Anyone use a Canon A-1 or Mamiya RZ67? Need film camera recommendations...

I have a DSLR but am looking to supplement it with a film camera system under $500. I love the look of the portraits these cameras produce, check out this photographer who uses the A-1:

http://www.hollieferna​ndophotography.com/in-bloom

I am looking to recreate this film feel but have never used film before and don't know what I should know about it...I am assuming the way it works is I put in a roll (ASA400 for continuous lighting in studio?), expose and take my shots, then get it developed...and then scan the prints? I am not really sure how scanning negatives work.

Also, if anyone knows what I need to use the RZ67 (as in backs, prisms, etc.) to shoot basic portraits that would be great too. Any recommendations, warnings, articles, etc. are really appreciated.

There's a lot of info out there to digest. One thing I will say, is that just because you buy a Canon a-1, you aren't going to get the same pictures as her, its not the camera, its the photographer. With film, the camera is simply a device to project light onto a piece of film, not a sensor, which means the film records the image, not the camera. You need to think about what film you want to use to get the look you want.

Scanning film is a whole different beast. If your going to shoot just 35mm and don't want to break the bank there's the plustec opticfilm scanners. Shooting medium format and 35mm means a flatbed or an expensive multiformat dedicated film scanner (which I don't even know if any are left in production).

You also have to think about development, you can do it yourself or send the film out, and there are good labs that will also scan for you but this gets expensive.

I suggest checking out a forum like rangefinder forum if your really interested in learning about the whole process.

"its not the camera, its the photographer."

Yes. And judging from your post, you're looking at a pretty long learning curve with film - you probably have a much better chance of getting the results you're talking about with digital. I wouldn't discourage you from trying film, though.

I still occasionally shoot B&W film (I started in the 1950s). I do think it has a subtle different look. But the main reason I shoot it is probably that I just like getting out and using the old cameras, sort of like someone who enjoys driving his antique car now and then. There's really no practical reason for it.

FYI, I shoot 6x6 medium format, 12 exposures/roll - a roll of film costs about $5, about $10 for processing (I send it out, don't do it enough to process it myself), and I scan the negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed.

iamascientist wrote in post #16932026
There's a lot of info out there to digest. One thing I will say, is that just because you buy a Canon a-1, you aren't going to get the same pictures as her, its not the camera, its the photographer. With film, the camera is simply a device to project light onto a piece of film, not a sensor, which means the film records the image, not the camera. You need to think about what film you want to use to get the look you want.

Scanning film is a whole different beast. If your going to shoot just 35mm and don't want to break the bank there's the plustec opticfilm scanners. Shooting medium format and 35mm means a flatbed or an expensive multiformat dedicated film scanner (which I don't even know if any are left in production).

You also have to think about development, you can do it yourself or send the film out, and there are good labs that will also scan for you but this gets expensive.

I suggest checking out a forum like rangefinder forum if your really interested in learning about the whole process.

I know it's the photographer, I guess I'm just showing examples of what I like and would like to give a go at. I was thinking of starting with Kodak Porta 400. I also don't plan to develop anything myself, so I am looking for advice on what I should be looking for when going to labs. My DSLR will be my main go-to in studio, but I would like to get a roll or two in with a film camera (and I'm only getting one not both).

tomj wrote in post #16932201
"its not the camera, its the photographer."

Yes. And judging from your post, you're looking at a pretty long learning curve with film - you probably have a much better chance of getting the results you're talking about with digital. I wouldn't discourage you from trying film, though.

I still occasionally shoot B&W film (I started in the 1950s). I do think it has a subtle different look. But the main reason I shoot it is probably that I just like getting out and using the old cameras, sort of like someone who enjoys driving his antique car now and then. There's really no practical reason for it.

FYI, I shoot 6x6 medium format, 12 exposures/roll - a roll of film costs about $5, about $10 for processing (I send it out, don't do it enough to process it myself), and I scan the negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed.

The learning curve is all part of it, and I can sort of get the look with digital already.

Thanks for the help!

I can't advise on color films, but for 500 bucks you'll find a lot of cameras.

The easiest would be to pick up a film body for your DSLR system and use the lenses (unless you have cropper EFs lenses)

For 35mm - pentax k1000 with a normal lens goes for 50 bucks. Cheaper if it's a spotmatic.

Lots of TLR options around 100-200. Rollei, Yashica... lubitel...

If you want to mess with chemicals, for 50 bucks you can buy a whole darkroom nowadays. You can print BW. That's what I do... and scanner as well.

Someone on the forum is using the press color kit: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …6_C_41_Press_Ki​t_for.html

I think it's edge100

Portra 400 is a great place to start (160 is also awesome, a little punchier), I'll even go as far as saying I think its the best color capture tool for portraits, it just delivers that beautiful creamy aesthetic. It can also be overexposed with great results.

I would just skip 35mm, go straight for the rz67 if you really want to do this, its a legendary portrait camera. Send your film out to a mail order lab, maybe even have them scan it if you don't want to deal with that. It wont be cheap.. that's why I only shoot B&W with film anymore.

