for the price of one Olympus Mju II compact for example.
     
    excalibur2 likes this.
  28. Carl Hall

    Carl Hall

    Messages:
    2,463
    Name:
    Carl
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You'd still get this feeling with a set of scans, although it's not tactile like with prints. With Filmdev for example you have to wait to get the download link and then rush to the computer like a kid at Christmas to download them. The anticipation and excitement is a great feeling... until they appear on screen and you wonder what the hell you did wrong this time :D
     
    RaglanSurf and Orangecroc like this.
  29. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And with a M42 adapter on the EOS300 you can use all those lovely old screw lenses and pretend you are in the fifties and early sixties o_O.....mind you colour neg film has advanced a lot so it wont be the same results as the oldies here were getting in those days.
     
  30. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes, nostalgia isn't what it used to be. ;)
     
  31. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My colour negs taken in the sixties haven't faded too much and with scanning and a touch up in Photoshop look quite good, so as a guess... colour shots taken now would still be scannable (if scanners still exist) in fifty years time.
     
  32. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    855
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Late era AF SLR's were the incumbent technology of the era when digital sensors started to arrive and offer alternative to film, hence were the deigns modified to offer digital delivery. Most often "Advance-Photo-System" SLRs that took the smaller format cassetridge film, that was being pushed at that time. These are INCREDIBLY cheap now, second hand... probably because film is almost nie on impossible to get for them, and if you can, dedicated, non-rechargeable lithium pack batteries probably aren't!

    Actually an issue for a lot of late era AF-SLR's; I would want to research very hard to be sure I could actually get batteries for them, and they weren't going to cost me more than the camera, before I handed over money for one!

    Such late era Film SLR's then make some sense, the economics I am some-what sanguine about, given how cheap most film cameras are, especially if you don't dive into SLR's, the main advantage is that so similar in operation and handling to a modern digi, they aught to be pretty initiative to use for any-one weaned only on digital.... who should be able to get going and get pretty reasonable results with one pretty easily.

    But there in lies the dilemma. SO similar in handling and operation to a modern digi-SLR... will they actually recognize any big difference? Remember, for so many dabbling with film, it is that 'difference' in the doing that is what actually appeals to them. Picking up a late era AF film SLR, that handles almost exactly like their current DSLR, other than having to fit film, and listen to a clunk-chink-wirr of mechanical bits when they press the shutter, actually give them that 'experience' of something particularly 'different', they suggest they seek?

    Hand them an old meter-less Zenit! (and a packet of elasto-plast for when they get caught by the sharp corners! lol).. completely mechanical, completely manual, from having to tell them to use the advance lever to wind the film on after they have taken the first photo! It may over-whelm them a little having to learn so 'much' just to get going, but it's not actually all that much, remember, these things used to be given to 11 year olds at Christmas back in their own day! They shouldn't be too daunting! And it is different enough that they are more likely to get far more of the 'film-camera' experience they are presumably, looking for, the camera devoid of all the easements of later all electric bar the capture device, auto-everything wonder-widgets.
     
    RaglanSurf likes this.
  33. excalibur2

    excalibur2 Loretta

    Messages:
    8,588
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well I agree with most of what you say..but thought the OP wanted to use his existing lenses on a film camera, but if he can be persuaded to use a good old mechanical camera for about £30 he might enjoy the experience more, and providing he buys the camera from someone reliable he should get his money back on resale if he decides it's not for him.
    I don't know what batteries the latest Nikon AF use but the Nikon F90x and think the F100 and F4 take AA batteries
     
  34. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    13,078
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Film can be addictive!!!

    Nikon wise the F80 is a steal, basically its like a DSLR but takes film, obviously you have less settings but shooting feels exactly the same. Great starting point too as bodies are so cheap. I liked mine and got some good shots, although I prefer the older Nikon FE which for me are classics!

    Film wise I love Portra 160, and find that AG Photographic are decent for processing
     
    Orangecroc likes this.
  35. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    855
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think that was the intent at the beginning, but then the vignetting issue of using DX optimized lenses on an FX format film camera was pointed out.

    I do note that from his profile he claims a Helios 50, though, that would screw onto an old Zenit a charm... mind, an old Zenit with a Helios 50, likely missed in the listings by the MFT adapter crew is probably cheaper than the lens on its own!

    As far as the legendary Nikon F-Mount comparability goes though! AHRGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It all started to go awry when they started using the pin-slot AI coupling, I think! And its got even more complicated since! The presumed compatibility isn't guaranteed, and the myriad permutations of possibilities with pin-drive auto-focus lenses and internal-motor auto-focus lenses, and electric iris lenses, it starts to get complicated even before you start adding in third-party lenses, let alone the DX/FX issue, as to what will work with what, even if they will physically bolt together on a common camera/lens flange!

    Keep-It-Simple-Silly... for dabble in film, don't add to the compromises and try and squeeze a quart out of a pint pot, looking for any sort of system over-lap. The gear is cheap enough that you don't have to, and you probably don't win anything from the attempt.

    Beyond that? Most 35mm SLRs came as stock with a 50 on the front. So many never even bothered to buy accessory lenses for them, and those that did, so often never had more than a 35mm wide angle, that was probably most used, and gave the same framing as a point and shoot compact, or they bought a short zoom, typically 35-70'ish' which was all to frequently only ever used at one or other end, usually the wide side!

    Given so many having a dabble with film, so often start with, and then stick with, the OE fit 50, to my mind, alternative lens availability and compatibility really shouldn't be such a big deal, let alone a deal maker or breaker....

