Gear Talk > EOS Bodies - For Stills
Film Camera & Film Recommendations
SandyP:
I have a 5D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III.... but 90% of my portrait work is actually with film. For a year now.
I'd seriously suggest going right for Medium Format, truly. 35mm film is nice, very nice, but really not the same kind of experience or "quality" that Medium or Large Format can bring you.
If you're going to Canon film cameras, I'd suggest the EOS 3 as well. It has a 45 AF point system that is still better than many Canon cameras today! And it's cheap. Very cheap. And you can use all your EF lenses. I have a 1V, which is like Canon's flagship film camera, but it's bulky and heavy.
But really, for 99% of my serious film shooting, it's either 645, 6x6 or 6x7 format cameras I use. The difference in the negatives is SUBSTANTIAL. And makes a huge difference. The old camera systems, many of them, have lenses that are just as good as today, or better in some cases. In either case, it's about lenses having "character". My 80mm f/1.9 lens on my 645 camera (about the same as a 50mm f/1.1 lens on a full frame camera such as a 5D Mark III) has old coatings, and flares a bit weird, but it has more character and such a cool look to the photos in various kinds of light. It's more interesting. And I love it. My other systems, hell, lenses in many cases can be bought for very cheap. There are exceptions there too though, of course. So much variety!
I scanned my own film for over a year. Sucks. Takes a long time to get right, sharpness/resolution isn't great, and it's a big time sink for most people. I put it aside.
The thing is.... the negative is similar to a RAW file, if you want to think about it that way (I'm sure you know this, just saying though...) and depending on what lab (because they use different scanners, with different software, with different people running them) you'll get very different results back. Which can be frustrating.
Let's just say this:
I scanned my own film = 1/10 for happiness of tones and range/colors, etc. 3/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a local lab that I prefer = 7/10 happy with tones and range/colors, etc. 5/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a pro lab in the USA (I'm in Canada) = 11/10 happy with tones and such, 10/10 happy with resolution.
The thing is, there are three major labs in the USA that (well there are many more than three, many more) but there are three in the USA that are extremely popular, and people from around the world actually send them film. Myself included. These are (Richard Photo Lab, Pro Photo Irvine and Indie Film Lab, I personally use Indie Film Lab).
These labs will bring out every last ounce of quality and tones/depth from your film photos. The difference is literally MASSIVE.
I'm tired of shooting my film and knowing that there is so much beauty locked inside the film, and knowing that it's a pain in the ass to get it out of there myself. So.... off to the pro labs it goes. Results = better than any editing I can do on my digital. End of story.
Medium Format to me is a nice middle ground.
wickidwombat:
I picked up an elan 7 for less than a hundred bucks its sort of like a rebel sized and build film camera and works with all EF lenses
lots around cheap on ebay
ilford do some nice Black and white film
fuji still do velvia for colour film
7enderbender:
--- Quote from: SandyP on June 28, 2012, 06:15:16 PM ---I have a 5D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III.... but 90% of my portrait work is actually with film. For a year now.
I'd seriously suggest going right for Medium Format, truly. 35mm film is nice, very nice, but really not the same kind of experience or "quality" that Medium or Large Format can bring you.
If you're going to Canon film cameras, I'd suggest the EOS 3 as well. It has a 45 AF point system that is still better than many Canon cameras today! And it's cheap. Very cheap. And you can use all your EF lenses. I have a 1V, which is like Canon's flagship film camera, but it's bulky and heavy.
But really, for 99% of my serious film shooting, it's either 645, 6x6 or 6x7 format cameras I use. The difference in the negatives is SUBSTANTIAL. And makes a huge difference. The old camera systems, many of them, have lenses that are just as good as today, or better in some cases. In either case, it's about lenses having "character". My 80mm f/1.9 lens on my 645 camera (about the same as a 50mm f/1.1 lens on a full frame camera such as a 5D Mark III) has old coatings, and flares a bit weird, but it has more character and such a cool look to the photos in various kinds of light. It's more interesting. And I love it. My other systems, hell, lenses in many cases can be bought for very cheap. There are exceptions there too though, of course. So much variety!
I scanned my own film for over a year. Sucks. Takes a long time to get right, sharpness/resolution isn't great, and it's a big time sink for most people. I put it aside.
The thing is.... the negative is similar to a RAW file, if you want to think about it that way (I'm sure you know this, just saying though...) and depending on what lab (because they use different scanners, with different software, with different people running them) you'll get very different results back. Which can be frustrating.
Let's just say this:
I scanned my own film = 1/10 for happiness of tones and range/colors, etc. 3/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a local lab that I prefer = 7/10 happy with tones and range/colors, etc. 5/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a pro lab in the USA (I'm in Canada) = 11/10 happy with tones and such, 10/10 happy with resolution.
The thing is, there are three major labs in the USA that (well there are many more than three, many more) but there are three in the USA that are extremely popular, and people from around the world actually send them film. Myself included. These are (Richard Photo Lab, Pro Photo Irvine and Indie Film Lab, I personally use Indie Film Lab).
These labs will bring out every last ounce of quality and tones/depth from your film photos. The difference is literally MASSIVE.
I'm tired of shooting my film and knowing that there is so much beauty locked inside the film, and knowing that it's a pain in the ass to get it out of there myself. So.... off to the pro labs it goes. Results = better than any editing I can do on my digital. End of story.
Medium Format to me is a nice middle ground.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for sharing this. Especially the details on the labs. This inspires me now to really go hunting for a Mamaya or perhaps Hasselblad. Has been on my list of things for a while.
So if I understand you correctly: you process the film yourself and then send them off to be scanned at Indie Film? What if you want prints? Have you found any place that would still make traditional chemical prints?
dr croubie:
do a search for 'eos 3' on these forums, i'm sure you'll find more than a few reccomendations for them.
The 1V is the best canon film slr ever made, you can maybe still find one $1600 new, or $500 second-hand.
I got myself an EOS 3 a few weeks ago, £90+20, less than $200 shipped. Second-best AF ever, 45pt with f/8 centre (second only to the 1DX and 5D3 AF, that is). Eye-control focus, I love it. Weather-sealed to the hilt, as good as a 7D or 5D3. Takes the same focussing screens as 1-series (i've got EC-Civ in mine atm).
The only reason *not* to get one is you can't even afford $200 (with resale value you could probably get it back if you sold it on ebay if you didn't like it), or you'd rather get the 1V (which is better in most things, but no eye-control AF).
Or if you just want a cheap disposable, get an eos 5 or 10, or a few.
crasher8:
I'd go as low as an Elan 7 and maybe as high as an EOS3. Check the pressure plate for burrs, bring a cheapo supermarket roll with you to test the loading and rewind functions. Open the shutter on Bulb to check movement.
Problem with a film body? It will make you want to go FF on digital!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version