Film Camera FF

CafeRacer808 wrote in post #10007282
This is wrong. APS-C, APS-H, and APS-P were film formats before they were referred to as sensor sizes. Ever hear of Kodak Advantix? It was an APS film format that came in C, H and P sizes.

Ya' beat me to it.

shedberg wrote in post #10009036
That seems more like an opinion as opposed to a fact. Oh well, to each his own I suppose.

I believe that film cameras can still "stuff" more information (lp/mm) than any digital camera can? the big point is "LARGE PRINTS".

My thought/guess is that film will still outperform digital in this regard??

HKGuns wrote in post #10009114
10 years ago I might have bought into that line of logic. But certainly not now. He's just set in his ways and refuses to accept there may be a better or reasonable alternative. I'm no expert, but I'd say DSLR's are out resolving 35mm film these days.

Edited to add: This is just my humble opinion, so I don't want to be jumped by a bunch of film guys with all kinds of evidence to the contrary!

This is why I'm looking for a film camera. To see for myself. But I need film camera suggestions from experienced people on this forum.

lankforddl wrote in post #10009179
This is why I'm looking for a film camera. To see for myself. But I need film camera suggestions from experienced people on this forum.

(Gosh! Do I flatter myself here? But ok...) It's not just a "film camera" versus a digital. Film type, and lens quality are important. The trouble with 35 mm here is that there's a lot of variation in just these two factors, for film, just the paucity of variety now available, and then also questionable processing. I would suggest you consider a medium format camera with attendant good lenses. I use a Mamiya RB67 still, with the Mamiya lenses. With the 6x7 cm image and still good processing I get top shots still. (I mean "image quality".) Am.

msowsun wrote in post #10007211
Canon and others produced APS-C film cameras back in the 1990's with approximately a 1.3 crop factor.

Canon EOS IX

Never heard of that before.

lankforddl wrote in post #10009159
I believe that film cameras can still "stuff" more information (lp/mm) than any digital camera can? the big point is "LARGE PRINTS".

My thought/guess is that film will still outperform digital in this regard??

Not anymore.

A 5d2 will outperform 35mm film in prints in virtually all circumstances.

Now if your talking about 4X5 large format, that's another story. But your definitely limited with what you can shoot with this type of gear - for landscapes your shooting at like f/32 for DOF and thus slooooow shutter speeds - just a little wind in the trees and those leaves are now a blur!

About the most reasonable way (money wise) to get really nice film results would be a good used Mamiya RB67 (I so miss mine). You won't even need batteries.

If you want to get a nice film camera to use with your existing lenses, I agree it's hard beat the EOS-3. In effect, it has the AF system of the 1-series (in fact was the first model to feature it). Great camera. I'd take one over a 1N. Now a 1V would be another story.

The Elan 7 or 7N is also an excellent camera. It was designed to operate very quietly. It was a very good candid wedding camera, or court camera. Outside N. America you would find it named EOS-30.

If you'd prefer to try FD lenses and don't mind tracking down and buying them, there are a bunch of cameras to choose from. The T90 was the last of the line and is the most "EOS like". Just watch out for failing LCD screens on old used ones.

The F1 and F1N are also excellent.

For simplicity and low price, the AE-1 or AE-1 Program are hard to beat. The Program model actually has a few advantages over the original AE-1... Such as interchangeable focus screens and can take the Motor Drive MA, which the original AE-1 couldn't. The earlier A-1 is also a fine camera, but quite a bit more complex. All these cameras suffer from "shutter squeal" if they sit and aren't used for a long time. It's actually not the shutter at all and it's a very easily fixed problem, a single drop of oil in just the right place is all it takes... But it also might indicate the camera needs a proper and more thorough CLA.

If you get into FD lenses, particularly the FD-"N" or "New" from the late 1970s and 1980s, you might get spoiled. At that time Canon was designing and building high quality, with a real emphasis on compactness. An FD-N 50/1.2L, for example, uses a 52mm filter. Compare to today's EF 50/1.2L, using a 72mm filter! Lenses and cameras had a lot less plastic and a lot more metal in their construction, too. Focus and zoom rings were "tuned" for precise and silky smooth feel. Viewfinders were big and bright on most of the higher end cameras, and all had various focusing assists.

Some like the even earlier "full size" SLRs, such as the Ftb.

All good cameras in their own way.

I always thought it was pretty hilarious that today's digital cameras were refered to as "APS this" and APS that", considering Kodak's Advanced Photo System (APS) film format is nearly defunct and was a highly amateur-oriented or "point n shoot" product... the last in the line of Kodak's repeated attempts to create a film format "of their own" that others had to license and pay them to use. They did that all throughout the 20th century, but others just kept up with them.

APS was an outgrowth of 110 cartridge film, which grew out of 126 cartridge film, which in turn was probably a descendant of "half" frame film cameras, which produced an 18x24 image on standard 35mm film. 72 shots on a "long" roll, instead of the usual 36 that 35mm film cameras usually produced (in the 24x36 format we now often refer to as "full frame"). Let's not even try to go into the various disk film and other weird formats that were tried over the years!

It's almost as funny that the format we all refer to as full frame now was often called a "miniature" format on film back in 1930s and 1940s.

But then, they tried to get people to stop calling "half frame" cameras that, thinking it might have some derogatory marketing implications. There was a push to call them "double frame" cameras, for a while.

