Well, I'm a little newer to photography than you guys, but my first SLR was (still have it, actually) an Olympus OM-1. It has an electronic light meter, but everything else is manual. The beauty of that is that, once you stand the learning curve, you really understand the relationship between light and aperture and exposure. My current SLR is an Olympus E-1 digital. Moving from the OM-1 through 30 years of camera advancements (read: automation, automation, automation) has had a learning curve of its own. I'm still learning how to use this one.Headshave wrote:My first SLR was a Zenit E. Completely manual, including the aperture control (stop-down, not automatic). Ah... those were the days.When I got my first SLR (a Topcon Super, if anyone remembers those), even the exposure and focus were manual. You really had to understand photography and learn a lot of tricks to get good pictures, but once you learned it, you really had control over what was going on.
My New Camera Rig
“Time just seems to get quicker. You look in the mirror in the morning and you think, ‘I’m already shaving again!’” - Terry Jones of Monty Python's Flying Circus
My Topcon was the same way. BTW, I still have it and it works as well as the day I got it in 1968. It was known as Beseler Topcon Super D in the US, and it was so good that the Navy used it. The only problem is it's so big and heavy.Steve-o wrote:I'm a little newer to photography than you guys, but my first SLR was (still have it, actually) an Olympus OM-1. It has an electronic light meter, but everything else is manual. The beauty of that is that, once you stand the learning curve, you really understand the relationship between light and aperture and exposure.
Joe
A quick run-down of a Zenit-E.Joe Lerch wrote:I don't think I know that one. Mine had a manual aperture and shutter, but they were linked to the meter. You could set one and then adjust the other until a needle matched up, and then you had the right exposure. I had also used rangefinder camersa that had no meters. You just carried your own and set evrything manually.
I looked at a Web page on the Topcon -- quite a camera for 1963! It does look massive -- but not quite as massive as that Zenit (which looks like it would survive multiple drops from a bomber). Camera size is something I notice in particular having learned on the OM, a quite small camera compared to its peers of the day. I'm not sure it would survive a drop from a bomber.Joe Lerch wrote:It was known as Beseler Topcon Super D in the US, and it was so good that the Navy used it. The only problem is it's so big and heavy.
“Time just seems to get quicker. You look in the mirror in the morning and you think, ‘I’m already shaving again!’” - Terry Jones of Monty Python's Flying Circus
- wenestvedt
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: Rhode Island
- rustyblade
- Shaving Paparazzo
- Posts: 10472
- Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: Ontario
Those types of cameras are great. They fill the void between point and hope cameras and SLRs. Lots of real zoom, good quality lenses, and a lot of SLR type settings to twiddle with.wenestvedt wrote:I got the wife a Lumix...Model SomethingF-7, I think. Didn't want to get into multiple lenses or attachments, but she likes the software features and it does have a nice Leica lens and actual (not digital) zoom.
The Leica M8 would be nice, yes, but one could buy a decent used car for the same price! And the cost of lenses and accessories, oh my! Machine from a solid block of brass or something, crazy. I would love one.
Richard
I don't blame you. It doesn't get any better than that (unless you go for a monstrous Hasselblad, and the ilk). Congratulations.drmoss_ca wrote:In 15 very long days my Leica M8 should arrive at the dealer in Toronto. I am going mad, mad I tell you, with anticipation.
Chris
Joe
- reginald-van-gleason
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:55 pm
I still use and love my Pentax K1000 (totally manual as well). I have a nice 50mm lens, and pretty cheap longer lens. Takes great photos. I'd love to upgrade to a Nikon, however, as the lenses are legendary.Headshave wrote: My first SLR was a Zenit E. Completely manual, including the aperture control (stop-down, not automatic). Ah... those were the days.
Recently, I inherited a Rolleiflex 2.8 E with the Carl Zeiss lens, medium format, absolutely stunning camera. Too bad the film and development is so expensive, or I'd be using it all the time.
Still haven't wondered into the wonderful world of digital cameras (I guess I love film too much) but the digital SLR photos I'm seeing on this site are really really nice.
-Raffi
What I love about digital is the instant gratification and that I finally have full control over the final picture. I'm able to rescue shots that were hopeless before, and it's amazing how easy it is.reginald-van-gleason wrote:Headshave wrote:Still haven't wondered into the wonderful world of digital cameras (I guess I love film too much) but the digital SLR photos I'm seeing on this site are really really nice.
I like to exhibit my photos. That usually means enlarging at least 15-20 times. Digital resolution isn't there yet. So, when I go on vacations or or photo shooting, I always take a film camera. But I also take a digital to try out some of my ideas and zero in on an effect I'm trying to get. Just a few shots and you can zero in on just what you want.
Joe
Those cameras are great beginners cameras, with them being totally manual and having the backup of a mass of K-mount lenses.reginald-van-gleason wrote: I still use and love my Pentax K1000 (totally manual as well). I have a nice 50mm lens, and pretty cheap longer lens. Takes great photos.
