EOS (film) vs Old All Mechanical Camera

[Antigen]

Hi,

some people tell me that is not a good deal shot with an EOS film camera, because it's better to use an old mechanical camera like K1000 and similar. The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

But why?

I don't understand this statement because some people like very old reflex camera, with some limitation as slow shutter speed and less slow speed...

The camera is only a "black box" where there is not light... the quality is made only from lens and from the ability of the photograph.

Your idea?

I think that shot on film give more pleasure for some reason, but i don't understand why some people want use some very very old mechanical camera.

 

[darkosaric]

I was using this and last weekend nikon f70, (with nikkor-H 50/f2). No difference in picture quality comparing to nikon F or F3 with the same lens .

 

[Les Sarile]

some people tell me . . .

Maybe you need to stop listening to these people . . . including me . . .

Instead start shooting with whatever light tight box and lens you have until you can respond to these people with your own insight!

 

[MattKing]

There are some advantages to learning on an older, all manual camera.

And the "standard" lens that came with those earlier cameras tends to be a lot easier to focus manually than the auto-focus kit zoom lenses that tend to have come standard with the later, auto-focus cameras.

And the viewing systems in the later auto-focus cameras work a bit better with auto-focus than with manual focus.

But both old and new - EOS and FD - work really well.

 

[blockend]

All SLRs are getting old. They were built with a life expectancy in mind. Older mechanical SLRs are typically more easily fixable than a battery driven camera full of electronic circuits, some of which had components of unknown longevity and a finite spares supply. More recent SLRs should be better made because manufacturers had a few decades experience in component wear, and in some cases this is true, but the general trend was towards electronics, digital displays, plastic drive mechanisms and body shells, and a replace-don't-repair philosophy. When replacements are no longer available, you have a problem.

If digital had not emerged, and/or film camera manufacturers were still committed to research and development and a viable parts supply chain, you could make a very good argument for newer being better. As things stand, my money is mostly in manual, non-battery dependent cameras, and I treat my later auto-focus, LCD, battery gobbling ones as semi-disposable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All mechanical cameras tend to be more robust because they do not depend on batteries and electronics. All mechanical cameras can after batteries are discontinued or electronic boards are no longer available1. That said, both types of cameras have their own advantages and disadvantages and I use both types.

1 Nikon no longer repairs the Nikon F-100, my favorite 35mm camera.

 

[wiltw]

One thing that folks overlook because they grew up with modern SLRs with the shrunken viewfinder full of information...the SLRs of old (pre 1980) with large magnification viewfinders are such a pleasure to use while focusing and composing.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In what way, shape or form is a photograph, made by a photographer with decades of experience, better when shot with a Spotmatic than a current-day EOS body? Qualifier please. In the absence of that, I'd say "some people" put too much emphasis on cameras rather than the baseline photographic skills that make the image in the mind's eye and transfer it to the camera, aka "not seeing through the camera, but with the camera." So a skilled photographer can create a photograph to admire irrespective of the type of equipment he or she uses, battery or battery-less, moden-era wunderkind or a wooden box brownie.

 

[Cropline]

With all the EOS camera bodies available, I wouldn't be overly concerned. Once new parts aren't available, you will still find working bodies. You can also find donor bodies. When those 2 options are no longer practical-likely a long wait-then one can move on to other models. My EOS A2 was purchased in '95, and it's still going strong. I will use it until it's beyond repair.

 

[Paul Howell]

Hi,

The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

But why?

An all mechanical camera may hold up over time better than a EOS or other electronic camera, but it is nonsense to think that the older mechanical cameras produced better quality. The lens system designed for the EOS which includes famous Canon L glass or Pentax Limited Edition glass is great quality, same as or better than older FD or M42 or for matter early Pentax K.

You can learn just as well on a EOS camera, just put in manual mode, turn off the auto focus, use the depth of field preview.

 

[Bill Burk]

Any 35mm camera can make excellent photographs. But the old mechanical cameras will do what you tell them to do.

I took an EOS camera to the kids' play and found that the matrix metering really didn't give me the shutter speeds I needed to handhold. It had trouble focusing too. And the zoom lens didn't have a wide enough full aperture for me to be able to get the shutter speeds I wanted. So the electronic marvel was fighting me every step of the way.