    A-N-D follow on is then, that a fixed lens is no real hand-cap.. so why limit yourself to system SLR's, then why to 35mm? 120 medium format, could offer so much more of the presumed 'filminess' desired, and again, stepping away from the more coveted interchangeable lens system cameras, you could get so much 'more' for your money.

    Eg: that Ziess Ikonta folder; Worth about £25, it is about as expensive, in fact probably cheaper, than an old Olympus OM10 and 50,or a Zenit and Helios! Actually more pocketable, I find, than a 35mm SLR when folded, and once you have sussed the intricacies of manual setting and not having through the lens composition, the lack of things to fiddle with actually often make it LESS of a chore to use! Yet, fantastic lens, uncompromised by a mirror housing, with that huge negative size... 6x9cm on mine! True, you don't get too many shots per roll, b-u-t.. what you do get can be great! And with the bellows extended it really does give that full 'antique' camera experience into the deal. 10.5cm 'normal angle' lens, makes you work a bit harder for your framing, but what the heck.... when you have a negative THAT size you can afford to crop a heck of a lot, before you get down to the same framing/negative area as a 105mm telephoto on 35mm.. and STILL probably have that superior IQ, from the 'pure' lens construction! Shame you cant go the other way for wide-angle shots, but, what the heck! Its a lot of filminess for the money, and it's almost certainly cheaper than a 'cheap' Helios 50, let alone trying to hunt out a 'cheap' M42 mount, wide angle! But, if you want to pursue such things, its a doorway to the whole game, for very very little money.

    Another one that springs to mind is the Minox 35. Astounding little 35mm camera; in it's day, I recall more expensive than an awful lot of 35mm SLR's. I think my old-man paid around £400 for his back in the very early 90's, when that would have bought a brand new Cannon EOS outfit with a couple of lenses. Now? Just because it's not an SLR and doesn't take interchangeable lenses, and more because it isn't one of the more renowned names, you can pick these up for maybe £25-£30 and have a pick for the price of a Zenit & Helios!!! Absolutely incredible! But shows the disparity. The Zenit (and I own one!) was a 'cheap' camera. I think they sold, in the 80's, brand new in Curry's for around £30, usually in a kit with a tripod, flight case and B&W filter collection! At that time the Minox was over 10x the price for a bit or 'precision' German engineering, a dedicated enthusiasts camera completely at the opposite end of the spectrum as far as 'grade' to the Zenit or a Practka.. yet now, just because it's not an SLR and wont take interchangeable lenses, you can buy one for as little money... I probably wouldn't as I already have a cracking little Konika C35, worth probably a fiver!!! that's almost as much camera, and a bunch of XA2's, which aren't and are much more P&S automated.

    But it shows the premium put on interchangeable lens SLR's that they probably just don't deserve., and probably isn't necessary, even before you try stretching the compromise even further trying to get 'cross-over' with modern AF lenses intended for wdgetal!

    As a toe in the water exercise in film, I think it has to be a great way to go, and see if you do experience the 'difference' you hope to find, with all the difference there to be discovered, and for such a small pocket-money outlay to find out. 'Just' for the sale of ignorng SLR reverance and looking for some sort of cross-over compatibility, that's probably not even there, as the DX vs FX issue has already shown.
     
  36. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think this is perhaps where Canon scores over Nikon; I believe every Canon 'EF' lens is forwards or backwards compatible with the EOS range of digital or 35mm film SLRs (the EFS lenses don't fit 35mm SLRs though, or full frame digital.). I regularly use my modern Canon EF IS L lenses with my 35mm EOS-3 film body, which gives modern levels of image stabilisation and image quality, and saves me needing 2 sets of lenses. When I want to get more 'hands on' I have some old 'manual everything' film cameras to play with... I told you this film thing can be addictive!
     
  37. ChrisR

    ChrisR

    Messages:
    7,291
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's where Pentax K-mount wins over pretty much everyone... oh, M42, darn it. :( :)
     
  38. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    352
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I understand the attraction of mechanical cameras (I have screwmount Leicas) but there's a lot to be said for the convenience of late model AF cameras, especially if compatibility with your existing gear means you don't have to invest in another range of lenses and accessories. Some people just want to shoot film without going back to 1977. Batteries are probably much less of a problem with this generation of electronic cameras than with any other - older cameras may need mercury batteries, and more recent cameras from the early digital era may need discontinued rechargeables. AF cameras tend to use AA, CR123A, CR2, AAA or 2CR5, and only the last of these might be hard to find (though easy enough online). The main issue to look out for when buying one that takes AAs or AAAs is evidence of them ever having leaked (since most people used alkalines). Cameras that take batteries only available as lithiums will probably be fine.
     
  39. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,225
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Snip:
    That modern? :confused: Joking apart, it's down to what a person wants really, but buying a few different film cameras (while they're still relatively cheap) gives more flexibility and choice, which can be nice and make for a more interesting film photography experience.

    For someone who wants to try SLR film photography and already has some lenses for their DSLR, then buying a compatible latter-day 35mm auto focus SLR body could be a good introduction, and the controls and handling of a latter-day 35mm SLR will probably be more familiar to them. If they like film photography then the world is their lobster! If not, then they can just sell the camera body, probably for around what they paid for it (as long as they've not damaged or broken it!) and move on. :)
     
  40. simon ess

    simon ess

    Messages:
    6,642
    Edit My Images:
    No
    For me the F80 was absolutely the right choice as my first film camera after digital.

    I later got more traditional film cameras.
     
    TheBigYin and Mr Badger like this.

Share This Page