Film Camera FF

mosesport wrote in post #10007225
^----That doesn't make any sense...

APS-C is a SENSOR size. You can't have APS-C sized film.

Also, APS-C is 1.6 crop. APS-H is 1.3 crop....if there were such a thing for film.

amfoto1 wrote in post #10009533
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.

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #10010239
I still have a...120mm X 120 mm yashica mat 124 twin lens reflex camera.

mosesport wrote in post #10007225
^----That doesn't make any sense...

APS-C is a SENSOR size. You can't have APS-C sized film.

Also, APS-C is 1.6 crop. APS-H is 1.3 crop....if there were such a thing for film.

AutumnJazz wrote in post #10013565
Shameless plug in my sig...

Anyway, I was once like the old dude in the OP. Then I took a look at the bag of unprocessed film in my freezer and bit the bullet. Due to my low financial standing, I had two options: Digital camera (and keep shooting) or develop my back catalog of exposed film (and stop shooting). I went digital because I would rather keep shooting.

If I could afford film, I would still shoot it. Though I would probably shoot medium format (or maybe even large) and keep digital for 35mm.

lankforddl wrote in post #10014018
I hear ya on the cost factor, but my strategy is going to be: continue using my 50D or the next upgrade and keep the film camera with me all the time. When the moment is right I'll use the 50D to determine "near" accurate settings and use the film camera sparingly for the "best" shots. This'll keep my costs down and allow for gooood quality film images.

DigitalSpecialist wrote in post #10009044
I would have to say EOS1n would be a great body to buy.

Perfect_10 wrote in post #10014273
My film camera of choice these days is my trusty old Elan 7 c/w BP300 and fitted with my old 50mm f1.8 II. If I feel like shooting film it's what I drag along .. mainly because my 17-40 and 70-200 f2.8 IS fit it.
BUT ... I still have my old AE-1 with a bunch of decent FD lenses, and I actually prefer the feel of the AE-1. It just feels right in my hand (nice weight and controls), plus I also prefer the manual focus and split image prism. It's been with me since 1976 and I'm not sure I could part with it.

My advise would be buy whatever suits your pocket (so basically any old 35mm EOS body will do). Chances are once the novelty and expense of processing film wears off, you'll go back to digital full time anyway. If it doesn't then go look at the better and more expensive film bodies.