Now the next day there was another performance and I took the M-2 with 90 f/2.8 Elmarit. I brought a spotmeter and used a tripod like a monopod with one leg extended. I was able to choose the shutter speed I needed and prefocus and see the action as it entered the frame.

Guess which day gave me better pictures? That's right. Totally opposite of what I expected.

The first day with the EOS.

 

[tomfrh]

The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

Old mechanical 35mm cameras can be beautiful things, like an old mechanical watch. I don't believe they necessarily capable of producing higher quality photos than an EOS though. I have had old 35mms, and use EOS cameras. On the whole I get better shots from the EOS. I use it in semi manual mode most of the time. I find the EOS to be a very precise and reliable "light box".

I'd be very very surprised if something like a Pentax K1000 is superior to EOS!

 

[Bill Burk]

Guess which day gave me better pictures? That's right. Totally opposite of what I expected.

The first day with the EOS.

To be fair, I should explain...

I just looked again... of the 8 shots I took fighting the EOS, one is a shot of my son that he likes, and another is a shot of a friend's daughter which is pretty animated. I stopped shooting because I was so frustrated with the electronic controls and losing the metering when in manual mode.

The 24 shots with the Leica are almost all technically good shots. I just did a bad job taking pictures - timing and composition was just bad. I wasn't watching the background and so when Romeo is trying to kiss Juliet's hand for example, there's someone right in the middle... that kind of thing. And of the shots I did take of my son the second day, he doesn't like any of them.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Any 35mm camera can make excellent photographs. But the old mechanical cameras will do what you tell them to do.

I took an EOS camera to the kids' play and found that the matrix metering really didn't give me the shutter speeds I needed to handhold. It had trouble focusing too. And the zoom lens didn't have a wide enough full aperture for me to be able to get the shutter speeds I wanted. So the electronic marvel was fighting me every step of the way.

Now the next day there was another performance and I took the M-2 with 90 f/2.8 Elmarit. I brought a spotmeter and used a tripod like a monopod with one leg extended. I was able to choose the shutter speed I needed and prefocus and see the action as it entered the frame.

Guess which day gave me better pictures? That's right. Totally opposite of what I expected.

The first day with the EOS.

Two points. You could select centre-weighted metering over matrix on the EOS, and disengage AF to manually focus! Or use the camera in manual mode to set the exposure based on experience.

That EOS system Evaluative metering is based on a compressed Zone System is half the problem for photographers basing their expectations on experience exposing with a separate meter, with all-manual cameras. As you found out, using a spot meter with the M2 gave you vastly more working leeway because it is a simpler process than what the EOS meters work through. But it all comes back to changing what doesn't look right (metering). I would be surprised if anybody tosses an EOS body because they found it didnk't give them the results they wanted. Experience counts for a lot, rather than putting too much faith in technology.

 

[Hatchetman]

With cameras so cheap nowadays, why not have both?

 

[tomfrh]

select centre-weighted metering over matrix on the EOS, and disengage AF to manually focus

I find spot metering or partial metering (~10% spot) is great on these EOS cameras. Back button AF is a great option too (custom function 4 I think), as then the camera wont engage AF unless you tell it, and won't wait to acquire AF if you push the sshutter.

 

[Chan Tran]

Hi,

some people tell me that is not a good deal shot with an EOS film camera, because it's better to use an old mechanical camera like K1000 and similar. The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

But why?

I don't understand this statement because some people like very old reflex camera, with some limitation as slow shutter speed and less slow speed...

The camera is only a "black box" where there is not light... the quality is made only from lens and from the ability of the photograph.

Your idea?

I think that shot on film give more pleasure for some reason, but i don't understand why some people want use some very very old mechanical camera.

I do like to use an all mechanical camera rather than the feature full camera like the EOS. No I don't want to use a K1000. It does not give me better pictures but it's EASIER to use. I found cameras with a bunch of features are more difficult to use than simple one that only has controls for shutter speed, aperture and focusing. If the camera has a good viewfinder then it's a pleasure to use. Good viewfinder is something that is lacking in autofocus SLR.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I find spot metering or partial metering (~10% spot) is great on these EOS cameras. Back button AF is a great option too (custom function 4 I think), as then the camera wont engage AF unless you tell it, and won't wait to acquire AF if you push the sshutter.