If you're considering another manual/mechanical one, I can recomend the FM (or FM2). Again, these only had a battery for the light meter.reginald-van-gleason wrote: I'd love to upgrade to a Nikon, however, as the lenses are legendary.
I bought a Minolta Autocord in an auction, sometime last year. £28, almost mint condition. I've been saying, for the past year, I'll whack a film through it "next weekend".reginald-van-gleason wrote: Recently, I inherited a Rolleiflex 2.8 E with the Carl Zeiss lens, medium format, absolutely stunning camera.
"next weekend" has still to arrive.
Set up a film darkroom.reginald-van-gleason wrote: Too bad the film and development is so expensive, or I'd be using it all the time.
- wenestvedt
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: Rhode Island
Headshave, I understand that it's gotten increasingly onerous for private individuals to obtain developer, fixer, and the other chemicals here in the U.S.A.
My father-in-law used to have a darkroom in his house, and he's had trouble trying to sell of his old Olympus film cameras & lenses & etc. on EBay!
My father-in-law used to have a darkroom in his house, and he's had trouble trying to sell of his old Olympus film cameras & lenses & etc. on EBay!
I used to do it all when I used black-and-white, but color put me out of commission. It's so easy with digital, I've even scanned in large prints and worked on them digitally.Headshave wrote:Set up a film darkroom.reginald-van-gleason wrote: Too bad the film and development is so expensive, or I'd be using it all the time.
I've never tried it with a negative.
Joe
It wasn't the unavailability of chemicals. The processes became much more complicated and needed better control. The fine Beseler enlarger I had just didn't cut it when it came to color, and I would have had to replace it with an expensive one with better lenses and color filters.Headshave wrote:Ah, I wasn't aware of increasing problems in getting hold of darkroom chemicals in the USA.
The whole process became so complicated that the results were marginal, and the fun was gone.
Joe
Ever considered doing pinhole photography?Joe Lerch wrote:The whole process became so complicated that the results were marginal, and the fun was gone.
http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl
- reginald-van-gleason
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:55 pm
Its something I've always had an interest in. Definitely black and white. I think C-41 would be much more involved, however. Unfortunately, my tiny apartment doesn't leave much space for a dark room.Headshave wrote:Set up a film darkroom.
One solution I've come up with for Medium format printing is to do a high quality scan of the negatives at home, then I can look at them on my computer and decide what I want to print. Then print the images on my printer, or burn them onto a CD and take them to a pro (my printer isn't that great).
Thanks for the recommendations. Somehow, manual has always appealed to me more so than all those auto features. I usually find they bring me less control and are mostly unneccesary for what I like to do. I'll be looking into it.Headshave wrote:If you're considering another manual/mechanical one, I can recomend the FM (or FM2). Again, these only had a battery for the light meter.
I don't have much experience with TLR cameras but I have heard good things about that one. Nice find. Great price too. Another cool retro toy I like to play with is my Polaroid Land Camera. Depending on which model, they can be had fairly cheaply at a flea market (a couple of bucks). Really unique look to the pictures. The film ain't cheap, however.Headshave wrote:I bought a Minolta Autocord in an auction, sometime last year. £28, almost mint condition. I've been saying, for the past year, I'll whack a film through it "next weekend".
"next weekend" has still to arrive.
-Raffi
- reginald-van-gleason
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:55 pm
That's definitely appealing, the fact that you don't have to "translate" what you want through another person. You can just do it at home on photoshop. Nice to have total control. Although the purist in me still thinks that cropping the compostion after you've snapped the photo is "cheating" Really, though, that's what many of the great photographers have always done in the darkroom, just using a different set of tools.Joe Lerch wrote:What I love about digital is the instant gratification and that I finally have full control over the final picture. I'm able to rescue shots that were hopeless before, and it's amazing how easy it is.
-Raffi
There's no problem getting B&W chemicals as yet. It's dead easy to do as well (though I probably shouldn't give that part away). I still use Tri-X and T-Max films in my Leica M7, and Tri-X in a medium format Bronica. All I need is a changing bag and the developing tank, and the film goes into the tank inside the bag while I sit at the kitchen table. If you're nervous about developers requiring careful times and temperatures, get a two-shot developer like Diafine and throw away your watch and thermometer.
I confess that I cheat on the real darkroom stuff these days, and scan the negatives and then print digitally. Watching a nice A3 inching out of the printer is nearly as good as watching it magically appear in the tray under the safelight. When the M8 arrives perhaps I shall sneak into the basement for a good sniff of fixer whenever I feel the shakes coming on...but no, there's still a large stock of film, developer and fixer to use up at chez Moss before I'm all digital.
Chris
I confess that I cheat on the real darkroom stuff these days, and scan the negatives and then print digitally. Watching a nice A3 inching out of the printer is nearly as good as watching it magically appear in the tray under the safelight. When the M8 arrives perhaps I shall sneak into the basement for a good sniff of fixer whenever I feel the shakes coming on...but no, there's still a large stock of film, developer and fixer to use up at chez Moss before I'm all digital.
Chris
"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse."
Pierre-Simon de Laplace
Pierre-Simon de Laplace