Jump to content
Dallas

Your favourite film camera?

Recommended Posts

In many ways my favourite has to be the Zenith E as it was the first SLR I owned and it drove me eventually to the Olympus OM2-n. Haven't seen the Zenith in years but think it is in the house somewhere. The Olympus is snug in its bag along with the lenses and will never be sold by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nikon FM2n, the Pentax MX, and the venerable and much loved Olympus OM1n were three cameras that achieved an optimal balance between size, weight, durability, and feature sets and which delivered great results with a minimum of fuss.  It is no wonder that people remember them so positively.

 

1) Pentax 67 II - my camera with the highest shots to keeper ratio ever, beating large format cameras. i wish someone would invent a viewfinder like that for smaller cameras.

 

2) Ricoh GR1s - the ultimate pocket camera, high quality lens, good AF, lots of features. sadly it died.

 

3) Nikon FM2n - the tank. i still have it. it still works. also it has the best and most reliable manual lightmetering system ever if you don't have the time to fiddle around with spotmeters and stuff. please don't tell me about needles and this and that. three LEDs is all the FM2n needs to tell you *exactly* what's going on. you can meter with the camera away from your eyes, at arms length, on a tripod, somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Something I've always wondered about - why print "photography" rather than "Photographer" after one's name - which is what I've always used.

A surgeon doesn't print "surgery" after his name, nor a dentist "dentistry", nor an accountant "accountancy". I always thought that the use of the word "photography" somehow advertises a lack of confidence in one's own ability, status or qualification. Which is why I used it in any dealings with the Tax Office. :D  )

 

post-4677-0-91977800-1434016823_thumb.jp

 

This guy seems to be hedging his bets a bit. :no:  :yes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason is, less and less people engaging in photography are full time photographers. That's the difference with dentistry or accountancy, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After going to the bother of copying that ad, I forgot to do Dallas the favour of clicking on it. I tried to get to appear again, but couldn't.  In its place, I got an ad for darkroom hire, a place called The Fox Darkroom.  It was geographically appropriate, but I don't think any of the Melbourne photographers have mentioned a burning desire to shoot film.  

 

It could also be an example of a business venture for those, like Alan, who still have a darkroom.   Hopefully, there is enough in this text to trigger the ad again rather than just posting the link. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen a few people over the years who professed to know what they were doing actually work in a darkroom, there is no chance I would even consider hiring mine out, Chris. :D

 

Even if it was in a central location in a populated area.

 

Obviously they had picked up the operating procedures and rudiments from books, videos and here-say, but if asked why it took three years of full-time university study to get my final qualification, I'd have to answer that getting on for half of that was the supervised time spent in the darkrooms. There's easily as much to learn in there as there is behind the camera. Even then I was under-prepared for the deep end of B&W darkroom work that I was thrown into from day one at the advertising photography studio I got my first job at. It would have been at least three years more before my boss finally acquiesced that I had printed a negative better than he could have done. Which doesn't mean that I am a slow learner, rather that there is a huge hands-on time requirement between learning how to print and actually knowing how to print.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After going to the bother of copying that ad, I forgot to do Dallas the favour of clicking on it. I tried to get to appear again, but couldn't.  In its place, I got an ad for darkroom hire, a place called The Fox Darkroom.  It was geographically appropriate, but I don't think any of the Melbourne photographers have mentioned a burning desire to shoot film.  

 

It could also be an example of a business venture for those, like Alan, who still have a darkroom.   Hopefully, there is enough in this text to trigger the ad again rather than just posting the link. 

 

Google's algorithms for serving up ads is, I believe, made up of a number of things related to the site that they appear on, the person who is actually looking at that site and what they know about that person's search habits (provided they have a Google account and are logged into it while they are surfing). 

 

In some cases I think that they confuse the keywords that the advertiser has specified in setting up their campaign with keywords used on a website, without much forethought. In this example they probably saw that their advertiser was a photographer and this website was about photography (and they have a window to display ads here) so they put his ad on. Bad news for him, but if somebody here clicks on it, its good news for Fotozones because he will pay and we will get paid. 

 

The ads members should click on are the ones that are more targeted, such as B&H ads or any other vendors of photography equipment. They will be bidding the most for the space, which benefits us all the most; advertiser, agency (Google) and medium (FZ). 