That function is something I do on occasion for AF, but when using a manual focus tilt-shift lens, the exposure must be locked in before executing the movements. As with all EOS bodies there is no warning of which function is doing what; you have to keep seperate notes on what has been set and remember (or try to remember!) if there is any function recently changed that could impact the current task.

 

[tomfrh]

I found cameras with a bunch of features are more difficult to use than simple one that only has controls for shutter speed, aperture and focusing

Yes there's a lot to be said for simplicity.

Top end cameras like EOS 1v are relatively simple though. Less gimmickry than the lower models. No silly "scene modes". No silly "AI focus" mode.

Admittedly it's still a fair bit more complex than simple old cameras.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, simplicity is something we all aspire to.
The EOS 1V was given to me by Canon Australia as a trial some years back. I had the option of buying it, and I came close to doing so, but decided to keep my EOS 1N. The chief reason was my smaller hands that did not really "fit around" the 1V. Doubtless there are people out there bemoaning my choice, but not me! The 1N, now with as much sentimental as travel value, is simple, robust, reliable, fast, responsive, customisable, heavy (yes, but so too is a Pentax 67 with 5 lenses...) and still trooping along since coming into service in 1994 (I have no idea how many shutter activations or rolls have gone through it. Need I be concerned? Nope!). Now, how many K1000s have come and gone over the same period?

Having worked the Big Guns over the weekend, today I'm going back to my pinhole cameras!

 

[tomfrh]

I had the option of buying it but decided to keep my EOS 1N. Doubtless there are people out there bemoaning my choice, but not me. The 1N is simple, robust, reliable, fast

I don't think you can go wrong with either. I'd certainly trust them over a k1000!

 

[MattKing]

Currently, the only Canon equipment I own is EOS equipment. I bought it to supplement my 35mm options - to add an auto-focus/built in flash/auto-wind option that would share a lens with a digital body.

My main 35mm options are Olympus OM bodies, with some extra support from a couple of Retinas, and an XA.

Somehow, that single EOS body has multiplied - I really need to cull this herd.

Any single one of my SLR bodies would do a fine job at being a good, single camera. And for some people, my Retina IIIc would do that job alone, as well.

For a few people, the XA would fulfill that role as well.

 

[Bill Burk]

Galen Rowell wrote that photography, like skiing, requires a complex coordination of eye, hand and machine. It sounds like you may be a beginner, and you are asking a simple question: Why start with a mechanical camera?

When you choose a mechanical camera it's like selecting a simple bike to learn to ride on. You don't need much more than a seat, two wheels one with a chain connected to pedals, one gear is enough, handlebars and a brake. Beginning with a simple mechanical camera is like starting out on a Schwinn. Later you can hate how heavy that old contraption was.. but for learning it's perfectly fine. It won't take long for you to move on to something better.

Everyone here agrees... A camera has one job to do... be a black box to hold film. Aside from that you have a million choices, all of them capable of taking pictures. But I've had cameras that don't even do that one thing right... Sure it took only a little epoxy and ground up black plastic to block the leak once and forever, but the leak on my first trip with that camera infuriated me.

Like MattKing says, an Olympus XA can be all you might need. One time I took a Rollei 35 on a backpacking trip along with my OM-4. It should have been just as good as any other 35mm camera I thought. But the light chamber of the Rollei 35 has to hold the mechanism to extend the lens and that developed a bright scrape over time, leading to flare in some of my shots. A better camera wouldn't do that.

 

[Bill Burk]

Eagle over Florence Lake, Rollei 35

http://beefalobill.com/20060700_h/source/6908-08.htm

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

Like MattKing says, an Olympus XA can be all you might need. One time I took a Rollei 35 on a backpacking trip along with my OM-4. It should have been just as good as any other 35mm camera I thought. But the light chamber of the Rollei 35 has to hold the mechanism to extend the lens and that developed a bright scrape over time, leading to flare in some of my shots. A better camera wouldn't do that.

Yes, and I can identify with that. One of my old bicycle touring friends published 6 books with photographs all shot on Kodachrome 25 in an XA! Me, I bicycle toured for 17 years carrying with me an XA and, at one stage, that and an OM4 (with motor drive), November 1984 as I recall events of the time. The XA is not just a camera with unusual novelty value by its quirky design, but it is extremely capable over all film types (transparency and negative). I keep mine in the car for "odd jobs" that I don't feel should be handed to a smartphone camera!