@iamascientist: thanks for the tips, what kind of prices for sending to the lab or scanning are we talking about?

iamascientist wrote in post #16932391
I would just skip 35mm, go straight for the rz67 if you really want to do this, its a legendary portrait camera. Send your film out to a mail order lab, maybe even have them scan it if you don't want to deal with that. It wont be cheap.. that's why I only shoot B&W with film anymore.

If you're looking for resolution that matches current DSLRs, then MF is the way to go.

But 35mm is cheaper, cameras are smaller and used scanners are easier to find. Some go for 100-200 bucks. So all depends on end use and requirement for resolution. 35mm is grainy or picturesque if you compare it to current digital. One needs to like the esthetic.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16932390
I can't advise on color films, but for 500 bucks you'll find a lot of cameras.

The easiest would be to pick up a film body for your DSLR system and use the lenses (unless you have cropper EFs lenses)

For 35mm - pentax k1000 with a normal lens goes for 50 bucks. Cheaper if it's a spotmatic.

Lots of TLR options around 100-200. Rollei, Yashica... lubitel...

If you want to mess with chemicals, for 50 bucks you can buy a whole darkroom nowadays. You can print BW. That's what I do... and scanner as well.

Someone on the forum is using the press color kit: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …6_C_41_Press_Ki​t_for.html

I think it's edge100

Indeed, it is me.

I shoot 35mm somewhat regularly, so I'll jump in with what I do.

For my nothing special rolls, I have been simply taking my film to my local Walgreens (gasp!), and have them only develop the film and put it on a CD. Cost is $8, and it's done in an hour.

If it's a roll I want to be sure is done correctly, I take them to a local mom & pop film developing shop here in town (I feel lucky they're here), and have them only develop. Also $8. I have a cheap film scanner, and I will scan those images myself, sort of as a proof. If there is something that is fantastic, I then go back and have hem scan just the specific images I want. Those are $1 each, but the scan is higher quality then my scanner or the Walgreens scanner.

I'm now at the point that I'm going to start developing my own film (no printing, just negative developing), as it's considerably cheaper then having it done (about $1.50/roll I figure). From there I'll scan as needed.

I would recommend going with 35mm at first, simply because it's easier to get the equipment and more importantly, the film (Walmart still carries film in a pinch). Also, most (I think) medium format cameras don't have a metering system, so it'll make that learning curve even greater. I'm honestly not so sure about that, as the only medium format I've shot was an old 1960's Mamiya.

Along with rangefinder forum check out APUG (Analog Photography User's Group) forums. TONS of info there.

As for cameras, yes, the A-1 was (is) a great camera, but you may want to start off with something that requires little to no investment - a Canon EOS film camera (620/630/650 among tons of others). They will allow you to use your current lenses, and still get you started on the learning curve. And if you decide film is not for you, you're in it for only a few bucks.

PM me if you want a film body EOS or FD). I (literally) have about 100 of them.

Once you're decided you've committed to film, you should get a suitable light meter in order to stop worrying if your camera has one.

I have an A1 and RB67 (which I prefer over the RZ67). And a Mamiya m645, Rolleiflex 3.5E and 2.8E, Hassie 500c/m, Leica m3, Canonet QL17 GIII, etc. etc.

I strongly prefer medium format over 35mm for portraits. I really only use 35mm for leisure when I don't want to carry a big stinkin' MF camera. Plus I hate scanning 35mm. Haaaaate it.

For meters, I recommend the Gossen Digipro. It's got a big and easy to read LCD. For something smaller, I like the Digisix.

Aside from all the advice on scanning (I use the Epson V750 for 120 or 4x5 film and a Minolta 5200 for 35mm) I suggest you find a library with copies of the Time-Life series on photography--it will give you the basic information on film, probably as much as you'll want to know. If that doesn't get your engine cranked, then there is the Ansel Adams series of books on photography. Good hunting.

OP - don't take this the wrong way.

I think, based on the basic questions the OP has, learning to properly use a (manual) light meter may be beyond his current skill level, hence my recommendation of a 35mm camera that has a built in TTL system that will enable him to satisfactorily get his feet wet with film, and not be a frustrating endeavor.
Sure, MF and LF are the pinnacles of portrait equipment, but I think to start off with, it wouldn't result in a satisfying experience.

v35skyline wrote in post #16934849
I have an A1 and RB67 (which I prefer over the RZ67). And a Mamiya m645, Rolleiflex 3.5E and 2.8E, Hassie 500c/m, Leica m3, Canonet QL17 GIII, etc. etc.

I strongly prefer medium format over 35mm for portraits. I really only use 35mm for leisure when I don't want to carry a big stinkin' MF camera. Plus I hate scanning 35mm. Haaaaate it.

For meters, I recommend the Gossen Digipro. It's got a big and easy to read LCD. For something smaller, I like the Digisix.

Hate scanning 35mm?

You need a Pakon. It'll change your life.