 

It's still a bit of a daily yoyo regarding the income, but in the past month things have definitely improved as our audience dynamic has changed. That has actually surprised me quite a bit and vindicates my recent decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "official title" in my email signature is Digital Media Specialist. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe. Because I also do website stuff I needed to find something that covered both the photography and web design side. This seemed a good fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a resurgence in interest in medium format film - I can't track down a decent Fuji GSW690 anywhere at what I'd consider to be a realistic price. Most seem to emanate from Japan, and they really are keen on going for top dollar there. GW690's can be had for around the $350 mark for a good one, but I'd rather the wide angle GSW 690 which seems to run around $600 plus for a decent one, out to over $1,000 for one of the order I'd consider. Seeing that it is as simple as it gets (no electronics, no light meter, manual everything) the pricing does seem a bit extravagant for cameras which are in the order of 25 years old.

 

I briefly contemplated using my RB/RZ instead, but the 6x7 format is a bit small for what I am intending, and the camera is overkill in size and weight as well.

 

I did use a Mamiya Press Universal with a 6x9 back in the '70's for work and that was one of the more unpleasant cameras to use as well, aside from actually looking terrible (not that this really counts) the prices aren't as frightening as the Fuji GSW, but I hate the camera.

 

The only other larger-than-6x7 camera to consider appears to be the Fuji GX680 (6x8 is still a bit smaller than I'd like and with its 4:3 ratio compared with the 690's 3:2 ratio) - until I saw a picture of it alongside an RB67. It made the RB look positively small in comparison, plus the GX680 is entirely battery dependent - nothing works without power. If they call the GW690 a "Texas Leica", then the GX680 is definitely the Texas Hasselblad.

 

I really thought getting an old 6x9 film camera would be easier and cheaper than it's turning out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minolta SRT 102 from 1972


Olympus OM-D EM-1 II, 60mm Macro, 7-14mm Pro, 12-40mm Pro, 40-150mm Pro, 300mm Pro

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite which I no longer have was a Contax G2, superb lenses!

Edited by Mike G

Mike Gorman

 

Lumix G9 , GX8 - Leica 12, 15, 20, 25, 42.5 - 8-18, 12-60, 35-100, 45-175

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite which I no longer have was a Contax G2, superb lenses!

 

It's a pity that Kyocera/Contax never took the step into digital with the G system - it would have pre-empted the Fuji X-Pro1 by many years. I very nearly bought a G2 outfit myself, but baulked when it became apparent that digital was imminent and inevitable for professional use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my trusty FM-2 works still like a charm:

post-2350-0-03337000-1450303929_thumb.jp

Edited by aerobat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an FM2n for a while. Beautifully simple camera. Makes me wonder why Nikon didn't use the same design and proportions when they designed the Df (which I was quite shocked at the size of when I saw one for the first time). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan you are absolutely right a digital Contax G2 would have been superb, and I would be there in the blink of an eye!


Mike Gorman

 

Lumix G9 , GX8 - Leica 12, 15, 20, 25, 42.5 - 8-18, 12-60, 35-100, 45-175

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F6 although I never had one

 

BUT: I liked my F4 and my F100 very much and touching the F6 made me feel at home.

 

I never liked the F5. It just felt wrong in my hands. The nice F4-Feeling came back when I bought the D3 still one of my favourite in ergonomics ... the other perfect part is not public ... GGGG


Regenerate green infrastructure. Let Biodiversity rule!

I blog at: http://klimafarm.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the list of what others have used and loved is bringing back a lot of memories.

 

One that hasn't been mentioned yet, but that really set me free on international business travel was the Contax T3. It's a camera that I should have bought much earlier and kept much longer.


Best Regards,

Roger

X-Pro2 } 18-55mm | 35mm f/2 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorites were the Nikon F3 and the F4s.  I didn't really like the F5.  I checked out an F6 at the NIkon booth at PhotoPlus Expo one year and LOVED it, but it was pretty apparent that I would never use it. 

 

I also have an F100 that I picked up cheaply just after I got my D70.  At the time I thought I would probably still shoot film along with digital.  Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.