It might help to explain that roll film started out by adapting movie film, which was 70mm wide. They used it directly in some cameras, where it was called "120" or "220" film depending upon the length. Kodak had more than a few variations of their own, including a couple called 620 and 127. They fooled around with different size spindles and ways of backing the film with paper, or not, but the film was still the same. You can still buy 120 or 220 film, and rewind it onto 127 and 620 film spindles to use it in film cameras made to use those "types" of film. Kodak was notorious for this.

To get 35mm film, they simply split the 70mm film in half, right down the center. Initially this was called "miniature".

There were also sub-miniature or "spy" cameras, a lot of them using... you guessed it... 17.5mm roll film, or 35mm rolls split right down the center. Some deviated to using 16mm film. Which was, of course, another movie film format, originally intended mostly for amateur cinematographers. Then came 8mm film.

As film and lens acuteness improved over the years, smaller and smaller film formats became viable.

Or, you can head the other direction with film, if you wish. You could get a medium format camera that uses 120/220 film, too, producing images in a variety formats (some cameras can produce several formats, using masks and such): 4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9 being some of the most common. These are in centimeters and refer to approx. the image area, on the same old 70mm wide film.

Or, how about large format: 4x5, 5x7, 8x10? These are sheet film sizes, in inches. There were a variety of other ways that sheet film, and glass plates, etc., were measured in earlier years.

Film formats all have advantages and disadvantages. Today some formats are hard to find and even harder to get processed. But I'd encourage anyone to give it a try. It's an excellent learning experience, shooting with film. You are much more conscious of every click, if not for the cost of film and processing then because you only get 10 to 36 shots on a roll (depending upon the format) before you have to change the film out. Also, you don't have some of the very helpful "crutches" provided by digital, such as the histogram and image playback. You can't be as sure you "got the shot" until later, when you have had the film developed. There were "instant" films that some used to test shots (mostly Polaroid... in medium format and large format sizes, particularly), before redoing the exposure on "real" film.

There are some real bargains on some great old film cameras. The best values in lenses and accessories are on those that can't be easily used on modern digital cameras. FD lenses are an example of those. Nikon F mount, Pentax M and A, Oly Zuiko and some others are still directly usable on some of today's DSLRs, and tend to sell for a lot more.

Anyway, if you feel like it, go for it! Film can be a lot of fun. I find it interesting living in Silicon Valley that there are a lot of young "techies" who only shoot film, some of them even going so far as using old folding cameras and such. Maybe they just enjoy getting out from behind their computer.

lankforddl wrote in post #10008971
He does mostly Nature and Landscape. His argument was that not even the best digital camera models can produce the print quality that film camera's can.

Yeah, when you're shooting with this:

amfoto1 wrote in post #10009533
To get 35mm film, they simply split the 70mm film in half, right down the center.
There were also sub-miniature or "spy" cameras, a lot of them using... you guessed it... 17.5mm roll film, or 35mm rolls split right down the center.

I'm afraid this might give some the impression that the emulsion for all formats are the same, which isn't so. Kodachrome 64, for example, is not the same exact base and emulsion for 120, 135 and 110 formats.

It is hard to beat the EOS-3 if you want to use your own lenses, but a "from out of left field" suggestion is to try a rangefinder like the Canonet QL 17 GIII with the great 40mm/f1.7 fixed lens. Cost is $40-50 on eBay, the rangefinder demands different thinking from an SLR and they are small and light. Try one!

IVIax wrote in post #10007097
Aren't all film bodies FF?

Care to share the story?

not even close. there is film sizes up to around 20x24", yes inches. down to around the smallest I have heard atleast of 8x11mm. here is one for you to think about even. APS is not a designation that is new for digital either. APS film came out before digital did even. yes APS as in crop body was orignally a film format

all the full frame designates is a full 35mm frame rather then a crop based format but there is are some that are much larger.

EDIT: looks like I was already beat to the point on this one

440roadrunner wrote in post #10008977
The problem, lately, with med/ big/ bigger format film is finding someplace to develop it, not to mention buying the film in the first place. Ditto "having it scanned." I'm not sure where to go to have med format film scanned to digi in high res--I'm actually thinking of buying / building a copy table and use my 40D
So far as staying with 35mm, why reinvent the wheel? I see you already shoot Canon EF mount gear, so just buy an EF film body

actually it's not all that bad to buy film as there are a few places that will sell it to you though mostly online. B@H, adorama, and freestylephoto are the biggest ones that come to mind. also you can develop your own film fairly easily and if you watch you can get the stuff for fairly cheap.
hell in my area picked up 4 enlargers or so plus about 4-5 boxes of photography crap for 50 bucks. later on found another guy who had an enlarger with a box full of dark room stuff as well and that was free.

I have a Canon Elan 7n that is really sweet. It's fairly lightweight and compact, and it's one of Canon's most modern film bodies.

I still have a 35mm rangefinder petri 7s and a 120mm X 120 mm yashica mat 124 twin lens reflex camera. I have a color and B&W darkroom sitting in boxes. Digital cameras pretty much rang the last bell on film processing, it's still around but photoshop doesn't have any chemicals that can trash a shirt or pants in a heart beat or stink up a place with a permeating fragrance. IMO digital made my darkroom an antique almost overnight.

IVIax wrote in post #10007097
Aren't all film bodies FF?

The 35mm film format is not, never was, and never will be the standard against which all other camera formats are measured. Thus, the "full-frame" term is very poorly applied to the 35mm film format.

For hand-held film cameras, what comes to mind as the all-time "full-frame" portable camera would be the 4" x 5" format used by the Speed Graphic and other similar cameras that almost all press photographers used to use. However, in those days I'd bet that many users of larger format view cameras scoffed at the "little" 4x5 cameras.